Previous: godspeed you young artblogger
eclipse of art
Post #77 • August 7, 2003, 7:59 AM • 7 Comments
I read Julian Spalding’s The Eclipse of Art: Tackling the Crisis in Art Today on the plane going out to San Diego last month, and found in it a sound argument. He notes that the art world is in a period of eclipse of language (here he means foundational skills), learning, content, and judgement, and calls for support of art which heralds the passing of these eclipses. I found it similar in some ways to Suzi Gablik’s Has Modernism Failed?, which (if a ten-year-old memory of reading it serves me) called for a similar revitalization of art, albeit through mechanisms of social function that are alien to how art has been handled by society over the last 150 years, and are ultimately utopian and useless. Spalding’s suggestions, by contrast, have faith in art’s power as art. He notes accurately that great numbers of artists have not subscribed to the dominant values of contemporary art-making (shock is good, tradition is bad, etc.) and are continuing to labor away. While Eclipse is critical about the art world as it stands, it doesn’t call for an attack on it; even while lamenting current art affairs, Spalding sees their passing and replacement with happier times as inevitable.
Since it is such a reasonable argument, I suppose it was equally inevitable that someone would compare Spalding to Hitler. Waldemar Januszczak, quoted in the Guardian, said that Eclipse was
“an unusually awful art book… a bog of inaccuracies, assumptions, prejudice and melodrama [created by an] aesthetic unabomber”. For example, Spalding writes that Marc Quinn’s head made of blood was accidentally defrosted and melted away. “No it didn’t… I saw it with my own eyes a couple of weeks ago.” And the “preposterous” central proposition that modern art “isn’t just going through a bad patch but entering an eclipse” – arrived at when Spalding saw a solar eclipse in Cornwall – reminded Januszczak “of Hitler’s decision to start the Nazi party when sitting alone on a Bavarian mountain top, feeling ecstatic”.
The Quinn head he saw must have been a replacement – the one that melted made headlines the world over. But who is this guy? A vituperative critic with a tin eye (he called Howard Hodgkin “the Walt Disney of British Abstraction”) and a tendency to think of Nazis when he sees something he doesn’t like. A little poking around on the Internet turned up something he had written about British dog breeders:
If the Nazis were doing this to people, we’d be calling it eugenics, but when the British do it to their dogs, it’s just a bit of fun and out come the marquees.
It’s a pattern.
Spalding made an interesting point while defending himself in Spiked (thank you, ArtsJournal):
The battles of modern art were fought within the world of art, not outside it, as they are today. Matisse could coin the term ‘cubism’ to express his contempt for what Picasso and Braque were doing, but this didn’t mean he was immediately banished to join the philistines outside the magic circle of art. The radical and the traditional were all part of one activity, they shared the same language – the creation of art. Today it is very different. If you criticise Beuys or Andre, Hirst or Emin, you’re immediately dismissed as old and reactionary, as I know to my cost.
Sounds familiar.
I recommend Eclipse highly. I also recommend the United Kingdom, which has better arts covergage in better newspapers, nastier critics, and braver champions of common sense.
2.
August 7, 2003, 12:08 PM
I agree when Spalding’s Spiked article says art is defined by whether its viewers respond to it, but is it true his book says photography is not an art, and also that modern art’s purpose is to offend, <i>by definition</i>, thus it’s understandable why everyone should dislike it?3.
August 7, 2003, 7:36 PM
Hovig, your best bet is to read the book and judge for yourself. Even direct quotations can be misleading if read out of context. However, I will tell you that Spalding writes ”Modern art, by definition, is supposed to offend the public,” which is not quite the same as saying that its purpose is to offend. As for photography, he does not say it’s not art, but he takes exception to the view (notably John Berger’s) that it is better than painting. Spalding says painting and photography are different languages because they are made differently. Again, read for yourself.4.
August 7, 2003, 7:40 PM
He does not say that photography is not an art; he does say that it has limits that are not present in painting. He does say the above about modern art, sort of. His idea of odernisn⤁t odernist- it⤁s an inchoate term that includes, variously, Hirst, Pollock, and Whistler. This is at once a weakness (Pollock and Hirst in the same category?) and an accurate rendering - when does the modern period begin? I think Spalding makes some bad calls. He prefers Hockney to Freud and Kossof to Auerbach for the formers⤁ depictions of sunlight, which seems like a fluffy reason. He comes down on Pollock, who I am not in a hurry to defend, but his argument lands on de Kooning by implication (and I am not willing to discard de Kooning). Even so, the main thrust of the book is sound and some of the historical renderings, particularly the ways in which fascism injured figurative art, are fascinating.5.
August 7, 2003, 8:38 PM
Very interesting. I’m extremely grateful to you both! I do learn a lot by reading here. (BTW, Franklin: Kossoff and Auerbach were new to me. Looking them up online, I dare say Auerbach is an influence on you?) I’m still a <i>teensy</i> bit suspicious of Spalding’s intentions however, but since I’m familiar with you both, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and try to give the book a fair hearing when I can. The phrase ”modern art is supposed to offend” rankled me because it seemed like saying ”extreme sports are supposed to injure their participants.” Extreme sports are intended for people who need more adrenaline than provided by chess. If the participants suffer more injuries than in chess, well, I feel that’s just a side effect. Bungee jumping and sky diving are not for everyone, of course, but I don’t think it warrants a book by a chess grandmaster saying ”snowboarding is not a sport, and its intent is to injure its participants.” Maybe some feel this way, maybe others don’t. Even tennis is played differently now than it was 100 years ago. Also, Franklin, I read the tete-a-tete with Neil Whitacre linked above, and I’m simply amazed by the art world, and how personally hurtful artists and critics are. I don’t know what to say about this, but my inner thoughts aren’t altogether sympathetic. Perhaps this is because the stakes are so personally high. A person invests so much in the production or understanding of art, and makes it such a personal endeavor, that their very existence is tied to whether everyone else in the world agrees with their view or not. It’s a tough world to be in, I guess. Anyway, finally, I also think there’s a natural solution to the problems some people see in today’s art world. It’s been said that artists like Emin and Hirst made art with no permanence. That’s arguably true, but I don’t think it will matter to them. More importantly, I’ll bet Emin and Hirst will wake up one morning, and realize none of their work lends itself to the production of multiples. That simple fact may influence them greatly someday. Heh. Or not....6.
August 8, 2003, 8:42 AM
Hovig, again, context is critical. What Spalding was getting at is that modern art can⤁t have it both ways, meaning it can⤁t be deliberately, knowingly offensive and then object to the viewer taking offense, as if the viewer were somehow at fault or deficient for doing so. Concerning Franklin⤁s disagreement with some of Spalding⤁s calls, EVERYBODY makes some bad calls, even the best people. The question is how often and how seriously. That⤁s why I don⤁t worship any sacred cows, though I certainly respect some more than others. If the critic/commentator is generally sound and credible, even a ⤦bad callcan be illuminating, as it may prompt seeing from a fresh or unexpected perspective. However, in the final analysis, we should all be deciding for ourselves.7.
August 9, 2003, 11:55 AM
I must wonder if there is a parallel between what this article describes: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001436284_neds08.html And your experience with the artists e-mailing you. choice quote: ”In Sanders’ case, the syndrome meant restlessness at night and never seeming to be emotionally present at home. He began to have relationship difficulties at work because he used e-mail, at one point, to communicate everything to his employees, be it good or bad. ”When you’re good with a hammer, you treat everything like a nail,” he said of his bluntness via e-mail. ”All of sudden, I forgot my manners.” ” Something for everyone to consider when writing anything on-line, good or bad.
1.
Jack
August 7, 2003, 8:49 AM
I recently read the book. It was bound to be dismissed as soft-headed nostalgia at best by the current powers that be, but their credibility is highly suspect, not to say spurious. The book is aimed at that segment of the general public interested in art but confused by the present state of affairs. It is not, therefore, a rigorous academic effort aimed at intellectuals, real or presumed. While it may not be a masterpiece, it is certainly worthwhile reading, informative and heartfelt, as opposed to self-serving and politically correct. Sympathetic though I found it, the book is best suited to the truly bewildered and insecure out there, who don’t know what to think anymore when it comes to art. That’s not my particular problem, fortunately. My problem is more along the lines of anger, or more precisely, contempt for so much brazenly fraudulent, shallow and/or delusional goings-on. ”The Emperor’s New Clothes” is never too far from thought. As for Januszczak, his bombastic rantings sound both hysterical and defensive. The Hitler analogy is grossly inappropriate, a very cheap shot which seriously questions its user’s credibility.