48 above: Turner Prize winner, Martin Creed. ‘A rolled up piece of A4 Paper.’ Someone once said that the twentieth century was when Marketing triumphed over Art, especially in lifting or exaggerating the bottom line of its actual artistic worth. And it is true that our society has created a specialist anti-art playing field, significantly when the words Contemporary Art are tagged after any specific artists work. That word ‘contemporary’ has ceased to be associated with its real definition and now it is used to identify an Art which sees itself as special or separate from the rest of Art, one that is perhaps is created outside of Contemporary Arts strict limitations of the accepted artists process. I am referring to painting or any other creative output that may employ what many term, with a smirk on their faces, ‘traditional’ or old mediums. The practice of these ‘Contemporary’ Artists is very much intertwined with the curators of large institutions and/or the professional high profile art galleries. So much so that now it is not uncommon for the Galleries representing the Artist to contribute large sums of money to ‘help’ the Art institution mount exhibitions, apparently, or so I am told. Personally, I think that ‘deal’, should it be true, is very worrying. Many critical voices envisage the larger Art Galleries using this system as a sort of ‘back-hander’ to ensure any specific artist gains an immediate international reputation, merely because the work will be exhibited in one of the world renown Art institutions and not because the Art is an authentic or an absolute wonderful work of Art. This inevitably follows with the subsequent financial gain, a gain that is guaranteed for the galley or the artists representative, even before the Art is actually made available within the public realm. The other worrying trend is the myopic habits of the institutions themselves when selecting Art. It does seem that ‘only objects’ that can be mass produced are considered for exhibition. A contradiction of the very meaning of a ‘Work of Art’ - I think, don’t you?
This habit is possibly down to the Art institutions strategy to prepare the ground for the same ‘Art’ to be shown around the world in other Art institutions roughly at the same time. It seems deals are made by like minded institutions, which sort of gives them guaranteed high audience attendance (with the complicity of the mass media) and thus perpetuates their own international reputation. And I guess it’s a sort of self congratulatory system of discovering a perfect formula for pulling in the crowds (and the money). This system also raises an odd thought. If J M W Turner, be alive and creating his Art today, he could never win the Turner Prize in the UK - But only because each of his artworks would be unique and they could not be reproduced en mass, therefore disqualifying him from even being entered for consideration in the first place. On a lesser scale there are the smaller commercial galleries who maintain a stable of selected art according to their own client list preferences. Whereas the large institutions are funded in the main by ‘tax payers’ the independent commercial galleries have to meet their own rent and expenses on a monthly basis. And, I presume, are hoping to turn a profit. So, you can can forgive them for pandering to their clients, even though it would be to the advantage of any gallery ‘art-trendies’ to consider that constant ‘sell sell’ what’s trending approach is actually helping Art in any way whatsoever, or is it simply selling products to a selected market....a bit like Primark..maybe? 49 the last and final art rant from me, is a question.... “...can anyone please tell me why Artists and Galleries have to post on social media every single solitary time someone buys a painting from them? What do they want from the public at large, a round of applause for making money?” written by ‘SPIKE’ for paintersTUBESmagazine Jeff Koons, taking a bow for selling - ‘made by some one else’ - cracked egg’s