Further to (for instance) this, Peter Whittle on the frightened arts and their irrelevance:
Art has not shocked, provoked or otherwise challenged for years now. The belief that it does, should or could is almost endearingly quaint when one hears it voiced… If you doubt this, then try to think of a novel, play, film or piece of installation art which, for example, seriously criticises the doctrine of multiculturalism. With a tiny number of honourable and genuinely brave exceptions — Lloyd Newson’s DV8 dance troupe’s 2011 production of Can We Talk About This? being one — there is a deafening silence on what is one of the most urgent issues of our time. Similarly, the chances of the BBC commissioning a drama which explores the experiences of an ageing white couple in an area transformed by mass immigration — surely a subject with real dramatic potential — are virtually nil. And if such a project ever did see the light of transmission, the audience could be forgiven for predicting quite accurately all the conclusions that would inevitably be drawn.
On a whole host of issues — foreign aid, climate change, social inequality — the viewer, gallery-goer and novel-reader, far from being shocked, provoked or given even a slightly alternative perspective, generally know exactly what they are going to get. For our cultural establishment, there is a right and a wrong way of looking at such issues and as a result the arts, far from being “challenging” or “cutting edge,” have essentially become the providers of window dressing, a sort of visual aid unit, for the views and assumptions of the political and media class.
Johnathan Pearce on deserving this and that:
If a person is born with great intelligence and this enables him to create wealth, he might not “deserve” it, but neither do those lucky enough to be born in a world containing this person, so they do not deserve the fruits of that wealth, nor do they have the right to seize it on some spurious redistributionist, Rawlsian grounds.
And with these notable coincidences in mind, Mark Steyn notes some more:
A couple of weeks back, cancer patient Bill Elliot, in a defiant appearance on Fox News, discussed the cancellation of his insurance and what he intended to do about it. He’s now being audited. Insurance agent C Steven Tucker, who quaintly insists that the whimsies of the hyper-regulatory bureaucracy do not trump your legal rights, saw the interview and reached out to Mr Elliot to help him. And he’s now being audited. As the Instapundit likes to remind us, Barack Obama has “joked” publicly about siccing the IRS on his enemies. With all this coincidence about, we should be grateful the President is not (yet) doing prison-rape gags.
How many makes a pattern?
As usual, feel free to share your own links and snippets in the comments.
Art has not shocked, provoked or otherwise challenged for years now. The belief that it does, should or could is almost endearingly quaint when one hears it voiced
So is Grayson Perry the new Danny La Rue?
So is Grayson Perry the new Danny La Rue?
It would seem so. Though to the best of my knowledge Danny La Rue didn’t make unattractive pottery. So. Advantage Danny La Rue.
So Obama’s ‘joke’ is “Nice little livelihood you’ve got there. Wouldn’t want anything bad to happen to it, would we?” What a nice guy. No wonder the lefties love him.
David, another shocking spate of Hate Crimes I thought you’d be interested in:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/27/exclusive-shocking-discovery-in-hoax-bias-incident-at-vassar-college/
When will the torment end?
When will the torment end?
Faking victimhood is the new skateboarding. All the cool kids are doing it. Though you’d think being transgendered and called Genesis would make a person sufficiently noteworthy without the need to invent further personal drama.
That said, if you’ve managed to convince people they need a Bias Incident Report Team you’re going to have to find “incidents” to report. Or indeed fabricate.
It may be right that contemporary artists have not critiqued multiculturalism.
But it’s an interesting issue to choose as example of political correctness. Progressives are now quite suspicious of immigration (it’s ‘environmentally unsustainable’), while it’s the libertarian right advocating free movement of people.
For a classic on the general theme of finding insult and offence where there is none, indeed even in acts of charity, have a look at:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/
and discover the truly monstrous, racist, sexist, micro-agressive and imperialistic hegemonic essence of growing a moustache (original source New Statesman, which makes a bit of a change from the Guardian, I guess).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/01/arts-majors-cant-make-good-livings-so-we-should-subsidise-arts-majors-from-taxation/
@James
The faux-libertarian right seem to want subsidised immigration. Immigrants are willing to pay vast sums, not collecting that money will accrue to someone at certain citizen groups expense.
. . . and discover the truly monstrous, racist, sexist, micro-agressive and imperialistic hegemonic essence of growing a moustache . .
Yes, the hipsters are screaming at the hipsters about being hipsters and the existence of hipsters.
Back when the hipsters were called/called themselves yuppys, and before that preppys/sloans/chavs/whatever, the WWW wasn’t quite so ubiquitous and accessible and thus the socially, culturally, and often functionally illiterate didn’t get into the mass communication channels as much.
I rather don’t see this form of Eternal September coming to an end either.
Art has not shocked, provoked or otherwise challenged for years now. . . . .
See Here for a proper example of how the masses were shocked sometime about 1993 or so . . . .
ACT Old Fart, I believe the link you wanted is here.
Catallaxy posts fairly quickly get bumped from the top of the page to the bottom as they’ve got a number of contributors.
Further to Peter Whittle’s piece, in Australia we have an annual “Festival of Dangerous Ideas’. Of course, it’s nothing of the sort. The program is a roster of bog-standard lefty issues, and one where the presenters and the audience all furiously agree with each other.
James In Footscray “It may be right that contemporary artists have not critiqued multiculturalism. But it’s an interesting issue to choose as example of political correctness. Progressives are now quite suspicious of immigration (it’s ‘environmentally unsustainable’), while it’s the libertarian right advocating free movement of people.”
So all those American leftists marching for open borders are actually right-wingers in disguise? So the Labour Party is now a right-wing front? I think you’ve forgotten about a few “minor” details, James.
And James, about all those professors and university diversity awareness kommissars–they’re right-wingers too?
I believe I linked to this story of truly transgressive art when it first appeared last month.
I couldn’t find any update on the story. At least, not in English; I don’t read Polish.
and discover the truly monstrous, racist, sexist, micro-agressive and imperialistic hegemonic essence of growing a moustache
One of the comments in the NS does it for me:
Is this real? If it were a parody I would stop reading, bored by the ludicrous OTT caricature of a Milly-Tant leftie. If it is real then the New Statesman should collectively climb into the bath of redundant despair and fling in the electric fire of merciful finality
AC1,
The Tim Worstall piece made me smile:
Though I smiled more at the comment by an artist named Lauran Childs, who accuses Tim of being “deleterious to the human spirit.” While expecting ‘free’ money for people with “free spirits” – i.e., people much like herself.
James In Footscray,
The Peter Whittle quote was of particular interest because of this line:
I imagine I’m not alone in noting how a subject of this kind can be quite difficult even to raise. I’ve known several people, decent people, who very much wanted to talk to someone about their worries regarding elderly parents who were living in parts of town that had been rapidly and dramatically transformed and were now rather alien. Their parents had neighbours who didn’t speak English and with whom they couldn’t chat, and of whom they didn’t feel they could ask favours in an emergency. What struck me was the apprehension of these people, who were obviously worried that by even raising the issue, very tentatively, they might be considered bigots. They were nervously sounding out how I might react.
And this cowed apprehension is not at all accidental. Some on the left take open delight in it. In October 2010, I was half-listening to BBC Radio 4’s Loose Ends programme – a sort of whimsical revue of chat, music and substandard leftwing comedy. The comedian of the week (whose name I didn’t catch) was very much amused by the taboos surrounding immigration and multiculturalism. The tone was triumphal. The gist of his punch line was “Isn’t it hilarious that people who have concerns about immigration and assimilation now have to be quiet because otherwise they’ll be called racists. Ha! We won!” This was deemed incredibly funny. And note the assumed “we”.
“The chances of the BBC commissioning a drama which explores the experiences of an ageing white couple in an area transformed by mass immigration — surely a subject with real dramatic potential — are virtually nil”
Not the BBC and not fiction, but this book by a former Guardian / Observer journalist covers this topic in some detail. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fallout-guilty-liberal-lost-innocence/dp/0099507854/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1385976683&sr=1-1&keywords=andrew+anthony It, the book, was published around the time of Nick Cohen’s ‘What’s Left’ and, at the time I thought these books might signal a waking up of the leftist establishment. Then along came Owen & Penny and it was business as usual.
“Though to the best of my knowledge Danny La Rue didn’t make unattractive pottery”
I couldn’t disagree more. I think GP’s work is both beautiful & a little thought provoking. It is frequently also executed with a degree of technical skill which is absent from modern art. I guess beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.
Perry also seems to display an honesty that is absent from most of the artistic community as demonstrated here http://www.newcultureforum.org.uk/home/?q=node/167 which, ugly cross-dressing aside, makes him, to me at least, worthy of some respect and certainly beyond comparison with La Rue, with whom he shares little beyond a liking for frocks.
Steve,
Perry also seems to display an honesty that is absent from most of the artistic community.
True, he did admit to being afraid. And I suppose we should be thankful for small, even tiny, mercies.
Guardian still losing money hand over fist…
“Guardian News & Media has lost nearly £200m in the past six years as it pursues its ambition of being the ‘world’s leading liberal voice’… Two years ago, as he committed GMG to a ‘digital-first strategy’, Mr Miller warned staff the newspaper’s losses were so great it could run out of money in ‘three to five years’. The latest losses of £31m for the year to the end of March were an improvement on the £44m of the previous 12 months.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/the-guardians-future-by-the-papers-guardian-andrew-miller-8968300.html
Guardian still losing money hand over fist…
We should run the world how they run their ‘business’.
Guardian still losing money hand over fist…
Five words in particular stood out: “More coffee shops may follow.”
Just imagine.
David..
i think your Radio4 ‘comedian’ was Jeremy Hardy.
and not really surprising that free spirit Lauran Childs craves subsidy for her product..
http://lauranchilds.com/gallery-coming-soon/
I think your Radio 4 ‘comedian’ was Jeremy Hardy.
It’s the kind of attitude Hardy would display with pleasure, but I think I’d have recognised his voice. My impression is it was someone fairly unknown. At least to me.
and not really surprising that free spirit Lauran Childs craves subsidy for her product…
Oh dear. I suggest fire and lots of it.
FYO, as you’ve mentioned me a couple of times;
Famous artist Tracy Emin who is well known for getting paid $250,000 for her unmade bed and dirty washing is also looking for financial support – http://www.artproduction.org if I remember correctly.
And Van Gogh sold only three paintings his whole life. Now where would art be without his subsidised contribution?
Lauran Childs
http://www.LauranChilds.com
Whoops, doesn’t look like the correct link for Emin, I’ll find it.
Here we go with Emin link – she’s part of a group of artists looking for funding; http://www.artproductionfund.org/donate.
Funny how the first thing I saw when I clicked on this site is a ‘Donate’ button. How’s that going for you David?
Present & correct,
Wow. For a moment there I thought you were attacking Lauren Child! Two people that I rather like attacked in one thread may have proved a bit much!
Lauran,
How’s that going for you David?
I invite readers to help keep this place afloat, which they do. But here’s the difference – and it’s a rather important difference, though you seem to have missed it. I invite them to hit the tip jar if they feel so inclined. Which isn’t quite the same thing as feeling entitled to their money, or entitled to state subsidy – which is the point of Tim’s article, to which you responded – and which entails the coercive redistribution of other people’s earnings. You’re equating apples with bees.
[ Added: ]
In response to Tim’s piece you wrote,
You seem to conflate a lack of public interest in your work with a general failure to value art. This rather begs the question. Perhaps the problem isn’t with the public and their collective estimation of art’s value, whatever that may be in any given instance, but with the particular art you’re offering them. You seem to be complaining that the public isn’t paying you for doing a job – being an artist – that the public hasn’t asked you to do. As if simply churning out paintings or whatever, of whatever quality, and calling oneself an artist were in itself a reason for passers-by to hand over their cash, regardless of their tastes and priorities. Or a reason for other people to have their earnings confiscated by the state and handed over to “free spirits” such as yourself.
It sounds a tad egomaniacal.
[ Added: ]
You said to Tim,
Given the context – a piece about public funding – the obvious inference is that you would like unpopular artists to be given money by someone. (In order to avoid all that “working for free,” which you regard as “deleterious to the human spirit.”) If paying customers are thin on the ground, who else should hand over their cash, or be made to hand over their cash? You then conflate employees in a grocery store – who are contracted to perform agreed duties to an agreed standard in return for an agreed wage in order to meet a demand and thereby generate profit – with artists, who apparently should receive money simply for being artists, irrespective of demand (or lack thereof). You want an artist’s labour to be “respected,” seemingly regardless of what that labour is worth in the eye of the customer. But what if no-one wants what you’re selling? What if the respect you want hasn’t been earned?
This should be good. ;-D
but with the particular art you’re offering them… of whatever quality,
Holy mother of God.
Now where would art be without his subsidised contribution? Van Gogh was subsidized by his brother and art dealers, AFAIA. Not money extorted, as David points out, from tax payers. And surely those who were keeping VvG afloat, people spending their own money, had some influence on his work. They more than likely made his work more focused and more commercial by rejecting his more extreme, lunatic tendencies.
As for where would ART be, I don’t see any reason to think one artist more or less would have meant the end of art. Perhaps his popularity squeezed out attention that could have been paid to a more interesting artist. I seem to recall that it used to be rather uncool, unhip, and pedestrian to express an appreciation for the impressionists and especially Van Gogh as he was considered the most common. Something about inspiring songs by the kind of artist as unhip and uncool as American Pie author Don McLean or being portrayed by Kirk Douglas in a movie. The whims of art fanboys cqn be quite fickle.
You’re right Anna…
David if you’d bothered to read my response to Wootall’s article you would notice that I didn’t come out and say state subsidy of artists is the way to go.
Rather I welcomed him discussing this can of worms because it gives air to the common fact that people often do ask artists to work for free. Not because our work isn’t deemed good – what a petty slight from you to suggest mine isn’t – but rather because of people’s ignorant and bizarre attitudes to art work. Wootall himself vaunts Adam Smith’s belief that if you enjoy your work you shouldn’t get paid for it.
As I pointed out in my reply to him, artists actually may not enjoy their work – and he certainly wasn’t taking up the cause of lowly paid workers being paid highly. It’s an interesting response, I suggest people read the original article in Forbes.
A very particular and telling illustration of people’s strange attitudes to art production is given in the tale of how my new painting ‘Healing in Theta’ evolved, which you can read at my website at http://www.LauranChilds.com. Briefly, I was asked by a women’s breast cancer organisation to do some live art for an event. Both of the people I spoke to in reference to this said that they were highly excited by my art and were extremely complimentary about it – unlike yourself, but that suggests you haven’t bothered to look it – and both of these people were doing paid work for the event. But still they asked me to ‘donate’ my work. Ridiculous.
I strongly recommend reading Maria Brophy’s Blog on this issue, the link to the article where she discusses the outrage of artists being expected to work for free is given on a very recent post on my blog at http://www.LauranChilds.com.
Hi Lauran,
I really like your painting “Lap dancers, clients, and an angel”, even though it doesn’t contain any actual lap dancing.
I like how you put Peter Lorre, Kim Jong Il, and an angel in the same picture with a pole dancer. Perhaps this is a non-lapdancing lapdancing club in heaven? That would explain why there’s a single feather on the floor instead of money in the lady’s knickers. They don’t use money in heaven, I believe it’s a barter economy up there. Or maybe this is meant to be in Limbo? That would explain the bored expressions on the faces of your figures, but not the lack of limbo dancers.
It reminds me of a painting I once created for art class of Lion-o and Adam, Prince of Eternia, locked in a passionate clinch while Snarf and Cringer watched in fascinated horror. I wasn’t allowed back in that art class and they phoned my Mum. We didn’t have devianart.com back then so visionary artists like myself were at the mercy of censorious Catholic school teachers and their small-minded insistence that if they asked us to draw a bowl of fruit, we’d draw said bowl of fruit and not two crudely drawn cartoon figures in flagrante delicto.
and want people like me to work for free
Actually I, personally, am quite keen on artists being paid what their work is worth.
It sounds like this is already the case with Ms Childs.
(Actually looking at ‘Disney On Acid’, did anybody else hear that John Finnemore sketch about the guy who paints cartoon characters on ice cream vans, making sure to get them just slightly wrong? According to the sketch he is very much in demand; if this is true, I think Ms Childs might like to diversify into that line of work.
Oh look, it’s on You-Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LHkN6fmY6A
And examples of his work: http://johnfinnemoressouvenirprogramme.tumblr.com/post/60952239241/thepenultimaterolo-slighty-off-disney
)
But still they asked me to ‘donate’ my work. Ridiculous
Oh, it is certainly an issue that people do try to blag free stuff from artists (and sometimes they do succeed in scamming free work out of those who don’t know better).
The solution to this is simply for the artists to refuse to ‘donate’. Then if the person still wants the art, they can pay for it. If it is worth paying for, they will pay.
I hope you refused to work for free.
Lauran,
if you’d bothered to read my response to Wootall’s article you would notice that I didn’t come out and say state subsidy of artists is the way to go.
Readers can study your reply to Tim – whose surname, incidentally, is Worstall – and make up their own minds as to your expectations.
Not because our work isn’t deemed good – what a petty slight from you to suggest mine isn’t – but rather because of people’s ignorant and bizarre attitudes to art work.
Your artwork scarcely needs comment from me. It speaks for itself.
Wootall himself vaunts Adam Smith’s belief that if you enjoy your work you shouldn’t get paid for it.
Can someone, anyone, provide a source for this? The Worstall article states “As Adam Smith pointed out, when you consider the joy and interest of a job you expect those that are interesting and joyful to be lower paid than those that are less so.” A bit of a stretch from “you shouldn’t get paid for it”. There’s still a supply and demand factor. I believe Mr. Smith was rather fond of supply and demand.
Not because our work isn’t deemed good – what a petty slight from you to suggest mine isn’t
Lauran, when you say ‘petty slight’ I think you mean ‘hilarious reality’. If you don’t mind me asking, how many of these things do you sell? Is it a living?
Anon – Ice cream van painting is one of the most underappreciated British arts.
Also, the anonymous gypsy geniuses who paint rides at the fair. If you’ve never regurgitated a candyfloss on a waltzer decorated with a glossy metallic spray painting of RoboCop and Michael Jackson, while your eardrums palpitate to Yazz’s “The Only Way Is Up”, then you have no right to call yourself British.
a painting I once created for art class of Lion-o and Adam, Prince of Eternia, locked in a passionate clinch
Now there’s your movie.
What?
I might also note that it is certainly not the case that everyone expects artists to work for free. I have personal experience of the video games industry, for example, where quite a few artists are employed and paid, some quite well.
There are also many many advertising agencies which are desperate to employ good artists, and pay them very well.
I wonder if Ms Childs has thought of these avenues in order to get paid for creating art? Here’s a job vacancy for a concept artist in Florida: http://darksidegames.com/?p=job&i=29 I know it asks for experience, but I promise you, no one in the industry is going to turn down a talented applicant because they don’t tick the ‘2 years experience’ box, no way. Good candidates are just not that common that they can be dismissed simply on those grounds.
Talent will always out.
Let us know how you get on.
Ooooh, this one: http://lauranchilds.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/disneyonacid.jpg
Niiiiiiiiice bit of copyright infringement there, Lauren. Way to steal Disney’s intellectual property. Intellectual property is theft, but theft of intellectual property is… what now?
And putting Mickey Mouse in blackface is clearly racist, just so you know. Just thought I’d clear that up for you right there.
Love the Finnemore sketch. One of the pleasures of walking around Great Yarmouth, as I frequently do, is seeing those ‘slightly off’ cartoon characters adorning rides, market stalls and food outlets. I find their unwitting artlessness oddly moving. Unlike, say, the work of established (or otherwise) artists whose motives are a little more suspect: http://davidbarsalou.homestead.com/LICHTENSTEINPROJECT.html
I like Grayson Perry, by the way. That is, I like him – anyone who loves The Fall as much as he does must be reasonably sound.
Anna – Why the bitchiness? My work sells internationally, obviously to people with better taste than you.
Anon – nice to hear some sense and moderation from you.
This is surreal.
WTP – Woostall article; http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/01/arts-majors-cant-make-good-livings-so-we-should-subsidise-arts-majors-from-taxation/