'Street' Art?

There is a lot of controversy surrounding art nowadays, as more frequently we are seeing exhibitions in galleries containing artwork that many do not consider to be ‘art’. For instance, the street artist Banksy has recently opened an exhibition at the Andipa Gallery, London; the difference between supposed exhibition pieces and street art being that a lot of art is made to last and to be enjoyed but street art has a short life span, as it is illegal. For many street artists, the movement started out as a joke but talented artists with strong political views got involved. Banksy's work embraces satirical social and political issues, taking the form of murals, sculpture and installation.

As with other street artists, Banksy would have to leave the site quickly so as to not get caught. Through filming ‘Exit Through The Gift Shop’ (2010) he was able to have someone return with a camera and ask the public’s opinion on his art, a lot of the feedback was positive. In Banksy’s first exhibition Barely Legal in LA (2006), he forced street art into the spotlight by putting a camouflaged elephant into his exhibition and collectors rushed to get in on it. Through perceived power, gained by the power of the repetition building up hype around it, street art has made its way into collections worldwide; it is socially a fascinating thing to observe what people buy into.

This is not the first time we have seen artists push at the ‘boundaries’ that seem to be in place within art; Marcel Duchamp being notorious for purchasing everyday objects, sometimes combining them into unique constructions, and announcing them as art that became to be known as the ready-mades. Ready-made artists took items that were not what would be called traditional exhibition pieces and made them so, even though they had not created them or in other cases just made direct copies of them. It is the idea of recycling everyday objects, taking them out of their original context and introducing them to a new environment, that intrigued Duchamp and so many other artists after him; the items are looked at with a different perspective so given a new meaning. This has been the cause of many disagreements between critics for years, questioning whether it can be classed as art or not.

The perceived connotations of a piece of artwork can change so it makes a difference if it is placed into another context. Artwork can be bought to a different audience so it can be seen in a new light, whereas it may have been lost if this had not happened. This has always been the case but it takes some time for people to adjust to new ideas and to look with an open mind at things that do not lie within their comfort zone. People expect artists to abide by the rules, but essentially by calling yourself an artist surely there aren’t any rules to break.

'Fountain', Duchamp, 1913

'One Nation Under CCTV', Banksy, 2008

Banksy's exhibition at the Andipa Gallery, London is open from 9th June - 9th July 2011: www.andipa.com/Exhibitions/Banksy-War-Boutique.php

For a firsthand insight into the world of street art I would thoroughly recommend watching ‘Exit Through The Gift Shop’: www.imdb.com/title/tt1587707/

The Age Old Question 'But is it Art?'

Why is the definition of art still such a debate?

I refer to the recent news about the European Commission not recognising light works created by Dan Flavin and Bill Viola as 'art'.

That basically means the galleries will have to pay full VAT and customs dues on the 'light fittings'.

A shrewd loophole of gaining some revenue by arguing point that is clearly ridiculous maybe?

Article in the Art Newspaper below:

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Flavin+and+Viola+light+works+ruled+not+art/22069

Moving on from the monetary aspect here, I love the fact that the term 'art' still cannot be defined.

Ok, yes granted, some contemporary 'art' can be frustrating for some people to see a stack of bricks and asked to look at it as a piece of art when for them an oil painting is the preferred more obvious choice.

But therein lies the beauty of contemporary art surely. The very raising of the question, opens up the debate for people to look at things in a different way, a new inspired way that they would otherwise look over.

Spotting a concept, beauty, an idealism, a political comment all from one object or installation and presenting it back out to the public gaze has got to be a craft in itself surely?

Without art, or indeed to be more specific creating an image, sculpture or film to briefly make you stop look listen, feel, and/or react to life would be pretty boring.

We aren't just practical beings. We have an imagination, we dream, we aspire to a better future. And so we use art as a way of expressing that.

Not everyone will like it, and glad to hear it. It only opens the debate further, which can only be a good thing.

I think there is some pieces out there that seem to be a pretentious attempt to intentionally alienate the audience or art viewer and appreciator. It can become therefore elitist. And really then what's the point. If you're expressing something, why would you just want the only person to understand and appreciate it to be you??

Anyway, those light fittings were intended as a piece of art by the creator so surely its not up to the EC to decide whether they think should be deemed 'art' if its turned off or on.........

It's a debate we'll all have for centuries to come I imagine. And its with great thanks to the EC! They have highlighted a lovely piece of 'art' to a wider audience to enthuse, discuss and enjoy! Not their initial intention I'm sure :)

Conceptual or Commercial?

So the debate over the last two weeks in the SWA house - should we be putting a commercial or a more conceptual slant into our exhibitions? Should they be exclusive? Does one override the other?

The truth being a matter of a nice balance of both seems to be the most sensible. We want to be able to showcase great contemporary work of all practices but like with anything we need the capital to do it.
Putting on an exhibition costs money, through promotion, and the curators time, as well as artists material expenses. In the ideal world we would want to be able to pay the artist for their showcasing their talent not just pay them for materials. This time next light year Rodney when we have found the right formula, which once again comes down to this debate, how much Commerical? How much Conceptual?

Of course some pieces can be both, but not all. I can only assume very few people would want a film of an ass crack suspended over a circle of short film work named Moonlighting, created by Fine Artist Ed Jones. The day we sell that to put in someones living room I promise to eat my left shoe. But the point of the piece isn't to appeal to the buying market, its appealing to the art viewer, the art appreciator. The entertainment of the piece is right there in the exhibition space, to view, enthuse and move on. Of course if someone wishes to buy it this is a bonus. An unlikely happening, but still a bonus.

This is why we need funding in the first off, before the exhibition begins to enable the exhibition to be realised fully, and to get the general public to want to come in and see it. And yes we do our exhibitions for the public, for everyone, not just the elite 'artist circles' you can get in some areas. This is the problem with contemporary art or any art for that matter, why just open the doors to a select few? Art is for everyone. Anyway I'll get off my soapbox on that matter and come back to it on a another blog post.

So back to buying, selling, buying, selling. Of course the more we sell the more we can reinvest into the SWA to enable us to put on more shows and show off the great talent we have here in the South West, dahling. But if its all pretty 2D work that people are happy to take away and put above their mantle piece then some of the magic of an art show can be lost. The exhibition is the entertainment, well thats what we believe anyway. The exhibition should be curated in such a way the space is alive with work, concepts, musings, ideas, debates, entertainment.
Getting the funding to do this however, is now minimal. We aren't big enough yet to compete with the organisations that get over £100k a year from the Arts Council, but we are keen on getting even a percentage of it if it means the artists and the general public can enjoy something a bit different. That however isn't as easy as it may sound either. Hundreds of man hours filling in proposals , funding applications to get £100 isn't that appealing I have to admit.

So we are back to selling! The scrap yard show was intentionally bereft of 'sellable' work. The space warranted a more conceptual theme, the poundbury garden centre show however has a more open element of people coming in to 'buy' something, usually some pesticide and bulbs but if there is some artwork in the space that takes their eye then we hope to sell it to them. Then we can always have the odd conceptual structure that has the viewer enthralled, entertained, but not necessarily a piece they can buy.

For now thats the way to play it, I think anyway. Of course if we sell both commercial and conceptual in one show I'll eat both my shoes. As then I'll be able to buy a new pair!

If you are around between the 14th - 30th August pop in to the Poundbury Garden Centre, see what you think of the mix.