Andrew Bryant has published an article about the teaching of art/art teachers on Q-Art London. Also on Q-art, Fiona Flynn disparaged the idea of artists’ use of empty shops. (See Q-art/articles.)
Andrew’s response took Fiona to task for ‘siding with’ an un-named philistine. Having agreed with Fiona in the comments section I found myself a week ago installing my exhibition in a disused shop (building society actually)!!! It has been run by a group of volunteers, for the local community for 3 ½ years. Anyone can sell work there for £1 per work per week. There is as a matter of policy no selecting. If an artist wants to hang work to sell, £1 does it. The question of good/bad professional / ‘amateur’ is deliberately not an issue. This is immensely democratic and non-judgemental. (www.whatifgallery.co.uk) Andrew goes on to state that ‘even bad art (and who is to say what that is?) is preferable to shopping.’
I find the direction of Andrew’s debates interesting and provocative. The Q-art writing goes into more depth than is possible on a-n. My experience and understanding of psychoanalysis and modern philosophy is limited, so my response to his writing and my questions, are generated by curiosity. This question of ‘bad art’ for example; my favourite example of bad art is the work of Tretchikoff. I believe that a discussion can be had that would conclude that there is something amiss in his work. The notion of ‘bad’ is actually a term that follows analysis, and as such is not strictly necessary. Similarly with ‘good’; all that can be said to indicate quality of whatever level can be said without judgemental terms. The question ‘who is to say?’ what is bad art indicates a battle for dominance. The very use of the term ‘…even bad art…’ implies the existence of bad art. The problem might lie more in the concept of art. One view might be that the kind of work that Tretchikoff represents has no place in the concept; what is then said to be bad art is relieved of its status AS art. And that comes back to shopping. ‘Bad’ art is at its core exploitative, manipulative; ‘good’ art is at core simply honest. The gallery that my show is in is interesting in its illustration of the range of work that can attract positive judgements. The business of evaluating ties in with that of teaching as an element in the development of critical faculties (tastes vis-à-vis judgements) and further connects with capitalism (shopping). But is it simply that certain kinds of object commonly labelled art are just not art at all?
