Molly fairhurst ouil501 cop2 essay by Molly Fairhurst

Molly Fairhurst

Illustration Level 5 OUIL501 COP2 essay

HOW IS MODERN ART PERCIEVED BY THE UK PUBLIC?

The UK is a country that prides itself on its culture- even if it is not a priority on the government’s funding in 2016. British music, art and design is spoken fondly of by many- however, upon informal investigation it’s not hard to find many opposed to “modern art”, even those working within the creative sectors. Some may list it as confusing, pretentious- but how are these ideas perpetuated? The following essay will investigate well known artists, their public reception and how they have received it. It must be stressed that the artists discussed will be chosen for their notability and perceived success rather than a concern for whether their art has merit or is of quality. And at the very least, if success is to be measured financially, Damien Hirst is an incredibly successful artist. His work is exhibited internationally and is very much in the eye of the public. It’s hard to define a general public opinion without surveying a good quantity of people, but as of yet there’s no such survey on the opinions of Hirst and his works. However, it might not be unfair to say that Hirst does not have the best reputation in the UK public’s conscious. The Telegraph did create something of a small survey in which they asked visitors of his 2013 retrospective what they thought of the work they had seen1. The comments were cohesively negative. They also asked (unnamed) ‘critics’ what they thought, and their comments were all indeed positive. It is quite likely that The Telegraph had its own bias and published only bad comments from the public and good ones from these ‘critics’, but that itself suggests a media influence of opinion which in turn is likely to be followed up by its readers. The two feed into one another. But what is it about Hirst that makes him so unfavourable? It could be understandable if it was just about the amount of money he makes. The public may respond unfavourably to his millions in a time when so many are financially struggling, not as an act of jealousy but an act of protest against a system that allows such inequality. But if he was to be compared with Banksy, an artist also making millions in the UK in the same time period, this explanation would make less sense. On the other hand to Hirst, Banksy is generally quite a well-received figure in the UK public. Again, it is hard to give a concrete estimation of the public’s opinion, but if it were to go off how he is written and represented about in the press, then it would be mostly positive, across a large and broad audience too. Both newspapers and tabloids have had something good to say about him, from The Sun running a feature titled “16 Reasons We Love Street Artist Banksy”2 to The Guardian featuring previously unseen artwork of his in one of their publications and using it as a positive 1 Ben Riley Smith. 2013. ‘Damien Hirst Retrospective: Critics vs Public’. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/10270332/Damien-Hirst-retrospective-critics-vspublic.html. [Accessed 28 December 15] 2

The Sun. 2014. ‘16 Reasons We Love Street Artist Banksy’. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/6018111/reasons-we-love-banksy.html. [Accessed 28 December 15].

Molly Fairhurst

Illustration Level 5 OUIL501 COP2 essay

marketing tool, suggesting their readers are interested enough to part money to see what Banksy makes. Because of this positivity one may expect a reversal of Damien Hirst’s ‘public equals bad, art critic equals good’ equation for Banksy. But, like most, the reception is not wholly positive like Hirst’s cannot be wholly negative, and in the same publications there have been negative reviews. Writing for The Guardian Jonathan Jones describes Banksy’s ‘Dismaland’ as “thin, threadbare and, to be honest, quite boring”3. This itself as an interesting balance of author and publication- an art critic writing for a non-specialist newspaper with perhaps a large role in influencing the public. But as Barthes wrote, “classic criticism has never paid any attention to the reader”4 (1968, p.148) As a medium, comics in the press may be able to give some insight into public opinion- rarely does a publication want to turn against its readership by opposing their views. In this comic by John Fardell for VIZ two art critics turn their nose up at one artist who makes realistic drawings for another who makes conceptual art. The opinion of Fardell on modern art is more than clear here.

John Fardell for VIZ, 20105 The first artist, who in the end is presented as the moral good of the story, is dismissed for her “long-redundant practice of making representational images on paper with pencil and pen”, suggesting that the author values technical craft over the second artist, thinly veiled as a caricature of Hirst himself. He is presented as lurid, sensationalist and even disgusting- using urine and a rotting animal to express 3

Jonathan Jones. 2015. ‘In Dismaland, Banksy has created something truly depressing.’ [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/aug/21/in-dismaland-banksy-hascreated-something-truly-depressing. [Accessed 28 December 15]. 4 Barthes, R. (1968) ‘The Death of the Author’, London, Fontana 5 John Fardell, (2010), 'The Critics' [ONLINE]. Available at:http://trivialpursuitsdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/the-critics.png [Accessed 06 January 16].

Molly Fairhurst

Illustration Level 5 OUIL501 COP2 essay

himself. ‘Danny Tyke’ leans back, smoking a cigarette with a smug grin on his face, clearly not to be presented as a relatable or friendly character. What is perhaps more negatively portrayed in this is the art critics themselves, as they are the catalyst for what is deemed as bad in the story. From this the discussion of representational versus more conceptual art arises, and so which is more valued by the public. If Banksy and Hirst were to be compared again the former could most certainly be perceived as making more representational art, but there are other elements of it which could be taken as more relatable by the public.

Banksy, Napalm, 20046 One of Banksy’s most recognisable traits, asides from his clearly styled stencil visuals, is his use of cultural reference points in his imagery, be it social media, religious iconography, politicians or popular characters. In this piece he takes two of the western world’s most recognisable mascots and places them amongst an also famous photo. It’s an easy image to read, the happy characters’ context immediately changing when placed against such horrific imagery- but the impact is immediate. It takes little time for a viewer to digest what is happening, or what emotion they should be feeling because he has used already famous and recognisable reference points. Banksy’s work is simple, easy but importantly is accessible, which may offer an explanation to his popularity. Banksy himself has described his work ‘Dismaland’ as “entry-level anarchism”7, which could be read as self-deprecating or instead a willingness to extend his outreach to the general layman. On the other hand there is Hirst, whose works are not so immediate. For example, one of his iconic works, “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living”. 6

Banksy, (2004), 'Napalm' [ONLINE]. Available at:http://www.stencilrevolution.com/photopost/2012/09/Ronald-Mcdonald-And-Mickey-Mouse-byBanksy.jpg[Accessed 06 January 16 7 Jonathan Jones. 2015. ‘In Dismaland, Banksy has created something truly depressing.’ [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/aug/21/in-dismaland-banksy-hascreated-something-truly-depressing. [Accessed 28 December 15].

Molly Fairhurst

Illustration Level 5 OUIL501 COP2 essay

Damien Hirst, The Physical Impossibility of Death In The Mind of Someone Living, 19918 Upon first glance, in practical terms, this is a shark in formaldehyde. When given the title of the artwork ideas may fall into place a little more. When faced with “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living” the viewer can draw ideas from the use of “death” in the title, be it the mortality of the shark or indeed themselves- faced with a shark with its jaws open wide like an opponent in an unfair match. When given a gallery description of the piece they can infer more- something not available with Banksy’s outdoor pieces in public spaces. But the question is if a piece of art needs to have an explanation in hand does this make it less valuable or of less quality? Banksy’s work may be more immediate but is there always room in such simple imagery for larger, more in depth topics? That is not to say whether Hirst achieves this or not, but does make Hirst’s work less immediate and instantly accessible, which could be a reason for public distaste against him. Going back to the comic strip by Fardell the amount of ‘technical skill’ can be questioned in Hirst’s pieces as part of the public’s distaste against him. Banksy is not making the most complicated work, visually or craft wise, but one may have a hard time of understanding how much skill goes into placing a shark in a tank- if any at all. Art theorist Adorno dismisses this need for classical skill as “warmed overromanticism”9 (1997, p.2), acknowledging it as a common opinion but not one that is necessary. As Brian O’Doherty describes in the book Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space that "ideas are more interesting than art… as modernism gets older, context becomes content”10 (1976, p.14-15) and in circles 8

Damien Hirst, (1991), 'The Physical Impossibility of Death In The Mind of Someone Living' [ONLINE]. Available at: http://images.rapgenius.com/c1ca68779da8619aed5e759f86579c82.771x534x1.jpg[Accessed 06 January 16] nd 9 Adorno, T (1997) ‘Aesthetic Theory’, 2 edition, Continuum, London st 10 O’Doherty, B (1976) ‘Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space’, 1 edition, University of California Press, Los Angeles

Molly Fairhurst

Illustration Level 5 OUIL501 COP2 essay

such as Hirst’s and the other YBAs this rings true and is part of their culture. He goes on to say that “hostility to the audience is one of the key co-ordinates of Modernism… this hostility is far from trivial or self-indulgent, though it has been both”11 (1976, p.73). There’s a suggestion that Hirst’s inaccessibility is not just accidental or necessary but is ‘hostile’, provocative. Is he actively distancing himself from an audience that may not have the education or the money to understand or buy his art? If making art isn’t treated as an act of education, or spreading a message, why would he bother catering to those who cannot cater, with money, back to him? O’Doherty further writes, “the audience can’t get mad… its anger must be sublimated, already a kind of proto-appreciation”12 (1976, p.74). Is any attention enough for Hirst, good or bad? Hirst nor Banksy are creating work that follows the established art traditions, but Hirst seems to be playing on an intellectual class divide.

From Peter Duggan’s Artoons, 2015. Published in The Guardian online13 Elsewhere in comics in the media are Peter Duggan’s ‘Artoons’, published in The Guardian and then followed into a book. In the series Duggan writes and draws small comic strips parodying famous artists, creating characters from them and playing them into stories. Hirst is one of these, presented as self-absorbed, inward looking and bumbling. However, he is not the only one, and Duggan parodies other famous contemporary artists too- fellow YBA Tracy Emin, Yayoi Kusama, David Hockney and more. It’s largely derogatory, and generates humour through what could be 11

“ st O’Doherty, B (1976) ‘Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space’, 1 edition, University of California Press, Los Angeles 13 Peter Duggan, (2015), 'Excuse Me' [ONLINE]. Available at: http://duggoons.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/09/Hirst-Who-Web-692x460.jpg [Accessed 06 January 16]. 12

Molly Fairhurst

Illustration Level 5 OUIL501 COP2 essay

described as character assassination, but is largely light hearted and not overly offensive. The way Duggan moulds these artists into simple caricatures may suggest something about the way they are viewed by the public. They’re largely played for their personalities, rather than their artworks- and when they are they’re reduced to their most basic notions, i.e. Kusama babbling endlessly about nothing but spots. It is necessary that Duggan plays on their most recognisable traits for an audience that does not necessarily have a specialist education in art- the point being that artists such as Hirst and Emin are seen as characters and personalities first before they are seen as artists. A google image search of both of these brings up a page mostly filled with their portraits before their art work, despite them being visual practitioners. Artists like Hirst and Emin become personas to be played in the media, in comics like this, in tabloids, and the public may begin to think of them less as artists and more as celebrities. The artwork begins to become more about the artist than the work itself. Viewers going to an exhibition by Hirst or Emin or another artist may already be preoccupied by what they know, think or heard about the artist beforehand to judge the art in an unbiased way. As viewers of art begin to correlate the artwork with the artist, and importantly their wealth, it becomes an arduous feat to think about. “The fetishistic idea of the artwork as property that can be possessed and destroyed by reflection has its exact correlative in the idea of exploitable property within the psychological economy of the self… yet precisely because they are sacred they were not objects of enjoyment”14.(Adorno, 1997, p.16) Roland Barthes described a similar idea in writing. “The image of literature to be found in ordinary culture is tyrannically centred on the author, his person, his life, his tastes… the explanation of a work is always sought in the man or woman who produced it” and goes on to describe the process of “The removal of the author”15 (1968, p.143), championing the dismissal of a creator’s identity from their work. It is the viewer’s choice to decide whether they should judge a piece of artwork with or without its creator in mind, but many may be unaware of this mode of thinking, judging by the reaction to work outlined earlier. Back to the idea of Banksy being an artist ‘of the people’, it could be wondered how his own persona is constructed and how that could aid his popularity. The largest and most obvious part of his persona to point to is his anonymity- in contrast to the flashiness of the YBAs and other rich modern artists it may present him as humble and modest, traits generally understood as more relatable and less offensive than hedonism and excess. Still, Banksy does not escape the need for people to attach a persona to his artwork, with many articles online and otherwise claiming to have sourced his identity. If Banksy’s identity was revealed would that change how people perceive him? 14 15

Adorno, T (1997) ‘Aesthetic Theory’, 2 edition, Continuum, London Barthes, R. (1968) ‘The Death of the Author’, London, Fontana

Molly Fairhurst

Illustration Level 5 OUIL501 COP2 essay

If the public, the attendees of Britain’s gallery and museum spaces, did not agree or enjoy an artist or their creations then who decides that they get such coverage and display? In his essay, All the Art That’s Fit To Show, Hans Haacke explains. “Products which are considered ‘works of art’ have been singled out as culturally significant objects by those who, at any given time and social stratum, wield the power to confer the predicate ‘works of art’ onto them; they cannot elevate themselves from the host of man-made objects simply on the basis of some inherent qualities… museums and art institutions belong to that group of agents… a museum is a carrier of socio-political connotations… the question of private or public funding of the institutions does not affect this axiom”16 (2006, p.53) Museums and galleries are at the top of the hierarchy, they choose what to display, and, in a cycle, they choose who gets be a part of their agency. Haacke goes on to describe artists, their supporters and ‘enemies’ as “unwitting partners in the art syndrome”, working within the “frame”17 (2006, p.55) that galleries provide. In its simplest terms it makes sense- traditionally, the only way that art can become known, or advertised to the public and critics, is through galleries displaying them.

Tate Modern Interior18 But it could be discussed that it’s not (only) the art that is off-putting to the public, but the spaces that they are displayed in themselves. Most galleries follow a similar structure, minimally furnished large white spaces housing pieces of artwork with much space in between. “The ideal gallery substracts from the artwork all cues that 16

Welchman, J.C. (2006) ‘Institutional Critique and After’, 1 edition, JRP Ringier, Zurich “ 18 Tate Modern, 'Tate Modern Interior' [ONLINE]. Available at:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Tate_modern_london_2001_03.jpg [Accessed 06 January 16] 17

Molly Fairhurst

Illustration Level 5 OUIL501 COP2 essay

interfere with the fact that it is ‘art’. The work is isolated from everything that would detract from its own evaluation of itself”19 (O’Doherty, 1976, p.14). It makes sense, a neutrality that tries not to add any unnecessary context to the work, but in its emptiness it may feel the viewer feeling exposed, almost vulnerable. Dressed as, or even being, your everyday self in an environment so untarnished and clean may leave someone feeling a little out of place. Viewing photographs of the interior of The Tate Modern, or the MoMA, or more, there is a recurrence of high ceilings, bare spaces, pristine white walls and wooden floors. Figures wander through these anonymous spaces, dwarfed by these walls. O’Doherty writes about this phenomenon, saying that galleries are constructed so that “the space offers the thought that while eyes and minds are welcome, spaceoccupying bodies are not- or are tolerated as kinaesthetic mannequins for further study”20 (1976, p.15). And whilst it may try not to add context to the work, this clinical atmosphere of intimidation adds the context of fear to a work. It’s disorientating, causing the viewer to feel uneasy about their decisions- “in this context a standing ashtray becomes almost a sacred object, just as the firehose in a modern museum looks not like a firehose but an aesthetic conundrum”21 (1976, p.15). All in all, if thought about this way it doesn’t make a gallery visit sound like a particularly enjoyable trip. But should a viewer expect to be entertained by art? Art spends a lot of time trying to say something, trying to change things, a tie with and against politics- and with this it would be impossible to be visually or thematically inviting all of the time. Aggressive subjects demand aggressive responses. Adorno deliberates on this conflict: “What popular consciousness and a complaisant aesthetics regard as the taking pleasure in art, modelled on real enjoyment, probably does not exist… whoever concretely enjoys artwork is a philistine… yet if the last traces of pleasure were extirpated, the question of what artworks stood for would be an embarrassment. Actually the more they are understood, the less they are enjoyed.”22 (1997, p.15) There needs to be some pleasure derived from an artwork to keep a viewer engaged, but it mustn’t or does not necessarily need to be the point of it. He continues, “the traditional attitude to the artwork… was that of admiration that the works exist as they do in themselves and not for the sake of the observer”23 (1997, p.15), a backhanded suggestion that the modern viewer is too self-centric. With anything, it’s easy to suggest that there should be a balance in place between all parties- there may well be a hierarchy between gallery, artist and viewer, but without one can another survive? As discussed before, artists like Hirst and Emin 19

O’Doherty, B (1976) ‘Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space’, 1 edition, University of California Press, Los Angeles 20 st O’Doherty, B (1976) ‘Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space’, 1 edition, University of California Press, Los Angeles 21 “ nd 22 Adorno, T (1997) ‘Aesthetic Theory’, 2 edition, Continuum, London 23 “

Molly Fairhurst

Illustration Level 5 OUIL501 COP2 essay

seem to be doing well, financially and in distribution in spite of media and public distaste, but the impact of the ‘love to hate’ mindset cannot be discounted. It’s not unlikely that a lot of people view work to confirm their bias, particularly those working for the media. And of course, not every viewer is expected to be against them either. From this essay one may conclude that there are many factors succeeding in standing in the way of the public gaining access to the realm of fine art, be it the art, the artists, the curators or even themselves. Each feeds into one another, ultimately garnered by the galleries. Questions arise such as if galleries made small changes to their structures, how art is chosen, how it is displayed, could that create a significant difference of mindset in the population? If artists worked in spite of the galleries, would they be able to still get their work and message out, and if they did would anyone listen? Should art be tailored for a public that won’t listen? At times it could be said that they cannot listen, for post-modernist attitudes are at odds with the public.

Molly Fairhurst

Illustration Level 5 OUIL501 COP2 essay

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• • • • • • •

Adorno, T (1991) ‘The Culture Industry’, 16th ed, Routledge, New York Adorno, T (1997) ‘Aesthetic Theory’, 2nd ed, Continuum, London Barthes, R. (1968) ‘The Death of the Author’, London, Fontana O'Doherty, B (1976) ‘Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space’, 1st edition, University of California Press, Los Angeles O'Neill, P (2012) ‘The Culture of Curating and The Curating of Culture(s)’, 1st edition, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Massachusetts Welchman, J.C. (2006) ‘Institutional Critique And After’, 1st ed, JRP Ringier, Zurichr Berger, J. (1972) 'Ways of Seeing', Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Online Resources: •

•

Ben Riley Smith. 2013. ‘Damien Hirst Retrospective: Critics vs Public’. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/10270332/Damien-Hirstretrospective-critics-vs-public.html. [Accessed 28 December 15]

•

The Sun. 2014. ‘16 Reasons We Love Street Artist Banksy’. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/6018111/reasons-we-lovebanksy.html. [Accessed 28 December 15].