Tuesday’s Irish Times saw the publication of a dismal opinion piece by Michael Parsons on the excesses of the contemporary art market, although I suppose it accurately reflects some common sentiment about the state of contemporary art. Moaning about the stratospheric prices of art world superstars (Bacon, Pollock, Emin, Hirst — though the first two are somewhat uneasy company with the latter two) is nothing new– but the sheer level of sweeping generalisation and stereotyped polemic evidenced by the article was remarkable.
‘Much contemporary art defies mockery,’ Parsons writes, but surely many artists seek to engage the category of ‘art’ precisely through absurdity or through the use of ephemeral media– perhaps even inviting the ‘mockery’ Parsons thinks they are impervious to? The critiques he hurls at Pollock’s ‘drip’ paintings (evidently this is because he ‘can’t paint’) and Hirst’s use of assistants to produce his work all seem based on an indignant response to their shoddy work ethic– how very Celtic Tiger, and how completely ahistorical… Pollock of course was a very competent ‘realist’ painter (having studied under Thomas Hart Benton), and his abstract paintings demonstrate an intense mastery of both form and concept. And of course, artists since the medieval period have used workshop assistants to produce art– so why all the fuss?
Posted by Emily MFG 




Subscribe to this blog using RSS