At least we are according to the aesthetes behind Swansea’s taxpayer-funded art festival Art Across the City, which improves the locals with things like this, and specifically conceptual artist Jeremy Deller, whose work, above, is sited in a car park behind a shopping centre. The press release for this mighty piece tells us, “Deller’s plaintive request gets straight to the point. Everybody and everywhere could do with more poetry.” Likewise, presumably, “everybody” could “do with” more conceptual art too.
And yet despite claims, chiefly by poets, that more poetry is needed and that the unwashed could “do with” more of it, books of modern poetry rarely make the bestseller lists. The New York Times famously estimated the total US market for modern poetry books as being roughly 2,000 people, the measure of a rare “bestseller.” How many of these 2,000 buyers are themselves poets is, alas, unclear. Closer to home, the Arts Council acknowledged that modern poetry constitutes barely four per cent of the total sales of poetry books, with sales in excess of 200 copies being generally considered “excellent.”
T.K. Tortch: “Back in the ’90s the advertising spaces in NYC subway cars were interspersed with poetry quotations; it was actually good stuff, and intended to spur interest in poetry.”
The Tube still does that:
http://www.poetrysociety.org.uk/content/education/potu/
And yet despite claims, chiefly by poets, that more poetry is needed and that the unwashed could “do with” more of it, books of modern poetry rarely make the bestseller lists.
Top-down thinking. People should like what *I say* they should like.
Top-down thinking. People should like what *I say* they should like.
Well, quite. Which underlines the overlap between our artistic betters and our leftist betters. If only we’d do as they say, and like what they say we should like, the world would be so much tidier and more fragrant. And when I say the world I of course mean their world. For some reason it reminded me of the boardroom scene from Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life: “People aren’t wearing enough hats.”
What caught my eye was how, despite the billboard being retweeted umpteen times, generally with a grunt of agreement, only one person had apparently seen anything odd or contentious about it. And that tweeter’s attempt at correction was, “No. More readers of poetry are needed.” Which itself makes much the same assumption. It’s “More life-size porcelain shoes are needed. People should be buying more life-size porcelain shoes.” Versus, “No, more buyers of life-size porcelain shoes are needed. Why aren’t more people buying these life-size porcelain shoes?”
“People aren’t wearing enough hats.”
Snork.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and mine is that Jeremy Deller represents pretty much everything wrong with contemporary fine art (or ‘fine’ art for those who prefer the scare quotes to be in place): heavy on theory and politics, light on aesthetics of almost any kind, it seems as it it’s been designed to be written about by writers who will use it to bang already well-worn drums.
The best thing I can find to say about Deller’s ‘works’ is that whenever you get past the superficial and adulatory ‘criticism’ in the art press and you find that it is full of all manner of unintended ironies. For example, it’s claimed that Deller’s art presents a challenge to the artworld (a challenge never really specified incidentally) and that as most of his ‘works’ are collaborations with ‘(the) people’ they are not ego-centric(!).
That’s pretty hard to swallow when in fact probably his most famous piece to date, ‘The Battle of Orgreaves’ (2001) – a filmed reenactment of a violent confrontation between striking miners and riot police back in 1984 – was funded through Channel 4 and the Arts Council (through the A4E scheme, itself funded by the National Lottery).
Deller may have had the initial idea but the reenactment was researched, organized and directed by Howard Giles, a professional battle reenactment director from a company called EventPlan which was then filmed by Mike Figgis.
It’s nice to know, then, that when the not-at-all egocentric artist Dellar accepted the Turner prize award of £20,000 he does not appear to have mentioned the roles of either Giles or Figgis at all, but according to the Grauniad said that: ‘being nominated for the Turner prize had been “a not unenjoyable experience.” [And] dedicated his award to “everyone who cycles, everyone who cycles in London, everyone who looks after wildlife, and the Quaker movement.” No mention of Giles, apparently, whose work it really was.
All that said, I actually found the cut-out coloured-in birds in the trees pleasingly surreal but in any event, I have some questions:
Does anyone know of any polity anywhere (or anywhen) that has never used public funds to fund public works of art, communal open air concerts etc.?
Do any readers here feel that part of a city council’s responsibility is to ‘sell’ their city to outside investors and/or to tourists?
Does anyone believe that public artworks lead to increased tourism? Does anyone believe that creating a ‘brand’ for a city, say through an iconic/unusual building or striking public artwork(s), is likely to help advertise the city to business and attract companies and employment to the city?
And if that really is the case – which is often claimed (though not as often supported that I can see) – is that not a sensible form of investment by the governing council?
Nikw211
There’s a problem with the ‘attracts tourists and business’ argument in favour of public art, well several actually but one will do for now. That is that it’s questionable whether the overall economic benefit of tourism or business in one specific place rather than another is actually of any net benefit to the total economy. Does any value get added or is it just a shuffling around of the money ?
It’s also amusing to watch the very people who are so adamant that art is a good thing in itself and should not be sullied by the vulgar requirements of commerce using the economic benefit line when it suits them. As with so many leftist arguments there is neither consistency or honesty from the subsidised arts lobby.
“But should there maybe be some philanthropy toward emerging artists who have a sincere commitment to creating something worthwhile? ”
Possibly, indeed. But from the coffers of philanthropists, who may then bask, Saatchi-like in the abuse heaped upon them by the venomous toads they have funded.
Not from public funds.
There’s a lot of successful poetry out there as it is.
It’s called song lyrics.
It’s called song lyrics.
I was thinking that just today.
Country music and Rap having the most poignant.
On this lonely road, trying to make it home
Doing it by my lonesome-pissed off, who wants some
I’m fighting for my soul, God get at your boy
You try to bogart — fall back, I go hard
On this lonely road, trying to make it home
Doing it by my lonesome-pissed off, who wants some
I see them long hard times to come
ἐπάμεροι: τί δέ τις;
τί δ᾽ οὔ τις; σκιᾶς ὄναρ
ἄνθρωπος. ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν αἴγλα διόσδοτος ἔλθῃ,
λαμπρὸν φέγγος ἔπεστιν ἀνδρῶν καὶ μείλιχος αἰών
Whenever some clown tells me that great art is the preserve of the left, I mention Pindar, secure in the knowledge that they won’t have read any.
It’s called song lyrics.
Indeed, just listen as MC 900 Jesus sets the scene:
It ought also be noted that often, the municipalities or councils or what have you, which are doing the funding and the grant-giving, also tend to make it extremely difficult to do ‘art-things’ outside their sanction. I lived in Vancouver for a while, a city with a reputation on the rest of the continent as a congenial home for artists and their strange experiments. However, I’ve never experienced a city with such a wide divide between the official attitude toward art and music, and the on-the-ground reality. A regime of endless permits, licenses, zoning law, petty ticketing, and all watched over by neighbourhood associations of statist tastes.
I once helped at an art show put on by a friend, in a ground-floor space of an unfinished tower. We paid the rent for the show by selling wine and beer from a makeshift bar, but we had to keep it behind a stairwell so that it wasn’t visible from the street – we didn’t have a license, which would have been impossible to get, given that the building was not finished, or even zoned for art. (We also kept the back door propped open, so that if the police got wind of unauthorized liquor sales, we could book it down the alleyway.) Exciting as art-show banditry might be, this sort of stuff puts the crimp on all manner of legitimate ways of funding art and of finding affordable ways to create and exhibit it.
The worst conditions were for musicians – the city, issuer of licenses, had caved continually to pressures put on it by neighbours and by incumbent bars and venues, and had essentially ceased to issue new liquor permits to venues where one was permitted by law to dance. Of course, this meant the emergence of an aristocracy of bar owners with licenses, enabled to charge ever higher cuts of performers’ ticket sales. And of course, a thriving grey market in old liquor + music licenses, reaching into the hundreds of thousands of dollars for a forty-seat bar.
And then the city would proceed to promote and subsidize open-air concerts and musical events during “tourist season” – but only musicians approved of by the city government, you see.
I don’t know how much intention goes into it, but it has the makings of an excellent little strategy. Step one, make it legally nightmarish to make art pay for itself, or to make it in cheap, marginal places. Step two, moan ostentatiously about the shortage of art in the city. Step three, disperse tax money to artists deemed worthy of public display.
That reminds me of something the gay Marxist science fiction writer Samuel R. Delany said: Attempting to refute claims that declining bookstore sales showed that he had become far less popular in recent decades, he pointed to good sales on college campuses. But undoubtedly those sales were nearly all for required reading lists, and have nothing to do with what people read when free to choose. Funny how easy it is to not notice the effects of coercion….
Quite. The only real exposure I had to Delany was through a college course, where I was required to buy his books as course texts. Otherwise I’ve largely ignored his existence.
Thornavis
it’s questionable whether the overall economic benefit of tourism or business in one specific place rather than another is actually of any net benefit to the total economy.
After some superficial digging around in the Internet, I’ve come across this EU report which includes this line about the impact of being designated a European City of Culture (ECoC):
There is limited evidence of long-term benefits (understood as effects that can be clearly linked to the ECoC hosting process more than a year after the event has officially come to an end) and a significant absence of evidence of direct effects more than three years after the event.
They’re not saying the benefits don’t exist, just that no one’s been able to say one way or another. Liverpool apparently had something like a 30-40% increase in tourism during that year (2008), but there’s scant information on whether that was sustained. Based on a visit there I made last year I’d be surprised to learn that the city’s hotels are ever more than half full at any one time, if even that.
Liverpool also apparently raised most of its ECoC funding through public-private financing which as far as I can tell seems to be the local council’s version of taking money from one of those pay day loan companies but knowing full well in advance that they won’t be paying the debt off in a week’s time or whatever, but racking up the interest over years and years.
Liverpool does look incredible now but I’d be surprised to discover that the city’s doing anything other bobbing around like a paper boat on an ocean of debts.
Aplofar
It ought also be noted that often, the municipalities or councils or what have you, which are doing the funding and the grant-giving, also tend to make it extremely difficult to do ‘art-things’ outside their sanction.
Well, yes, there is that side of it too!
“People aren’t wearing enough hats.”
Great blog, sir. Lost the afternoon in it. Consider your tip jar hit.
That “device” should have one of those cushioning mats fitted around it so it could at least be useful as a sort of climb-on toy for children. Thought o be fair it doesn’t really look strong enough and is rather too ugly to boot.
Delaney, “The Einstein Intersection” is tolerable for 40 year old SF, but what the hell else did he write that’s worth studying at University ?
Speaking of tip jars, I hit it recently. And not only in appreciation of our host, but also the inimitable brilliance of Steve 2.
Swansea brings only one word to mind: RELEGATION!
Yes, song lyrics are one example of art being created outside the purview of arts councils and panhandling ‘poets’. In the visual arts, it’s under-appreciated the skill that goes into making user interfaces for consumer electronics both aesthetically pleasing and functional. There’s more genuine creativity in a well-crafted advertising campaign than this chump Deller will ever produce.
In the visual arts, it’s under-appreciated the skill that goes into making user interfaces for consumer electronics both aesthetically pleasing and functional.
Also locations in video games have often been designed with considerable aesthetic skill, though I’m not up on current generation games.
In the visual arts, it’s under-appreciated the skill that goes into making user interfaces for consumer electronics both aesthetically pleasing and functional.
Absolutely. I’ve said before, the interface of my smartphone, a mass-produced and ubiquitous object, shows a certain discernment on the part of the people who designed it. It does what it does in a visually pleasing way and still tickles me. It’s not a huge rush of aesthetic wonder, but it’s a small pleasure, available every day. The people who designed it weren’t trying to “challenge” or “transgress” the customer. They weren’t fretting about how radical or intellectual we’d think they are. They were trying to make us smile, or play, or just drool with desire. Which is no small feat, really. And such pleasures, even small pleasures, are quite hard to find in many modern galleries, where evidence of discernment is much less obvious, presumably because the artists in favour often regard beauty and sensory pleasure as something to “interrogate” and “problematize,” and, at best, peripheral to their egos.
Thankfully, we, the public, no longer rely on people who call themselves “artists” to make visually pleasing things.
Doing a review of general video Stuff reminded me of Henry Gibson, and, of course, John Wayne.