Yeah that’s right, we’re talking about art –wanna fight about it? Sure it isn’t usually ES fare but what the hell, I wasted my Sunday wandering around London’s South Bank when I could have been eating toast and stealing porn off the net so I don’t see why you shouldn’t have to sit there and listen to me talk about it, you unenlightened simian.
Anyway, London’s lovely Tate Modern had it’s 10th birthday this weekend, and in celebration decided to invite a multicultural selection of feckless layabouts international artists and independent hopefuls to fill up the turbine hall with their various ramshackle projects, displays and happenings, and because some of us have girlfriends of a distinctly arty persuasion(and it was free), we were there as well.
Now, the last time I went to TM was during their recent terrible Pop Art exhibition, where absolute shite from Warhol’s latter years abutted some godawful Jeff Koons statues while various NWA tracks played in the background. It was –NWA aside –uniformly awful. Fortunately they were also showcasing some of John Baldessari’s excellent, witty and erudite photographic work, so I approached this in reasonably hopeful mood.
And yes, I was wrong to do so.
Sadly we missed the Quicksilver display, but if any of the other events can be used as a guide, we were lucky. Firstly, the live displays. Several absolutely, wilfully bad musical presentations get things off to a bad start, from Skin Jobs to the terribly named Cosi Fanny Tutti (it’s not ‘dangerous’ people, it’s just very stupid), all of the acts represented the kind of idiotic nu-folk wanderings that the art world mistakenly thinks of as important or challenging currently. There’s nothing inherently artistic about being unable to string a tune together or work out how to use an amplifier properly. On Sunday, the live music is replaced by a short film where badly CGI’d helicopters crash in the sea, and some shit karaoke. Absolute crap.
No Soul For Sale was predictably terrible. The space was massively overcrowded, with the art on display either desperate to please or be considered as ‘groundbreaking’ at the expense of any true value. A huge swathe of space is taken by a project which seemed to primarily consist of a man in a smart blazer being driven about the country in a nice car, while other projects sported wince-inducing names (Hell Toupee…sigh…) or boasted secondary school artworks and ill-thought out concepts. An ‘idea machine’ produces random pieces of paper while its creators shout “Idea number 364 is…a good idea!” A modified midi keyboard being used to control imagery and some very bad D&B beats. A huge waste of money, and poorly presented, meaning the noisy, over-earnest competitors squeezed out any truly innovative, interesting or important participants.
Disappointed and slightly frazzled, we headed upstairs to check out the much lauded Level 2 displays.
Jannis Kounellis - untitled - 1979
Based largely on Avant-Garde and surrealist works, the ‘Poetry and Dream’ exhibition promises great things, but only delivers in terms of scale rather than substance. While certain pieces ( Julião Sarmento. Maya Deren) offer wit and individuality, the emphasis on extremely large pieces means the entire experience is decentralising for the viewer, diffusing impact and resonance. It’s telling that even Jackson Pollock struggles for recognition in these surroundings. Individually, considered in white space, several of these pieces are engaging and thought provoking, but crowded together we are left with a display that amounts to several coloured blobs and mad brush strokes. The problem –largely –isn’t with the art itself, but in the badly planned use of space. This said, there does seem to be a trend at Tate Modern to ignore or bury any and all emphasis on painting. While other techniques obviously have similar importance, it’s irresponsible of the gallery to suggest that figurative painting cannot be engaging or modern. More importantly, there is little here that can be called beautiful, dark, homogenous and amorphous forms push against each other, their grim scenes and colours resulting in a dark grey mass that only works to devalue it’s component pieces.
Overall, this is a massive disappointment. And while the sheer number of visitors will no doubt see the gallery qualify it as a success, the curators may do well to consider that they may be turning just as many people off art as on to it.
3 Comments
i volunteered at no soul for sale.
you wrote that it was “a huge waste of money”. just so we’re clear on whose money this was, the tate did not put money into the festival. the collectives and galleries paid for all their travel and installations themselves, and relied on volunteers to help set up, run it, and take it apart.
you also haven’t understood what the royal standard were doing. they were inviting the public to offer ideas for their gallery. so it wasn’t about random shouting, it was actually a very engaging and positive thing. the accompanying blog is here:
http://www.thisisafreemessage.blogspot.com
it is a shame that the crowds probably meant that no one was available to explain the concept to you.
also think it’s worth drawing your attention to a comment left on the guardian blog by another participant.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2010/may/17/tate-modern-birthday-soulless?showallcomments=true#CommentKey:803e9e12-56d8-4bad-ac03-ff4735d283f8
they write that that they were not aware that this event would be part of tate modern’s 10th anniversary celebrations. maybe the artists would have submitted different proposals if they’d known it would have been viewed by visitors as a birthday party?
Hey Shereen, glad you found time to volunteer -I’m certainly all for that. My reactions to Royal Standard’s piece is based on my experience of NSFS as a whole -I found it overcrowded, cacophonous and as I say, any merit was buried under an awkward, shouting pile of attention seekers, and I still feel the RS piece was presented in a confusing way (that wasn’t helped by the gigantic, gawking crowds).
I’m glad the Tate didn’t put money towards this, and I’m sorry that several worthwhile artists wasted their time coming to an event where they would not be given the time or space they deserved.
Frankly, I found the entire thing loud, brash and actively annoying -an opinion which I’m basing as much on the Tate’s presentation as I am on the art itself.
As for being ‘viewed as a birthday party’..well, again I’d place the blame squarely with the organisers and their marketing department, and it is a genuine surprise that they would not have told participants this in advance.
Thanks for your comment!
I agree with both of you, as an other volunteer. But it was worth to go there. The TM is above realities, and they can make some of the worst things ever. It’s been a shock for us, and it questions well the masochism we work with everyday. In this context, added to the “competition” thing and “non-profit olympics”,what remains is pity, and that’s bad. No curating in this.
Damien for lecommissariat.org