Jack Vettriano may sound like a Sicilian mobster but, in fact, he is this country’s most popular and successful artist.
Born in Scotland, he started out his working life as a mining engineer before a girlfriend bought him a set of watercolour paints for twenty-first birthday. He taught himself to paint and embarked upon a career as an artist. Today, reproductions and prints of his work massively outsell those of Monet and Van Goch and originals hang in the collections of the wealthy and famous (making Vettriano pretty wealthy and famous himself).
Only the Deepest Red
Vettriano’s deeply evokative work is rich in art deco erotica noir: elegant, sexy and (in this day and age) subversive. While many artists use a canvas to tell a story, Vettriano uses his to write a seductive novel full of unambigiously masculine and feminine characters. In short, Jack Vettriano is a Capitalist Hero. He has used his gifts to make art which enchants, engages and enriches people’s lives to his (and their) benefit.
And it is for those very reason that, in certain circles, he is so loathed:
Prints of his paintings outsell those of master impressionist Claude Monet, making Jack Vettriano a very rich man. But he is still stung by the disdain with which the art establishment treats him.
“I would be lying if I said that some of the things they have said over the years haven’t bothered me. They have,” he told Reuters. “They have a fairly arrogant stance.”
“There is jealousy, envy, the fact that they had nothing to do with training me, and the fact that I am popular. All of these things fuel their attitude,” the self-taught former Scottish coalminer said in an interview in his London studio.
The reason he is so good is most assuredly because these people had no part in his training. Nor should Mr. Vettriano take their naked contempt as anything other than the finest compliment. It is, per se an affirmation of his quality.
What he refers to as the ‘art establishment’ in this country is actually a tax-funded clique of ‘gatekeepers’ whose power rests on their self-defined status as members of an aesthetic order that is way above and beyond the ‘crass populism’ of genuine creative endeavour. This avant-garde elite live by their grip on state purse-strings and if you can find significance and ‘art’ in a jarful of pickled dogturds, so much stronger is your claim to membership of this ‘Priesthood of Understanding’.
It is in their interests to perpetuate the myth that without government funding there will be no art or culture. The success of Jack Vettriano is a standing refutation of that myth. Small wonder that they despise him.
So Jack Vettriano paintings will continue to change hands for huge sums of money while the scions of the Royal Academy refuse to touch his work with a bargepole. Good. I like it that way. And so should Mr. Vettriano.
However, for fans (and for those who have yet to discover him) the Portland Gallery in London is mounting an exhibition of Jack Vettriano’s work starting on June 19th Next.
I will be there (along with thousands of others).
I had never heard of Mr Vettriano until I read this story a few days ago. I admit, when I saw the headline about “the miner who outsells Monet” I was bracing myself for a piece about a yet another “cutting-edge” artist praised for unidentifiable smears. So I was pleasantly surprised to Google his name and be treated to some of the finest paintings I’ve seen out of a living artist. I, for one, will probably be shopping for some Vettriano prints in the not-to-distant future.
I have to say before now I had not heard his name either, but I’m very impressed with his prints. Yes a painter of the common folk is about right but a true capitalist as well. I’ll be doing the same as Scott the next time I’m out.
I have to say by just looking I’m stunned by the beauty of the works, something I hardly see in the art galleries here in Canada.
Simply lovely. This is where my walls finally get to meet art.
Definitely on my wish list. I wonder how much shipping to the US costs?
Well said David. BTW, Brian Mickelthwait has also written in a similar vein. I trust and hope that JW refuses, as a point of principle, ever to exhibit his art in a state-funded gallery, hence telling our art “establishment” to take their Jackson Pollocks and shove them where the sun doesn’t shine.
Fancy meeting up and going to the Portland, David?
It’s not just tax funding. It’s perverse incentives in the art industry. Modern art can be cranked out an order of magnitude faster than proper paintings, but the prices are about the same. Modern art, it’s the names that sell. Get a good brand (that bloke who did the pickled cows) and he could spit ribena on a canvas and sell it for a megabuck. Total cycle time, thirty seconds and on to the next “work”.
This money press will run until modern art crashes and burns like the hollow fad it is. Nobody wants the party to end, hence the hostility toward dissenters.
David,
Having just come off the thread of “We are the masters now” it’s a real pleasure to read your post here. I, too, knew nothing of the man and googled for some images. What a breath of fresh air. His genius is very evidently in his warmth and humanity – which, thank heavens, does not present itself for our re-education. I wonder, though, to what extent his politics actually align with the right. Not much, I suspect. He has a powerful feeling for the beating heart of something undifferentiated and simple, essentially the ordinariness of the people. Even his painting of a swanky couple dancing in evening wear on a stormy, deserted beach contrives to make that point. One could very readily spend time in the company of this sort of work. Thank you for introducing it to me.
I love Jack Vettriano, but all one ever hears about him in the media is the incessant bleating of Brain Sewer (a.k.a. Brain Sewell) bemoaning Vettriano’s popularity and the lumpen tastes of the lumpen proletariat. Incidentally, Sewell was perhaps Anthony Blunt’s biggest supporter after Blunt was ‘outed’ by Thatch.
Vettriano has long been a favorite. The first time I saw his paintings, I remember suddenly wanting to stand up straight – it’s impossible to be sloppy around pictures exalting the grace of the central figures.
It’s also no wonder that he combines excellent technique with romanticism – he admits that he learnt to paint by taking his oils to a gallery and copying old masters.
David, Jonathan,
Yes, count me in. You coming, Brian?
Alan, there’s a full range of international shipping rates here. This man understands capitalism.
Another “me too” comment from me. I hadn’t heard of this guy before but after checking some of the links I will most certainly be going to the Portland show. What an extraordinary idea – an artist who celebrates beauty and whose work can be readily understood without a long, convoluted and often fraudulent commentary.
Art?! That’s not art!
Now Entrails Carpet, that’s art!
I’ve got no particular objection to his paintings, but they’re the equivalent of classic FM; safe, conservative, & nothing you’ve not seen before.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but some of us seek innovation & excitement; some expression of *now*, in all it’s glory or fucked-up ness, rather than a sepia-tinged past from our art. He doesn’t provide much of that.
Each unto their own. Can you people not appreciate that some of us get *far* more from modern, abstract art than figurative pieces like this? Similarly, although I appreciate the works of Bach etc., I usually listen to modern electronic music. And no, it doesn’t make me shallow or thrill-seeking. I couldn’t care less whether anyone else is shocked or not by the things I like. I just don’t feel it’s my place to make negative assumptions about the character of those who like art I don’t. I may judge the art as shallow or unsatisfying, but I have the humility to know that I may not be seeing all there is to see in the work, & to know that from another’s point of view, it may take on whole other meanings. These are not necessarily based on deficiencies in that viewer’s personality or ideological makeup, and I would not presume to be able to summarise them in some facile political explanation.
I also find it interesting that most art “appreciation” round here principally takes the form of “hey! at least it’s not that modern rubbish”, which seems a strangely negative form of criticism for a bunch of optimistic can-do capitalists.
Who’s optimistic?
“they’re the equivalent of classic FM; safe, conservative, & nothing you’ve not seen before.”
These days, so’s Damien Hirst.
It’s an appealing thesis to those like myself who are alienated by the contemporary art scene that modern art is tat forced on an unwilling public by a priesthood of publicly funded curators, but it ain’t quite so. The pacesetter for taste in this area, Charles Saatchi, is a private collector who chooses to spend his own money on what he pleases – that many people share his taste is attested by the popularity of the Royal Academy (which is not publicly funded) Sensation exhibition. Admittedly that show’s 300,000 visitors are few compared with the RA’s Monet exhibition of 1999, nevertheless that is a substantial audience for “difficult” art. I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that the amount of public money spent on contemporary art is dwarfed by the sum lavished on it by private collectors, gallery owners and corporate buyers.
As for Vettriano, well I have admit it – I don’t get it. He strikes me as nothing more than Edward Hooper without the anxiety; does he really have anything to say to us? He might be popular but then so is Beryl Cook. Perhaps a graduate student could write a dissertation on him to explain it to me.
A_T, it would probably take too long on a comment thread to set out why I think Modern (capital M) Art sucks. Let us just say that I take Ayn Rand’s basic approach of art being the “selective recreation of reality”, which for me means that a lot of modern art, particularly on the abstract side, fails to reach the bar. Much modern art has become little more than an excuse for folk without a smidgen of talent to call themselves artists.
But like you say, A_T, each to their own. I don’t really care what people think of as art. Having to subsidize stuff I dislike through tax is my main complaint.
Oh, I know this guy! He’s the one that did the painting of the couple dancing on the beach, with the maid and butler struggling to hold umbrellas over them.
Don’t much care for it, myself. It’s the kind of art I could damningly describe as “competent”. Reminds me of 20th Century commercial illustration. (That, in case you don’t know it, is the ultimate pejorative in contemporary art – “illustration”). Nothing wrong with commercial illustration, of course, but once, the plains were black with roaming herds of artists who could paint that skilfully, applying their talents in aid of soap flakes and detective novels.
That a painter could become famous for that level of ability shows how close figurative painting is to extinction. On the commercial side, crowded out by photography. On the fine art side, bullied out by the modern art hegemon. A very great pity.
S.Weasel,
And not just bullied out by modern art. There are no Ingres or David’s painting today because the chain of transmission, of teaching rigorous technique, was broken long ago. Vittriani might have been a considerable artist, instead of a likeable one, had he been schooled under a great master of the human form.
Dude, have you seen the girl. She’s hot.
Art Renewal has alot of interesting articles many would find objectionable.
Fantastic! I did not know him but he’s great!
Quite true, Guessed. The whole traditional studio system began to come apart around the time of the Impressionists. I have a private theory that technology and science had undergone such stunning changes that art got the rats about it and felt it had to follow suit to get attention. The result has been a century of increasingly bizarre conceptual experiments – when, really, most (even very sophisticated) human beings would still rather pay to see representational paintings of lovely naked wimmins.
I do like his stuff, really I do. I just don’t love it. That is to say, I wouldn’t mind having it around for a while. There’s a lot to be said for art that’s just purely congenial. I hate being viciously assulted by wall decor with pretensions to ideology.
That said… I do love abstract art, particularly some of the works of Kandinsky, which appeal to my “engineer mind.” There’s something about just colors, curves, and straight lines pulled together and focused, something clean and true, elegane and “mathematically elegant.”. It’s exactly halfway between architecture and music. I’ve tried and failed many times to express this to my Randist-Romanticist fiance, who for ideological reasons prefers to dismiss my pure joy in abstracts as pure BS.
I do like his stuff, really I do. I just don’t love it. That is to say, I wouldn’t mind having it around for a while. There’s a lot to be said for art that’s just purely congenial. I hate being viciously assulted by wall decor with pretensions to ideology.
That said… I do love abstract art, particularly some of the works of Kandinsky, which appeal to my “engineer mind.” There’s something about just colors, curves, and straight lines pulled together and focused, something clean and true, elegant and “mathematically elegant.”. It’s exactly halfway between architecture and music. I’ve tried and failed many times to express this to my Randist-Romanticist fiance, who for ideological reasons prefers to dismiss my pure joy in abstracts as pure BS.
sorry for the double post
All considerations on aesthetical values put aside, here’s reminding the despicable Leftist elitism of the great majority of the “teachers” during my time at the Beaux-Arts some 15 years ago.
For instance, memories of a sculpture (Oh, sorry, you’d want to call that “volume”. Sculpture is so passé and academic…) permanent lecturer make me in no way surprised by the treatment Mr. Vettriano receives from the art establishment.
Try to picture a little bastard groomed as an overweighed body double of Lenin (both beard and haircut), constantly wearing a custom designed worker blue coverall (the custom part being its very fashionable Mao style), famous himself for piling up all kind of garbage and making a nice living with public markets, who kept repeating:
“Gentlemen, we don’t give a shit about technic. This is good enough for artisans.”
Patience always pay, and having secured my degree, I also recall the last opportunity I took before leaving that mount of Jupiter, to confront Mr. Blue-Mao-Hey-Workers-Are-So-Gross, and the funny albeit noisy argument that resulted. Ah, those were the days…
The best part anyway was his “I’ll make sure you’ll never work in that town again.”
This is anthology material.
“That a painter could become famous for that level of ability shows how close figurative painting is to extinction. On the commercial side, crowded out by photography. On the fine art side, bullied out by the modern art hegemon. A very great pity.”
This is true actually, & although I love abstraction, I do agree with you that figurative painting should have more of a place in the modern art world. I was struck on a recent visit to the Tate Modern by a series of paintings by a French painter (i forget his name), portraying dock workers striking in protest at French action in Algeria; refusing to load ships & being attacked by police dogs. Whatever one’s personal feelings on the politics, these were powerful paintings which were very much of their time, by virtue of subject matter alone (the technique was perhaps slightly modern, but would probably please all but the most fusty of traditionalists; people had arms, legs, features in all the right places etc.).
It was nice to see a) a relatively accurate depiction of people and things, and b) some politics beyond vapid self-absorbed statements about personal “freedom of expression”, which is most of what we in the UK seem to have had from our most feted artists of late.
I didnt know him, so this will be a fast critic prone to error!
Seems to be a nice decorativist. I noted he didnt seek face emotions in persons, didnt found any close ups.
With 50’s themes and that XX century period typically considered a “no frills” time, makes me think his paint appeals to an escapist mood reinforced by using a cinema/fashion iconography. So this completes the full circle: cinema and photography influence painting.
Didnt started anything revolutionay yet but could be the “begining of a nice friendship”.
A nice IceTea but not a Porto.
S.Weasel,
Yes, I too have tried to describe to myself the process by which so much wonderful human acbievement fell by the wayside at the end of the 19th century, to be superceded by midget psychology and midget technical prowess combined. Painting, sculpture, serious music and architecture all transmogrified into alarmingly radical, modern forms – music the less so, of course. That at least had the Russians and Jean Sibelius. But then music was performance, and the maintenance of standards of musicianship disallowed composition to slip away totally into self-absorbed amateurism. No doubt the need for an audience to make it all financially rewarding had something to do with it, too!
Of the others it’s a mystery that has never been properly explained. It’s as though a terrible sickness got into the soul of western man and made him lose faith in himself. Was it socialism or the hanghover from the 1890’s? Does one fast forward a few years and blame the catastrophe of world war? I don’t know.
But the new radicalism was a mighty backward step. We should have the courage to say so. We are not what our forefathers were.
Kai,
Dead right about Art Renewal. I’ve been plugging that wonderful site at Sammie for some time but you are the first person that I’ve seen mention it.
The Spanish philosopher Ortegy y Gasset said it all about modern art elitists in his nineteen thirties book The Revolt of the Masses. His commentary is very pertinent to the state of the arts today.
The Spanish philosopher, Ortega y Gasset, said it all about modern art elitists in his nineteen thirties book The Revolt of the Masses. His commentary is very pertinent to the state of the arts today.
Guessedworker,
There are no Ingres or David’s painting today because the chain of transmission, of teaching rigorous technique, was broken long ago. Vittriani might have been a considerable artist, instead of a likeable one, had he been schooled under a great master of the human form.
Exactly the same complaint was made to me some time ago by my friend Dr. Chris Tame who heads up the Libertarian Alliance and also introduced me to Vettriano. I don’t know if he knows about ‘Art Renewal’ but I will mail the link to him in any event.
Thanks for bringing Mr. Vettriano’s works to my attention. I confess I’d never heard of him, but I also googled him to see what I’d been missing.
If only more young artists could be persuaded to dismiss the opinions of the elite (and skip going to fuddy-duddy art schools), we’d see an explosion of talent no doubt. I went to university to study art — and ended up abandoning it for thirty years.
If only more young artists could be persuaded to dismiss the opinions of the elite (and skip going to fuddy-duddy art schools), we’d see an explosion of talent no doubt.
Not if they can’t make a living at it. The only people I know who’ve made a successful go of fine art (either with or against the tide) have been bankrolled by somebody else for a long, long time before they managed to build up a following.
Speedwell,
I too like Kandinsky, and figurative art too.
A_t
“but some of us seek innovation & excitement; some expression of *now*, in all it’s glory or fucked-up ness….”
In my opinion, art is about beauty. A piece of art must be beautiful. “innovation & excitement” is ok, provided it is pleasing to the eye.
As to “fucked-up ness….” – no, no, thanks.
The trouble is that modern art is almost exclusively ugly, just plain ugly, whatever “expression of *now*” it may or may not contain. We have enough ugliness in the real world, we need no more of it in the idealized, make believe world of art.
If you enjoy the twisted junk that is Modern Art – it’s your privilege, and I wouldn’t dream of denying it to you, but somehow I can’t bring myself to believe that people really like this junk.
Hear, hear, Jacob. This is the same reason that I won’t watch ‘slasher’ movies, especially the so-called comedy ones where a bunch of teenagers get hacked to pieces. In real life, the body count of the average teen slasher movie would mean a dozen families wrecked almost beyond hope of repair, with levels of grief that don’t bear contemplation. Attractive teenage girls really do get butchered by psychopaths, and every time I see something like a Friday the Thirteenth I think, “I wonder how the parents will cope”. There’s so much brutality and horror in the world that trying to shock the booboisie with ‘avant garde’ material just trivialises it. The so-called avant garde isn’t a modernist movement any more – it hearkens to late 19th C. ideas of radicalism and progressivism. In that respect, it shares much with the retrograde nature of Socialism, so it isn’t too hard to see why so many of its disciples have also been ardent Leftists.
” We have enough ugliness in the real world, we need no more of it in the idealized, make believe world of art.”
…so you feel art should be a refuge, which only portrays good things? Weirdly narrow interpretation of art, which has *never* applied through history, as far as I’m aware.
Some of the most gruesome art i’ve ever seen was a series of paintings in a Spanish monastery, dating from the 16th Century i think, depicting the martyrdom of various monks in assorted bloody scenarios.
Presumably music should also be beautiful only; move over Nirvana, shove aside Rolling Stones, out of the way Robert Johnson and Miles Davis… here comes Norah Jones. Oh, & you can take the rite of spring & throw it in the ocean; far too troubled & dark. While you’re at it, Mozart’s requiem’s none too cheery either… hmmmm….
If you wish to be protected from the darker side of the human psyche, so be it… but I think you’d acknowledge that as well as some of the most radical innovations known to man, the 20th century also produced some of mankind’s darkest moments. Why should art, if looked at as more than just decoration to make people feel comfortable, but as a way of expressing one’s perceptions/interpretations of this confusing world, shy away from ugliness? It’s perfectly possible to achieve beauty, or a feeling of satisfaction, through such confrontation.
I agree with David though when it comes to slasher movies, & indeed much of Hollywood’s output generally; violence is treated far too casually; deaths, particularly of bystanders, skimmed over, & I’m not one for blaming the media, but you can’t help but wonder how this conditions teenagers (possibly no worse than viking epics etc. back in the day, admittedly!).
Makes mental note – If you get a Tardis for Christmas remember to stop off a Dissident Frogman’s graduation from Beaux-Arts
A_T, you are spot on about the fact that art does not have to be “feel good”. The important thing is that it should engage the emotions and mind in an important way, and do so with skill and grace. Goya’s paintings of the war in Spain, for example, were both alarming, dark, but also great art.
May I recommend “What Art Is” by Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi. It takes Ayn Rand’s conceptual theory of art as its starting point and makes the most convincing case I have come across for representational painting and sculpture I have ever come across. Rather densely argued and probably not exactly bedside reading, mind.
A _very_ quick look makes me think that Mr. Vettriano isn’t my cup of tea, mostly for reasons mentioned by others. But my taste is highly suspect since I like (as in seriously, not as a joke) Brandon Bird:
killing machine:
http://www.brandonbird.com/bea.html
the anguish:
http://www.brandonbird.com/anguish.html
If I had more money than I know what to do with I’d buy “Killing machine” and hang it proudly on my wall.
Still, I’m very happy that Mr. Vettriano is able to make a handsome living at painting, something very few painters can manage. He’s a very fine role model in that regard and I hope other young painters can learn a thing or two from his example.
As for abstract vs. representational I have to go with what my mother (a commercial artist) was fond of saying. (approximate paraphrase): abstract is fine, but it’s cheating if you don’t learn how to do representational art first. Picasso was an accomplished representational painter before he turned down the abstract road (and his representation roots showed, even in many of his most abstract pieces).
A_t,
“Why should art …… shy away from ugliness?”
Those Spanish monks (I didn’t see them) and those dark Goya paintings might not be very cheerful, but they are skilfully done, and convey strong emotions. I personally might prefer brighter paintings, but I can appreciate the art in them.
Not so most Modern Art. It is just junk, rubbish. No skill, no talent, no emotions, nothing to appreciate. Just a pile of ugly junk. It is aimed at shocking people by it’s bizarreness, by it’s not being anything, by it’s nihilism.
Should the dark 20th century be expressed in art ? By all means. But most of the junk found in museums does not express anything, it is a banal heap of crap.
If you’re a skilled artist you are just a “decorator” or an “illustrator”. If you are a skilled charlatan you become an Artist.
Art is a luxury, something we can live without. We seek art for the joy it brings us. If there is no joy, just revulsion and nausea, then we’re beter off without it.
Re the connection (and competition) between these paintings and photography, Vettriano was the subject of Melvin Bragg’s most recent South Bank Show. In this programme, Vettriano made it explicit that what he does is set up his preferred scene with real life models, he photographs that, and then he hand paints the photo, so to speak.
Barry Humphries (better known as Edna Everidge) created a very Australian cartoon character some while ago called Barry McKenzie, who used to refer to the art of painting as doing “hand done photos”. I love that. And that’s Vettriano! Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Like A_t, I am bemused that
I am further bemused that David Carr is perpetuating a conspiracy theory, to whit:
To be sure, Johnathan Pearce is right when he complains that we should not be forced to subsidise art through tax. But the assertion that modern art is the product of a conspiracy between the government and some “clique of gatekeepers” is a bizarre assertion for a Samizdatista to uphold. And Harry Powell is almost certainly right when he suggests “that the amount of public money spent on contemporary art is dwarfed by the sum lavished on it by private collectors, gallery owners and corporate buyers”.
Leaving aside conspiracy theories, Jacob is put-off by the excessive ugliness of modern art and S. Weasel complains that modern art is the result of “a century of increasingly bizarre conceptual experiments”. I politely suggest to these esteemed critics that they study their art history. You will find critics of any era laying the same complaints. Most art is, and always has been, mundane and/or ugly. If we think of art as being a search for new knowledge, then this is not surprising. And it is similarly not surprising that experimentation must be a fundamental component of art. Without experimentation, art dies. So don’t let the fact that you have to wade through a lot of crap to get to the good stuff put you off. It was always thus. And it must be so.
Jack’s work reminds me of the Pears Soap romantic prints of the 1930s that my father used to frame and hang in our parlour. There was another famous magazine illustrator of the 40s and 50s who painted in a similar style, I think his name was David Wilson but I may be wrong about that. Very nostalgic, anyway. Obviously the age of chivalry and romance is not quite dead, despite much evidence to the contrary. But I suppose Tracy Emin’s mangy pit complete with used johnnies and STs could be a turn on for today’s youth, as it is probably that sort of backdrop for the first sexual encounters for many. Ugh!
Bring back Victor Sylvester and ‘Roses of Picardy.’
I don’t see how it’s particularly polite to assert that you are arguing with people who don’t know their art history. Particularly when you follow it with a load of 1970-something groovy shag carpet rubbish about art being a search for new knowledge that has to move continuously so that oxygenated water flows over its gills…or whatever.
Whenever I’m confronted with the “no, really, people have always hated new art,” I always close my eyes and imagine an enraged Michelangelo kicking beatnik ass. Then I feel all warm inside.
Brian S,
I have not even suggested anything as remotely tangible as a ‘conspiracy theory’ concerning the art world. People who read ‘conspiracy theorism’ into every analysis are every bit as tiresome as conspiracy theorists themselves.
What I was talking about was the imposition of hegemonic values and they are far more about recognition (and our broader cultural metiere) than money.
I realise that people like Charles Saatchi are funding far more crap than the Arts Council ever could or will and, as I point out in the post, the contempt of the art establishment has not stopped Jack Vettriano from making a lot of money.
S. Weasel:
If you don’t think that the search for new knowledge is a fundamental to art, then what do you think is?
My argument is not that “no, really, people have always hated new art”; rather it is that most art in any era is indeed crap. We remember the rare good stuff because it is good, but the bad stuff is quickly forgotten. Because we are not aware of the bad stuff from earlier generations and because we are only too aware of the bad stuff in our own generation, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that all new art sucks.
“If you don’t think that the search for new knowledge is a fundamental to art, then what do you think is? ”
What is fundamental to art is the search for esthetic values. (I don’t know how to define that exactely). As to “knowledge” – it seems to me art is about emotions, and that’s different from “knowledge”.
As to “new” – it hasn’t to be new. New is ok, if it’s good, if not, “new” doesn’t justify bad work.
“rather it is that most art in any era is indeed crap. ”
Correct. But it seems that in our age crap has become fashionable, and is encouraged and idolized, and maybe therefore we get more that our share of it.
While, generally speaking, I’m a firm believer in Sturgeon’s Law*, it applies less to classical art than most disciplines. Working your way through the guild system was extraordinarily difficult. A boy entered a master’s workshop at around 14 on average, and, on average, at 35 created his masterpiece. “Masterpiece” being that piece of work which proves to the world you are a master, a fully qualified professional grownup person, fit to start your own studio. Candidates without talent never got past grinding paint and gessoing panels. If any proportion of, say, Renaissance art was crap, it was only by comparison.
As for the purpose of art – oh dear me! Before the mid-19th Century there was no other way of preserving visual information. That’s an idea so giant and scary, and yet so easy for us spoiled photography-era modern types to forget, that it bears repeating: paintings, drawings and sculptings executed by human beings were absolutely the only way to record what anything looked like. This made the visual arts extraordinarily important and powerful, and both the accuracy and personal style of the artist counted. Between the Renaissance (before which artists were regarded as jumped-up craftsmen, like brick layers with attitude) and the 1840-something, a good draughtsman was a god and a rock star wrapped into one.
So, what is the purpose of art now?
Yes. Quite.
*Sturgeon’s Law: 90% of everything is shit.
Jacob, why not just be honest… Unless I’m very much mistaken, what you’re really saying is:
“I don’t like modern art.”
All the other stuff (& most of the stuff in this thread) is just trying to shape some rational system which will contain this preference, hence “justifying” it in the view of the world.
for my part, my own version is:
“I like some of it.”
If you don’t, I have little interest in trying to convince you that it’s worthwhile; you’re unlikely to be swayed, & life’s too short.
& that’s about it, no?
Any attempt to pin down “what art should be”, as many have tried in these comments, or provide some facile explanation based on craftsmanship, particular ways of depicting reality, formal training & skill or lack thereof, choice of subject matter, “new”ness etc. will end in failure, imho, as no single definition is suitably broad to encompass all that art can mean to those who make it & those who view it.
“”I don’t like modern art.””
Make it: I don’t like Modern Art. I like a lot of art, which, being contemporaneous, is modern.
“Any attempt to pin down “what art should be” …will end in failure”
Correct.
It’s easier to pin down what art should NOT be: those pieces of junk that are so common in museums.
A question: do you like everything you encounter nowadays in museums ?
“A question: do you like everything you encounter nowadays in museums?”
nope! And the same would probably have applied 100, 200 or 400 years ago. Furthermore, back then I might have gone to a gallery for all sorts of reasons; to get an idea of what various things looked like: kings, princes, exotic beasts. I don’t need to do this any more; I have a box in my house which will show me accurate pictures of all sorts of wonders & horrors… so I look to art galleries for other things.
I’m curious… do you like everything you see in say, the National Gallery? Personally, I’m usually bored by a lot of the stuff; yes it’s well crafted, but it doesn’t do anything for me; make me feel or think much. Plus lots of the paintings’ impact is based on a presumption that you’ll be familiar with various biblical/mythological references, which people, myself included, don’t know much about any more.
So yeah, put me in any average gallery, chances are I’ll find a few things to prick my interest, & most stuff i’ll find unengaging.
“It’s easier to pin down what art should NOT be: those pieces of junk that are so common in museums.”
Ok… what pieces of junk in particular? Could you name some names? More importantly, is there any modern (ie non-traditional painting/sculpture) art you do like? If not, that’s your loss, not mine. You may wish art had entered stasis about 100 years ago, but it didn’t and won’t.
Furthermore, art’s not confined to museums anyway… I’m assuming you’re probably of the “graffiti isn’t art” (& for the most part, you’re correct) school of thinking, so that’s another pleasure you miss out on… and so on & so on. Advertisements for instance… what are they but small commercially-motivated works of art (some of them miniature masterpieces, i should add, which possibly express social trends far better than most of the overhyped art stars of today).
Oh, btw, if you want an example of someone who I think is good, Andreas Gursky springs to mind (possibly a tad predictable as a choice, but I’ve been very impressed by his work). And yes, I can take pleasure in all sorts of abstractions, some of which may only have taken the artist 10 minutes to complete, unreconstructed degenerate that I am.
S.Weasel,
I’m sorry but you just screwed up completely. 90% of your comment was NOT crap. It was something I only wish I had said myself.
A_t,
As a young man I whiled away my commercial life writing ads. My co-conspirators in ripping off the clients – some rather gauche graphic designers who had slightly less naff ideas than me but were tragically unable to articulate them – would have been only too delighted to hear you call them artistes. You do them an honour of Adornian proportions (which means no honour at all, but never mind).
In one sense, though, you are right about the masterlyness of advertising. It listens to the interests and excitements of its public (different to their social trends, btw). It checks continually whether the public is listening back. If not, it adjusts pdq. It doesn’t seek to lead or, God forbid, engender an examination of attitudes.
S.Weasel and I have tried to explain why representative art was important but ceased to be so, indeed ceased to be even possible around the end of the 19th century. It has disappeatred into the past forever and cannot be reconnected with contemporary artists. They do not know what to do and have no means to find out. They – and we – are impoverished thereby.
But there is a greater impoverishment that they – and we – suffer. We are lesser men than the men of the past. We do not have the seriousness that they did. We do not live seriously at all. We are no longer men and women of resolve or of consequentiality. We are damaged by all those individual and societal wounds of recent arising that I know you understand fully and so I will not detail again here.
What does that mean for the production of art? It means that an artist of average emotional maturity today stands before his subject armed with less inner capacitities as well as less technical capability. The result is that certain subjects, including the most important and worthwhile, must be ignored completely. The most important and worthwhile is the subtle, unflashy and faithful depiction of the human form in which an unique human spirit is made manifest.
But you like Herr Gursky.
Jacob,
You’re a cool critic.
Today’s Glasgow Herald has a letter from another Scottish artist, Peter Howson, in which he explains why the arts establishment dislikes Vettriano.
Meanwhile, over in the print version of The Scotsman (no link available to this item), I have been reading Part 44 of 44 Scotland Street, a daily novel by Alexander McCall Smith.
Pat, who works for an art dealer is on her first date with Chris, a policeman who has been on the “Art Squad” training course.
Chris says, “We used Kenneth Clark’s Civilisation as our text book, but there were quite a few lectures on Scottish art. MacTaggart, Crosbie, Blackadder, Howson. All those people. And a whole hour on Vettriano. That was the most popular session on the course.”
“Vettriano?” asked Pat. “A whole hour?”
Modernists thought they could ignore human nature and wipe the slate clean. Their political counterparts for the most part have given up the ghost. Is the art establishment a lagging indicator?
Guessedworker, I agree with much of what you have to say. I think you’re bang on about the shallowness of much of our current thinking & culture.
In fact, I can’t find anything to disagree with until
“But you like Herr Gursky.”
… I’m puzzled; are you implying that because I like him, I’m unable to relate to “the subtle, unflashy and faithful depiction of the human form in which an unique human spirit is made manifest.”? If so, you’re mistaken. I see no contradiction in appreciating both the warm and the cold. If that wasn’t the intended implication of your comment, apologies for the misunderstanding… but what did you really mean?
Gnotalex on Dodgeblogium has made a timely post.
A_t,
“Ok… what pieces of junk in particular? Could you name some names? ”
Sorry, I can’t name names of junk producers as I only take pains to remember the names of artists I like. I also try to avoid Modern Art museums; my aquaintance with that comes from the days when I was younger and more innocent.
But why not try and seek the winners of the Turner prize ? They where mentioned even on this blog. Speaking of prizes, just look up any prize winner.
This trend towards ugliness and nihilism is evident not only in the visual arts, it is also in literature, architecture, music, theater.
But I hope the trend is reversing, maybe the worst of it has peaked in the 60-70ies. maybe the popularity of Vettriano is a good omen.
holy crap! it doesn’t stop!
For once & for all, to all you people saying “modernism isn’t art, it’s against human nature” etc. etc…. how do you explain it’s popularity? How do you explain the fact that many people like it, buy paintings/posters, go to exhibitions? Is your take on it that they’re all just being pretentious? Unlike politics, it’s not really possible to *impose* art on the masses, unless you have a highly totalitarian state, so if this art really was that unpopular, you’d think the tate modern would be deserted; the wind whistling through it’s vast spaces. Last time I went, this was not the case.
I’m curious too… are you “it’s not art” brigade in the same camp as the “rap isn’t music” lot?
(ok… guessedworker, I suppose you can tell me that we’re all compromised & shallow, which is why mockeries of art can be popular… can’t fault your thinking, but I don’t really think, on reflection, that today’s people are any more shallow than those of any past times; people have always been fickle and stupid, just as they have always had good qualities too.)
Oh, god, Simon, that is hysterical. I’m killing myself over here…
And to think this treasure has been right in my back yard…
Jacob, the popularity of Vettriano is nothing new. I’d wager people’s homes have been full of similar comforting, backwards looking paintings for most of the 20th century. People like that which is familiar, that which is safe, that which provides an illusion of stability, of fixed values in our current world where so little is certain. All this is understandable, but I honestly don’t think it heralds a revolution in the art world.
As for your own considered view of modern art, you went to a few museums a while ago, decided you didn’t like what you saw, & didn’t go again…. ah, that’s a whole artistic movement invalidated then. Stop all production! Jacob doesn’t like your art. And he knows some other people who don’t too. Wow… I can see the Guggenheim closing down in a few years’ time if you keep it up.
But seriously, what’s with this
“don’t like… it must be wrong… hope it’ll die” thing?
There’s plenty art I don’t care for, but I don’t go around making up theories about why it’s degenerate and dying. If it works for someone else, I’m happy to have my little snobbish judgement (“pshah… sentimental rubbish” in this case) & leave it at that.
A_t,
“I’m curious… do you like everything you see in say, the National Gallery? Personally, I’m usually bored by a lot of the stuff”
Me too. I’m bored by a lot of stuff. Not really bored, but somewhat indifferent.
But when I see Modern Junk, I’m not bored. I feel revulsion and nausea and rage. I feel sorry that I wasted my time and came. I turn around and walk away, and vow never to come again.
“Advertisements for instance… what are they but small commercially-motivated works of art (some of them miniature masterpieces….”
Yeah ! Those illustrators ! Those decorators! A_t, you’re out of tune with the Art establishment.
“Yeah ! Those illustrators ! Those decorators! A_t, you’re out of tune with the Art establishment.”
is that a complement? Dunno, but you’re right, I am… and I think much of the art ‘establishment’ is devoted to protecting the privilege of a few pretentious fools who went to art school & think that alone makes them artists (believe me, i’ve met many in my time).
This still doesn’t mean I can write off all modern art as phoney or rubbish. Like modern music, you have to sift thru’ more rubbish, ‘cos history hasn’t yet done the sifting, but I find the nuggets I extract very rewarding.
I am quite enjoying your revulsion at “Modern Junk” tho’, wrong-headed though I think it is… I would quite enjoy visiting a gallery with you, just to hear you vent your spleen 🙂
A_t,
I once saw some exhibit at some museum, I don’t remember which. It was a whole room filled with garbage, and the walls smeared with some filth. I asked a guard why they don’t clean up that room. She looked at me, shocked, and and almost screamed: “Sir!, The Artist done that!” I wanted to add “You sure? So what?”, but I didn’t.
🙂 excellent! more outrage, more! What about the guy with the white canvas he called art?
A_t,
I can’t make up my mind whether to admire you for your stance or consider you a particularly cunning troll!
You asked me a fair question: what do I mean? Well, I suppose at bottom I mean that we have an interest in getting our artists to perform as we would wish. Currently, they wear the mantle of creativity with contempt for us. Ask what some non-descript piece of welded-up apparatus means and you know you’ll get back.
The only even half-promising way to get “artists” to set foot upon the long road towards technical rigour is, in fact, to treat them like advertisers. Stop patronising them. Stop telling them they are doing anything remotely worthwhile. Tell them the truth. They are cack-handed failures. They must reform to be worthy of our patronage.
I’m sorry, btw, if I occasionally conflate you with the shallowness of you-know-what. No offence intended, corrections in train!
look, I personally don’t want this thread to go to fire and sulfur in a small wicker purse here… as it will if it degenerates into a bunch of name-calling and shouts of “representationalism is tedious!” and “modern art is filth!”.
Now, Vettriano’s work just doesn’t get me where I live, know what I mean. Doesn’t grab me. But I can’t say I dislike it. If it was music, I’d catch myself humming it.
But then modern art, some modern art, the kind that is true and innocent and pure, the kind that just tries to capture visually things we don’t otherwise encounter visually… when done well there is a virtuosity in it that is in and of itself a celebration of genius.
But I’m strange that way. I go into the R&D lab where I work and look at the new test parts, and I go out and look at the rig, and I go downtown and look at office buildings, and I know in my heart that engineers and architects are sculptors, and their work is great.
dammit you people are making me cry at work. go look at something beautiful, whatever you think is beautiful, and shut up.
A_t,
I looked up Andreas Gursky in Google. I like some of his photographs quite well. This is not the junk art I had in mind. Maybe he is part of the new trend I talked about which leaves the “junk” Modern Art behind (Post Modern ?). His photos are realistic and colorful and interesting, and far from being the nihilist ugliness I was refering to. Maybe it’s time for me to overcome my nightmares and give the museums another try.
And, Guessed, I don’t know if these are masterpieces of art or not, but I kinda liked them.
Speedwell, “I go into the R&D lab where I work and look at the new test parts, and I go out and look at the rig, and I go downtown and look at office buildings, and I know in my heart that engineers and architects are sculptors, and their work is great.”
wonderfully put :). I was trying to think of a way to say something similar, but that was excellent.
er….shouldnt that be 95% of everything is crap?
It works like this: art is subjective – you like what you like; and, if you have a mind of your own, you like it because you like it. Cut the pretentiousness – art is as simple as that. These peeps who build a ‘career’ about hyping things up to make a name for themselves in order to somehow validate their place in the ‘art world’, when, in fact, they couldn’t draw a wobbly line makes me sick.
I love Vettriano’s paintings. And admire him all the more as he did this off his own back, his style untainted by others as he developed this- not by a tutor, nor the critics. Trial and error and alot of hard work. The beauty of Vettriano is that you see the true grit of his talent – home grown and delicious. Raw and sexy. And no man (or woman) other than yourself can teach you that.
The truth is that beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. What one person loves, another will always loathe. It’s human nature. But, thank god for the variety, else we’d all be so tepid about everything and passion would be dead.
Long live Vettriano…