click photo to enlargeIt seems to me that much of what passes for contemporary art, particularly that which has been feted under the "Britart" name, is worth very little. It is shallow, gimmicky and trite, producing works to catch the public eye and promote the celebrity status of the "artist". The grasshopper minds of the likes of Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin produce work that not only has no depth, it has no challenge either. What you see is all there is. Rarely do these artists develop themes: their aim seems to be to outdo each other in "outrageousness" or "difference", but for no reason other than novelty. These people are artful, but not artists.
The work above is by one of Britain's most famous contemporary artists, and is currently the most talked about piece of art in the country. It is Rachel Whiteread's "Embankment", at Tate Modern in London, and it fills the former turbine hall. The work comprises thousands of plastic casts of boxes in various piles that the visitor can walk around. It's apparently "an exploration of the universal quality of the box", which in piles "invites parallels with the museum as a keeper of collective memory"! The charitable, might say it's interesting to walk round, and unusual to look at. But, would the artist's apparent intention be clear to anyone if it hadn't been stated? And what does it really offer apart from piles of plastic boxes? Would the art work be any the less if the piles were smaller or arranged differently? And if not, what does that say about the value of the original conception.
My wide angle photograph from above is designed to show the scale of the work and its substance (or lack of it). The public are expected to walk through it, and my shot shows children playing hide and seek! I imagine many industrial warehouses might offer a similar experience. However there the boxes would be arranged more conveniently!
photograph & text (c) T. Boughen
4 comments:
It is interesting that when I first saw the picture I thought - what an 'arty' shot turning an obvious picture of a warehouse, rather puzzlingly with people ignoring health and safety reg.s, into a photographic work of art - then I am appalled to read some 'artist' presents this to me as art. I suppose one could argue it is on the same lines as Duchamp's Fountain but if so you are a hundred years out of date and rather missing several points. Suddenly your artistic photograph becomes a snapshot, somehow losing its artistic insight and merit and I am left with no art whatsover in the photograph!
PUZZLING?
Today, in Britain, it seems impossible to get wide exposure for your art on the basis of merit. Those artists who become known to the wider public are the same ones who are feted by the connoisseurs, and they achieve their fame by gimmickry. Architecture is going the same way: so-called "landmark buildings" rely on being "different" rather than than being good. In both cases the form of the artwork or building is dictated by the demands of money rather than the inspiration or vision of the artist.
This looks remarkably like the warehouse in which I work. Almost everything in our warehouse is packed in white styrofoam boxes, so it really does look like this! Very amusing. I should start taking photos of the various piles and aisles we have going, maybe someday they will be considered art too! :D
As I was looking at the photo, I was struck by how the aisles, starting from the bottom and going up, looked as if they were intended to form the numeral "4",but this idea was soon abandoned. That stray thought made me wonder, though, if the art-- or the message-- was defined by the arrangement of spaces rather than by the boxes themselves. Alas, such an investigation would require more photos from different perspectives.
Post a Comment