Saturday, November 28th, 2009 | 3 Comments
The ‘Delusional Arrogance’ of Aspiring Artists
Christian Adams is a political cartoonist but watching The School of Saatchi has him thinking back on the worst parts of art school:
[T]he most important thing I learned from art college [...] is that the fuel on which it runs is a kind of delusional arrogance. It’s the belief that both the world and people’s perceptions need to be changed, and the best way to do it is through nonsense art, nonsense words, and nonsense clothes. Twenty years ago, my middle-class peers – all white – were heavily into dreadlocks. One sculptor spent three years just melding random pieces of metal to each other. Three years.
The problem for art colleges is that genuine talent is very, very rare. And while some students accept that they’ll never be the next Francis Bacon, the majority – blindly encouraged by their tutors, despite their complete lack of talent – genuinely believe they have what it takes. Imagine your normal teen, locked away in his bedroom, railing at a world that doesn’t understand him. Now stir in the fact that the world also doesn’t understand his brick with an egg on it – entitled Love, Effort And Disappointment – and the result is a genuinely bonkers specimen.
The array of artists on show in School for Saatchi was an eye-popping look into this mindset. What strange psyche believes that two emails, printed out, then scrunched up, are important in any way? The creator of that masterpiece looked genuinely shocked when he was told that it was (literally) rubbish. He left, head down, cradling the screwed-up paper lovingly in his hands.
Art? Even Tracey Emin Said It Was Rubbish (Telegraph)
Also of Interest:
- Artist Gains Notoriety from Celebrity Tantrum
Courtney Love is throwing a fit over a the mistaken loss of an artwork but the result is getting artist... - Saatchi’s Alter Ego
Britain is getting ready for the debut next week of Charles Saatchi’s art reality show The School of Saatchi. London’s... - Aboriginal Artists Test Global Art Market
Aboriginal art in Australia is one of the few sources of income for the indigenous population that also perpetuates their... - Let Saatchi Make You an Art Star
BBC Announces Art Reality Show Here’s an idea whose time may have already come and gone. Copying the success of... - American Artists Are Stars of Our Embassies
The New York Times uses Dorothea Rockburne’s new mural as lead in to the program to feature American artists in...
Hello.
I wanted to let you know that I found the comment interest. Unfortunately, I also felt that there is clearly a need for a longer and more in-depth look into the subject. Somehow, the write up felt too short. It had me going: and then it stopped.
When it comes to art, I've found that indeed there's quite a "rainbow" of artists and talent out there. We are populated by thinkers (I believe I should call them such since they promote art as derived from a "thought" alone) that may have their desire for expression if not blocked certainly made harder by their inability to translate thought to the physical realm.
That of course does not impede them from trying, and most importantly trying to bring to the fore the "thought" they want to share. That in itself is important. Perhaps one of the wondrous things about art is that it's a culture of open exchange. The artists, those that can clearly produce visual/physical imagery are not exempt from this culture. They also have to bring thought into what they create, they are not artist only because they have the ability (those that can) to produce or transpose an image into the physical that they are ahead.
Let's not forget that thought must be injected into a work of art. It's not simply a pretty object, it should in my opinion and much of the art world's as well: contain a thought process at least. If not a message. Perhaps the "egg on the brick wall" analogy should be used again. If looked upon as simply an egg on a brick wall: it's at first sight: nonsensical. When you start to add thought to the image, it's when you see beyond the artists inability to "shape" an egg out what material? Marble? And to square out of clay that brick as well.
It's funny that I recently wrote about "symiotics" in my own blog under the heading of "duly noted" (http://www.myspace.com/Nicaraguan_artist) and with intent of making light and being sarcastic about the subject. But, I know and understand the importance of symbols. Artists of old had their own form of symiotics, and they made use of that in their paintings. Or do you think it's coincidence that there are "flies" painted on masterpieces? No. The flies represent the finite length of human life.
Likewise, the egg? Could for me represent a human life. The brick? Could it perhaps be a wall? A brick wall? Think about the name. "Love, Effort and Disappointment". Should it then not stand to reason that this is a visual analogy something akin to: Humpty Dumpty? A person:Egg, A brick:life, a person's failure, despite the efforts to know and succeed in love. They are disappointed. They have fallen off that wall.
Perhaps am reading more into this than what there is. But what if? What if I am doing exactly as the artist wanted? To provoke thought. Is that not the main interest of an artist? To stoke the fires of interest? Thought. I know I do. For example: When I painted a nude of a woman, sitting on a claw footed stool, in the middle of a forest, with tropical flowers next to her. Is that simply a nude woman? Would you not read further than that?
I am of the opinion that having either talent: be it the actual ability to paint (and I agree with you, there's entirely too many that think they can "draw" but too few that can prove it) or the ability to think of ideas is just as important. Don't forget that even Michaelangelo was known for hiring artisans to help him finish his work. They knew, as we know: That sometimes thought? That's a great driving force behind the art. And no matter if it's by your hand or another, yours is still the inspiration. That's art.
So schools are not encouraging the talent-less, they are encouraging thought, the ability to inspire a reaction. Art schools? They're no longer there just for the visuals. They're inclusive, and go hand in hand with the quietly dignified schools of philosophy. They are? They are the loud PR side, of philosophy. If in the end so many go out, and fail as artists over a period of time. You think they will love art any less? Those are future collectors, art lovers, the people that will in the future, when they settle for another career? They will be the ones that we call upon to support the arts.
Then again. Am just saying. Thank you for the comment. It is: thought provoking.
"One of the wonderful things about a museum is how you're jolted into confronting art from strange and wonderful civilizations and you look and learn and expand your horizons. However, I have never been more "jolted" awake than by these so-called paintings by John F. McCarthy! I feel like I got body slammed by The Rock after viewing them in Chicago in October 2008. I understand that he is going to have a show in Perth Amboy New Jersey late this year and I will call the curators to try to stop it. How dare he call this art! It is a slap in the face to everyone who every got their M.F.A. I felt soiled from just standing in front of them! Dirty, dusty, horrendous, horrible – he must be stopped. Please somebody align with me to see if society can still be saved from this paint barbarian! He should be arrested and his paintbrushes taken away from him forever!–Holy Sister Wendy Beckett
=
Delusional Arrogance – aspiring artists http://www.artmarketmonitor.com/2009/11/28/the-delusional-arrogance-of-aspiring-artists/ #followart