TEXT WRITTEN BY MIKE
Perhaps the argument could be made that “atemporality” is the only sane and real experience. It is the now, the physical and tangible present. The past is an abstraction that is created, manipulated, altered, exaggerated, simplified and codified. The future is an abstraction of marketing promises, potential happinesses, and ephemeral dreams. Only the present matters because only the present is happening.
Also, if there is only “now”, then the consumer of these art-like chimeras only needs to know/be told what is now and why the work in front of them is important. It seems like a fantastic space for the seller of said objects/experiences but the flaw in the system seems to be (not that anyone is looking for flaws when they are in the system be it producer/seller/consumer/investor) that once the work is purchased, it becomes historical and therefore irrelevant, until it’s up for sale again, when it become a new NOW moment. The purchaser can show it off in a series of NOW moments meant to enhance prestige or increase the price tag for the next NOWsale.
Cannot the references be NOW. You are you now. You are here now. The work is here now. The work is the work now. What more does one need? The rest if fiction or as you say, abstraction.
Perhaps the CON artists are all of us who demand context, history, societal and cultural relevance and other such high-minded abstractions. Perhaps Abramovic, Obrist and the rest are the ones living in the NOW and therefore the real artists. We others are simply trying to create an abstraction to control what we feel we don’t control. Are we simply trying to wrest control from others so give precedence to our own abstracted views?
I think many are profiting from the Art Market as it is, and it’s an open door for swindlers, confidence tricksters, salespeople and marketeers, who have flooded the environment and taken over. The word “expert” is now bad, but curator is good. The word “conniseurship” is very bad, but it’s okay to speak a load of superficial platitudinous drivel or a spew of nonsensical art market speak. It’s because many of the buyers want to show off their wealth with objects of status. They don’t care what the art’s about. They only care about the price tag. A marketing line of the work’s profundity helps when showing off the piece, but it need not go further than that.
Atemporal is the new word?
Neutrarelevant might come into vogue. Theathed in ‘mynoccuousness’? …. or a ‘mutetation’?
I am happy because I am starting to hear some voices saying, “No, actually that work is simply poor (craft, concept, form, subject and/or other elements) visual work, and I demand more from an artist.”
I am happy because I am starting to hear some voices saying, “The Art Market is not the sum total of artistic production within a society. It is a very loud fringe element that is simply a grasping, money-driven, system of mass produced art-i-fice for buyers who either know the game and hope to make substantial profits on buying, marketing and re-selling, or who don’t know they are being played and think they are somehow an elite. Really, is that guy who is paying artists to make portraits of himself in their style anything more than a chequebook?
Laughable if it wasn’t made to seem they are the epitome of cultured elites supporting really meaningful art.
Let them play their incestuous games of marketing, selling, re-selling, advising and what have you.
Artists have other work to do…
HAVE YOU WATCHED MY ‘THE PILL’ REVIEW OF LYGIA CLARK’S RETROSPECTIVE AT MOMA