- Venue
- Frieze Art Fair
- Location
This, the first talk at Frieze 2009 aimed to provide discussion addressing, “three of the most common criticisms and truisms leveled at contemporary art: that it is elitist, confusing and irrelevant; that it is peddled by unskilled charlatans conning the general public, and that poor artists will be more inventive and radical because they are not corrupted by the market.”
My interest in Frieze is not rooted in the objects and the stands, but the dialogues, opinions and reactions that surround the fair. I had originally planned to pair this review with James Elkins’ talk What Do Artists Know? to juxtapose popular opinion with an artist’s perspective. Unfortunately Elkins’ talk was cancelled at the last minute, so I have yet to discover what artists know.
With regard to the non-cancelled Platitudes talk, I’m not sure whether this was brilliant or terrible. I’m not sure that it taught me anything or made me think about anything very differently, and it was neither affirming nor challenging. However, the questions posed within the panel discussion were certainly interesting. They were also problematic in many ways. For instance, where do these opinions come from and who holds them? Aren’t most things a bit confusing, a bit irrelevant in some sense? How can we talk specifically about contemporary art, when the fact that the criticisms are platitudes means they are not new? And how does this discussion function within the context of an art fair, given the proliferation of objects for sale?
The panel, Adrian Searle, Roger Hiorns, Kathrin Rhomberg and chair Tom Morton, tried to tackle the complexity of this three-pronged question by identifying two recent art projects relevant to these ideological concerns. These served as a framework for the discussion and as a constant point of reference in the debate: Anthony Gormley’s fourth plinth project ‘One and Other’ and the Turner Prize. Both have attracted massive populist media attention, including television coverage which has almost negated the reason for actually visiting the projects at all. They have provoked such debate that they have engendered a sense of ownership from their audience and a right to a voiced opinion. These opinions often affirm the platitudes described above.
Addressing the first part of the loaded question, in my view Searle rightly pointed out that everything is elitist, and everything is confusing and irrelevant if you don’t know about it. Knowledge, discipline and an eagerness to learn are what gives someone access to a subject and an understanding of it. This is not the perception of contemporary art. With art, people feel empowered to make snap decisions about value of before taking time to engage with it. So in this sense, the ability to understand, enjoy or dislike art is in reality within everyone’s grasp. This knowledge comes free of charge, unlike many exhibitions, fairs and talks, but lacks immediacy.
It was here that Gormley’s piece became embroiled in the debate. It specifically invited audience participation through becoming the subject for an allotted period. Much has been made in the press of the piece being egalitarian rather than elitist, involving a huge number and range of people, apparently selected at random and viewed for free. This partially accounts for the way it was generally embraced by the nation, putting pay to many of the suggested platitudes, because it offered inclusive participation, and actions that were frequently simplistic, immediate and easy to identify with. But it has also been largely derided by the art world as a populist and shallow project. And as Hiorns pointed out, these ‘plinthers’ were vetted so that the seemingly class-less, bias-less process was in fact heavily controlled and therefore elitist or exclusive to some extent.
The Turner Prize is perhaps more clear-cut. It has an entrance fee and a jury of art world professionals who will ultimately determine the winner of the prize, not a ‘people’s choice’ award. However, it does not offer active participation but a space for audience reflection (comments boards). Perhaps because it is a prize or perhaps because of its title, connected to a national treasure, its audience is consistently vocal and frequently in the negative. Bizarrely and somewhat optimistically, Searle stated that the current prize has ‘allayed’ criticism. The exhibition is certainly less provocative than previous years and features the more ‘traditional’ forms of expression: drawing, painting and sculpture, works made using time and skill. Yet a large number of the comments on these boards and all manner of blogs do indeed follow the critical sentiments of the platitudes of the original question. It’s a tricky situation. Searle noted that it is this emerging blogging culture which has both prompted and facilitated opinions about these projects and others far more directly than has been previously possible. So whilst by their very nature, these platitudes are not new, the frequency and fervour of their expression is.
But why the anger? Why the scepticism? Rhomberg and Searle noted that these feelings seem to be peculiarly British concerns, that these feelings are not present in dialogue surrounding contemporary art in the rest of Europe. This is surely the subtext to the stated questions and the most concerning issue. Certain blog and board comments I have seen about the current Turner Prize are so unfoundedly angry that you can’t help wonder what they were expecting to see; or else wonder whether they actually visited it at all or just felt compelled to comment nevertheless.
At just over an hour, Platitudes gave little time for the speakers to address these ideas in much depth. The extreme broadness and complexity of the questions meant that the discussion topics were picked and chosen, with the roles of elitism and skill being most talked of. The debate was dominated by two members of the panel in particular, who also happen to be the most high-profile speakers, Searle and Hiorns.
The questions put to the panel at first seemed to me to be intriguing and pertinent. However, the more I have thought about them, the more pretentious and pointless they have become within the context of Frieze. The panel of a critic, two curators and a successful contemporary artist (the Turner Prize favourite) is hardly likely to agree with the statement that art is irrelevant and confusing. Nor are they likely to think that the best art operates outside of the market place or that artists are ‘charlatans’ who are ‘conning’ the public. It is not in their interests to agree with the outlined platitudes when speaking at one of the largest art fairs in the world. Neither did the speakers offer reasons as to why feelings might run so high or why these sorts of reputations surround the field. Instead, Searle and the others ignored the issue like so many of us do. Other than deliberate references to Damien Hirst, the panel’s general consensus was that these criticisms were pretty much irrelevant. The talk desperately needed someone to argue from this alternative standpoint, to be provocative and disagreeable. As it was, the talk often felt very much like an opportunity to have a moan more than anything else. Searle and Hiorns in particular were extremely dismissive of the posed questions.
Here we return to the crux of the problem and the problem with the questions: the integral subjectivity of the field, and the shifting mutable natures of artworks, of artists and of opinions. Needless to say, the definitive answer has to be that there are no definitive answers. Art is loved and art is hated. Some art is elitist, confusing and irrelevant; much of it is not. Some artists are unskilled charlatans, most are not. What the definition of a ‘poor’ artist is seems to me to be more than a little woolly, but I wonder if it is really art if it lacks engagement with any kind of market and if it does engage with a market, how can it fail to be corrupted by it? And why all the anger anyway?
Frieze is a strange event. People generally go there either to buy or to look at the objects on display. To pay an entry fee into the fair is to endorse it, to implicitly state that that you agree with its objectives and ideals, and that you think it will be worth going to see. (Unless you win a freebie courtesy of a-n, perhaps). Therefore, as with the panel, how many people attending talks at Frieze are actually likely to view contemporary art as elitist, confusing, irrelevant etc? It seems a strangely redundant set of questions to ask at such as self-congratulating, commercialised event. I’m not really sure who it was aimed at and I’m not sure who they were trying to convince or if they were trying to convince anyone at all. But at the same time, the questions are also completely pertinent, offering a more critical perspective on Frieze’s position within the art world and the art market, and making the audience consider their own position as paying patrons and as valid opinion holders.
