Spring Art Tour
Friday, October 02, 2009
Grolsch hangover...
posted by Robert Sloon at 2:03 PM
Subscribe to hot links here
Subscribe to posts here
View RSS feed
Technorati Profile
17 Comments:
Oh, for the love of God, is that a signature Kentridge teacup and saucer?
Is there no end to the bad ideas that corporate has up its sleeve for art?
The transition is complete: from radical posters in the eighties to teacups for the (over)moneyed bourgeoisie in the 2000's.
so sad. worse, the packaging. why do it like this?
illy cups. for coffee, not tea.
http://www.illy.com/wps/wcm/connect/us/illy/art/illy-art-collection/collection-gallery/
their great, nothing wrong with nice merchandise, love the marina abromovics.
Anon 11:32 here: I think memorabilia is for rock concerts. Agree they look nice, but its impossible to ignore the fact that this signals Kentridge's total domestication by the art market.
Now Kendell Geers' event at which he had everyone drink champagne out of glasses moulded from an erect penis, at least contained a decent dig at bourgey social conventions...
This is just the artocracy trying not to dip their cufflinks in the Mocca Java while slurping and air kissing. Awful.
Could you imagine Tuymans, Kippenberger or Merlin Carpenter making irony-free signature coffee cups?
whatever.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/6259044/McDonalds-restaurants-to-open-at-the-Louvre.html
anonymous 11.14 - are you serious? where is the dig at bourg. conventions in having an art opening public drink champ. out of an erect penis glass? that is about the lamest 'lets all get together and affirm how special we are' gesture imaginable. Ken. Geers great gift is to never say no this kind of dumb and obvious
'idea'. What next: oh, it is a clever cup 'n saucer. When one lifts the ( actually full) cup, one inadvertently empties the saucer, not just of the cup, but of half the image, which is revealed (absent) as having been was only virtually there. Does one's coffee addiction need this kind of encouragement: reminds me of those bar tricks where the pin-up in the glass sheds the bikini as the beer is downed.
why does everybody pick on Kentridge?
"The rain falls hard on a humdrum town
This town has dragged you down
Oh, the rain falls hard on a humdrum town
This town has dragged you down
Oh, no, and everybodys got to live their life
And God knows Ive got to live mine
God knows Ive got to live mine
William, william it was really nothing
William, william it was really nothing
It was your life."
Okay Bianca, its grumpy anon 11:32 here. Had a look at the link and you're right, the Abramovic one is great.
I also didn't realize this project had been running for so long.
Still...
The question that needs to be asked: is merchandising bad for art? Should art get off its white horse and market its messages like everyone else, or does it have a responsibility to whip that high horse, and be above commercial tactics?
Is it bad that Radiohead stoppped selling their music and are now trying to make (more) money by selling merch? Can this model work for art? Or does it only work for Kentridge whose work is already commercially viable?
I think when the credibility of art is already threatened by its rampant commercialism (the art market explosion of the last 15 years, the increase in power of commerical galleries and entities like art fairs often at the expense of museums and publically-funded institutions, and the astronomical prices of contemporary art reaching their symbolic zenith with Damien Hirst's 'For the Love of God'), then the debate arguably needs to center around whether the efficacy of art is helped or hindered by this sort of memorabilia/merchandising.
I think for me the answer is the latter, in the sense that promotional items like this reduce art down to a brand, a cultural soundbite. I don't believe the snippets of art translate into meaningful engagements with the important stuff of art, the social commentary and the questioning of values.
I think if texts like Naomi Klein's 'No Logo', and a slew of other investigations into the practices and ethics of big business have taught us anything, it is that big business in a late monopoly capitalism context is seldom, if ever, not coercive, manipulative or voracious. If art endorses big business, as it does here, then I would argue that it sacrifices any moral authority it may have had, and will battle to speak critically of values and social problems ever again.
I love it when high art "connoisseurs" expose their own hypocrisies like this. The fact of the matter is that you don't want Kentridge's work to be printed on tea cups because then you would have to believe that his artistic ability has infiltrated the tastes of lower life forms than your own.
Aside: I am interested to hear your opinions in terms of merchandise when it comes to young up and coming artists. Are they at least allowed to try and make a living out of commercial items or should they rather starve themselves until Saatchi up high decides they are worthy of some income?
Consumer culture is highly damaging on an environmental and societal level, but labelling every artist who embraces it as a sell out does not begin to tackle the core of the problem.
PS: I think the credibility of an artist can be increased by merchandise, especially if the merchandise challenges consumer expectations.
has his work been printed on a teacup? looks to me that he has created a work for the cup. like it or not this cup is a work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. I am sad for the world, sad that cup makers can get the attention of a genius like w.k. , where so many other projects of importance are being run by idiots or outright scoundrels. the world deserves better.
Anon 3:02, don't really like your tone: I never claimed to be a connoisseur. And i certainly don't subscribe to any hierarchy of life forms, as you suggest. I have VERY base tastes, very often: love Hollywood boob jobs and potato chips as much as the next slob. But I think there is something about purity of intent that art should retain: this is not a classist assertion, and many would argue that it is anachronistic, but that's what I believe.
I think merchandise is a slippery slope, even more so for young artists. I think it does hold the potential to be critical or engaging on a higher level, but most examples of it i have seen have been cheap and gimmicky, just like the strategies of consumerist capitalism they try to critique.
I think this is the trap Andy Warhol fell into: popular belief is that everything he made up until 1968 was genuinely strong, with a critique of consumerism inherent in its production AND content. After that, he became a bit like a bad parody of himself and his own ideas. With the exception of the Joseph Beuys portrait triptych, of which the Johannesburg Art Gallery has a set: it has diamond dust worked into its inks: brilliant and bautiful.
I agree in principle with your last sentence, but I would ask: is this such as example? Will the elite classes really be thinking with empathy of the Brazillian/Kenyan coffee farmers and their plights in a global agricultural economy dominated by subsidized First World farmers, as they lift their Kentridge/Rauschenberg/Abramovic vessels to their Botoxed lips? I doubt it...
I am sorry if my comment seemed like an exclamation mark specifically directed at you. That is definitely not the case. I was expressing my exasperation with the art world in general.
Firstly let me assure you that I am very disillusioned indeed with consumer culture and that I have very strong opinions about the way we are indoctrinated by it. But I also believe that it is the artist's choice to decide if he is specifically going to tackle this topic in his work.
I would also not go out of my way to criticise an artist for releasing a few collector's items, I know in the bigger scheme of things these limited edition tea cups are not going to have great impact. I would however, rather direct my criticism towards big corporations who are the driving force behind consumer culture. And you know perfectly well that each of us are as guilty as the next of supporting those corporations, everyday, by buying fuel or a piece of electronics or whatever we happen to add to our lives.
Secondly, I am highly disenchanted with the art world itself, and I consider any artist who submissively play its game as more of a sell out than the most inspiring designers I follow. I feel that art discourse has lost its way completely and if you want to find out more about why I feel this way you can read about the Sokal affair here: http://tr.im/B8JX (and the actual article in discussion here: http://tr.im/B8Kv), and you can also read Brian Eno's article about his own comments at the Turner Prize here: http://tr.im/B8KN. These are just vague approximations of how I feel but basically what I sense is that art criticism and writing has become largely florid and meaningless.
Thirdly I can sense that there is currently a merging process happening between the design world and the art world and I think a lot of people are going to do everything in their capability to stop this from happening, but it is going to happen non the less. It has already happened in most of the major metropolitan cities of the world.
This, I think, this is a good thing. I have been very influenced by great designers and digital artists basically since I left university and I realise that the design world is full of exceptional creative genius, producing works that are as relevant and challenging as any artist (yes, usually in their spare time). I also find a sense of sincerity in their work which is largely lacking in the art world.
This merge is also good for the Design world, because it gives designers a chance to explore their creativity outside the normal constraints. Aside: I have just been to a Louis Minnaar exhibition and I found it to be one of the most inspiring shows I have experienced in South Africa this whole year.
This merge will happen faster as art students get more and more cynical of the art world. Speak to any art student, most hate the articles they have to study in order to satisfy art academia. I hated the art world by my second year. And having the opportunity of a sponsored exhibition, I feel highly uninspired and out of touch with my audience because I despise their pretentiousness.
Following all these thoughts, I find the knee jerk reaction that most art critics have against any preconceived idea of how art should be, highly annoying.
These are just my opinions. Take it or leave it or rip it apart.
Kind Regards
Anon
I wouldn't rip these apart: they are well-argued and you obviously feel quite strongly about them.
We will have to agree to disagree on some of these points, but for the most part it has been a worthwhile discussion: thanks.
I agree that maybe i overreacted to a few small bits of merchandise. I like to spot conspiracies and moral decay, maybe a bit too enthusiastically.
If malice or envy were tangible and had a shape, it would be the shape of a boomerang. ~Charley Reese
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home