Saatchi says the artworld is shit

Contemporary and Old Art Reviews

Saatchi says the artworld is shit

Postby jasperjoffe » Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:00 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/dec/02/charles-saatchi-art-world-attack

all the losers are pleased Saatchi has attacked the fakers, phonies, and general staff of the artworld, saying what most norms at art fairs and fancy galleries say. why it is good of course is that's it's one of the rich saying what the poor are told is sour grapes for expressing.

however one, me, i wonder why he has said such a strikingly obvious thing, (art is a plaything which gives status to the vacuous rich, and most collectors don't have a clue what they are buying or looking at and couldn't tell frieze from the affortable art fair unless they could read the vip invite). Why now? Is he just bored? Does he want some attention? Or is he sick of not getting credit for really liking art.

Answers on a postcard or worldwidereview.

(conflict of interest, Mr. S owns some of my paintings!)
jasperjoffe
Site Admin
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:53 pm

Re: Saatchi says the artworld is shit

Postby Featherblend » Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:32 pm

He is a muppet.

Jasper I'm interested in the limits of criticism you (as a collected artist) can go to before it affects your career. If you publically called Saatchi a dipshit could he completely ruin you? (if you were hypothetically dependant on him - not assuming you are) Or would he take it? - like your portrait of Himmler - that was a dig at him wasn't it? But if you were in his pocket would it affect your output?
Featherblend
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 12:26 pm

Re: Saatchi says the artworld is shit

Postby jasperjoffe » Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:29 pm

He hasn't bought a picture from me in years, but in fact I do have some respect for him in that he goes to crappy little galleries and buys something that catches his eye (such as my pictures). If there were more collectors who made up their own minds, it would help.
jasperjoffe
Site Admin
 
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:53 pm

Re: Saatchi says the artworld is shit

Postby CAP » Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:06 pm

Charlie's own words would have been a better link actually. Jonathon Jones - snoresville....

What I get from his remarks is that the 'Eurotrash' only do it for the investment and prestige, whereas in his day he did actually go out there and find the things himself. He did actually look at the stuff and decide for himself before he bought it, perhaps not very long, but his motto seems to have been buy in haste and resell at leisure. At least it wasn't about a lot of sleazy middlepeople with management mentalities and their cliquey little Fairs (a cruel irony in that name)!

It is funny to hear him complaining about curators who don't have 'an eye' - he has been accused of this so many times himself! - but I think it was more a question of having no eye for 2D stuff in his case - but actually a very astute eye with 3D stuff. This is not so very uncommon. "'Man's got to know his limitations" as that esteemed art critic Clint Eastwood would have it. But toward the end of his article he says -
I am regularly asked if I would buy art if there was no money in it for me. There is no money in it for me. Any profit I make selling art goes back into buying more art. Nice for me, because I can go on finding lots of new work to show off. Nice for those in the art world who view this approach as testimony to my venality, shallowness, malevolence.

Everybody wins.

(my emphasis)

Well it's not quite true everybody wins, Charlie. This is tacit acknowledgement that he resells work regularly (when/where there's money to be made and needed) and this brisk turnover is not always good for an artist's prices or reputation. If Saatchi dumps an artist it can be a massive vote of no confidence for the rest of the market. And Saatchi is or was undeniably a major player - people notice when he unloads. Moreover it sets a worrying trend. As other mega-collectors adopt similar tactics, collecting begins to look a lot like dealing. Unless they hold onto the stuff, they're not really collecting. And if they're not really collecting, then artist's reputations look even more precarious. Everyone's just juggling hype. It's because of all this fast-tracking to the secondaries market that we get the equally disappointing stories about Zwirner's protectionist dealings on behalf of Marlene Dumas and Neo Rauch. Zwirner just won't sell Rauch's to private collectors since about 2007 - 1) to make sure the stuff goes into public collections (i.e. stay collected a little longer) 2) To stop collectors turning the stuff over in the secondary market and ramping up the prices (he can't sell even Rauchs when they're going for nearly a mill $ a pop (after Brad Pitt went on a spending spree at some art fair (Basel?), egged on by Eli Broad and picked up an early (1998) Rauch). Everybody wins? I don't think so. That's strictly short term thinking.

This is the real craziness of the current art world and Charlie has done his bit to bring us here. He's not the only one, by any means, and he admits himself he likes the competition, the thrill of the chase and the bargaining and all that. But let's not pretend what's good for the goose is good for the gander or that there's some trickle down bullshit. This was always about being first, making the most and getting out while you're ahead. As for turning around and pointing the finger - that's probably just a bonus. :lol:
User avatar
CAP
 
Posts: 1081
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:38 am
Location: Off-world

Re: Saatchi says the artworld is shit

Postby Featherblend » Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:19 pm

http://featherblend-grandarttours.blogspot.com/2011/12/arbiter-of-taste.html

Charles Saatchi’s recent deluded rant about the “vulgar and vile” art world was misguided because all he seemed to do is bemoan his standing in the upper echelons of uber rich art collectors. I think this is distasteful in the current social climate where artists and art institutions are struggling to survive. He is a key 'arbiter of taste'. He basically funded the YBA'S (Young British Artists) and arguably saved the British art scene during 80's / 90's, but his dominating motivations and previous affiliation with the Thatcher government are morally questionable, should one man have all that power? Charles Saatchi has shown how artists can become commodities in someone else’s game by sponsoring and funding the highly controversial YBA's. Saatchi’s collection dictates who will be successful and who will not as the power resides with the dealers, curators or collectors while the artist as celebrity is the end product. His intent and belief that “anything that helped broaden interest in current art was to be welcomed” is insincere. Anyone who creates a museum brandishing their name so boldly, devising categorically definitive exhibitions with an attempt to rewrite the canon of art history or spawn a gladiatorial television show for artists to fight each other and quack critics, can’t be purely interested in the exposure of art. Art has been used as a tool to recreate his own image and sense of grandeur, as he says he is a; “self-serving narcissistic showoff”.

http://featherblend-grandarttours.blogspot.com/2011/12/arbiter-of-taste.html
Featherblend
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 12:26 pm


Return to Art Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron