Anyone that knows me knows I love contemporary art. It’s my thing. After all this blog is named after my favourite artists most famous piece of work.
Now on Sunday I read this article in the Times. that got me thinking again about a worrying feeling that I have long tried to repress.
I do not like contemporary art anymore.
Yes. Boom. There. I have said it.
Contemporary art is not doing it for me anymore. It’s quite alarming, I am even drawn to good old fashioned painting. I have just finished reading this book about Picasso which contained some great quotes like: “Abstract painting can’t be subversive because it doesn’t subvert the real world.” Picasso! I used to say anything done before 1960 is not worth looking at. What is happening to me?
In the Times article Matt Rudd gets his son to review art and along with him finds that he himself doesn’t understand any more what it all means. I have to agree. His article is about something he calls CARP (Conceptual Art that Requires Participation).
This sort of CARP art is everywhere now it seems. When did it start? We had Carsten Höller’s slides in the turbine hall, Doris Salcedo’s Crack, which left me really cold even though I so wanted to like it.
I think this “new” art is actually more like advertising. Only that it advertises the artist. And that’s what I don’t like about it. It’s all head no gut. I am missing the soul. Give me Tracey Emin’s Bed any day.
The worst offender in this field of artvertising is Hirst, a second-rate Koons, and even worse Banksy, a second-rate Hirst. Hirst’s art is based on ideas that do nothing other than advertise the Hirst brand. His art is utterly soulless.
Koons is the only artist that pulls this off and creates great art.
Sorry. Rant over.