Blue, brown and grey Reflections on a provincial gallery Claire Harrison |
||
My local art gallery in Surrey has an astounding amount of blue, brown and grey landscapes on its walls. There are a few exceptions to this because they have blue, brown and grey still life and abstracts as well. British contemporary art is considered radical with Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst hitting the headlines on a regular basis yet our art galleries do not reflect this. It is understandable that the average British provincial gallery does not try and sell this work, as it would be impractical to fit it in the average home. There are hundreds of artists in Britain making work that isn’t offensive, overtly radical or plain blue, brown and grey. They are the true British Contemporary Artists making beautiful, postmodernist works that the minority of supportive commercial galleries promote and sell. Sadly the majority of art galleries in this country sell commercial works that fit with the average magnolia, whitewashed home. Therefore we are subjected to the bombardment of blue, brown and grey landscapes, which lack creativity and simply display existing painting techniques and craft skills. Perhaps we need to face the reality that the majority of the British public simply want pictures that match their sofas, and are not interested in art at all? Why do we consider art for decoration as a craft, rather than art? I believe artists strive to create something different and new, and to make an impact upon the art world and challenge the viewer. This isn’t easy in our postmodernist culture because of the hundreds of years of great artists that have gone before us, but it is still possible. Damian Hirst and the other ‘Sensation’ (Royal Academy exhibition, 1997) artists still managed to impact on the art world through shock. More importantly, and slightly less appreciated, I think their success endorsed the use of unconventional art materials in a gallery and has led to the explosion of installation art and the use of new media in recent years. Even though this began in 1917 with Marcel Duchamp, it is only recently that installation art has been recognised in it’s own right by both the art world and by the academic institutions. Therefore, it is possible to still challenge the mainstream and contribute to art history. However it is not easy because the current art market has caused a paradox. The cutting edge installation works are not products that can be easily sold, for example how would you easily keep a sculpture of a head made of frozen blood on display in the average home? The art is fantastic, and ingenious but it is making it increasingly difficult for the artist to make a living because there isn’t a marketable product. Perhaps this has caused the polarisation of the art market into those who create new and different ‘non-product’ art and those who are purely appealing to the mass public with their blue brown and grey landscapes? As I have mentioned before there are artists who are between both the world of ‘Sensation’ and those who are painting blue brown and grey. These are contemporary artists creating painting and sculptures but not following the traditional routes or overtly shocking radical ones. They are pushing boundaries and experimenting, and in a smaller way creating fantastic artworks that can also be sold. Yet, these artists are not mainstream in the art market. Why is this? Perhaps it is because the media publicise the extremes of the art world, therefore those members of the public who do not necessarily research the art market, simply ‘buy what they like’ are only exposed to either the media’s extremes or the blue brown and grey exhibited in their local provincial gallery. They have a skewed and limited view of the art market in the UK. This is perpetuating the blue, brown and grey art works in provincial galleries, customers go in and ask for more ‘traditional’ works because they think that the only contemporary option is radical and confrontational. Perhaps it is the responsibility of the provincial gallery to educate them rather than merely selling ‘safe’ works that are not challenging in anyway, on any scale. In fact these artworks are merely recreating successful techniques from history that were once groundbreaking, but have now been made mundane. Instead of being created through edgy inventiveness and experimentation, they have meticulously copied and painted a representation of a historical technique; creating a boring example of a craft rather than an artwork.
These works of blue, brown and grey have become popular in people’s homes; the contemporary patron is the general public who are creating a market force for it. Throughout history the patron has influenced the development of art, however there are far too few patrons in the contemporary art market embracing new and different art. Instead artists know that they will be able to sell the blue, brown and grey pictures, which flood our provincial galleries. What I find so unfortunate is the lack of drive of the general public to support different art. Many years ago I did work experience with an Interior Designer, and never chose it as a career because of the lack of creativity each client wanted. Instead I chose a career as a Fine Artist believing that I would have the freedom to paint what I wanted! |
This to some extent is true, however each artist has to make the choice, to create art or make work to sell which is no more than aiding interior design. Without the support of the patron art isn’t going to progress. Until the majority of the general public embrace contemporary art, the market will not move forward, unfortunately it is the patron that controls the art market because as with any product it is subject to supply and demand. Art is no longer for the elite, but affordable to all because even with recession and credit crunch we live a privileged life. However there is a problem with the mainstream public becoming a patron. When art was elitist patrons would compete and show their wealth through the arts, trying to find something different and better than their neighbours. Now art is printed and published so that everyone can own the same image - it has followed the same path as fashion, we all wear a uniform and follow the same trends. Just as our homes are becoming more and more similar because of the abundance of DIY programs on TV advising on how to decorate your home and garden. Art has become another commodity, which has become mundane and boring which will not change until the public are brave enough to embrace something new. Although so many artists are eager to denounce the blue, brown and grey works, as am I, perhaps it is not solely the fault of the artist or gallery, but of the incorrect perception of the British art market and the overwhelming demand for this work. Many of the artists who make blue, brown and grey works, also make art for themselves, which they know, will not sell easily in the current marketplace. None of this situation will change until the general public are themselves bored of blue, brown and grey and begin to find those few galleries in the country that are supporting the contemporary British artist and embrace something that is new. This will allow our culture to develop and grow in a new and exciting direction rather than stagnating, as we are now. This phenomenon is not new and not unique to the UK - art is a product and a commodity, driven by market forces like any other product. Artists have responded to this, those that create art for the market – and who can blame them for doing so? Even Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin sell more conventional works in galleries; Damien Hirst sells paintings and drawings and Tracey Emin sells paintings and monoprints. It is only their more radical works that hit the headlines; they sell conventional works through contemporary galleries just like any other artist. They have modified their work to sell it, but the question is, whether their radical works were a publicity stunt to sell their conventional works, or are their paintings and prints to sustain their love of creating provocative sculptures and installations? Either way, they are providing works for the market, however they cannot be classed as blue, brown and grey but merely of the same genre as the other exciting contemporary British art that is overlooked. It is their status from their radical works that enables them to sell their more conventional art. Therefore the publicity of the Young British Artists is contributing to the blue, brown and grey market, even if previously mentioned it is in a backlash to the provocative. Thus this polarises the market and both the paintings and drawings of both Emin and Hirst are little known by the majority of the public, just as the understated contemporary British art is. In contrast to the artists who are essentially ‘playing’ the art market there are those who are still a little naïve and put their romantic faith in creating art to contribute to culture rather than the art market. Meanwhile there are those patrons who buy art not because they like it, but because it has value and is an investment. It are these patrons who are most likely to purchase the paintings of Emin and Hirst because they are less confrontational than their radical works but still have the value of their popularity and media status rather than purchasing a lesser known contemporary artist. These three different markets and patrons, the radical, financial investment and blue brown and grey are all interlinked and reliant upon each other for growth. Due to the polarisation of the market caused by these market forces they are preventing an eclectic range of art to be created, culture progress or for us as a nation to develop, and until those ‘fringe’ British Contemporary artists are recognised and encouraged the culture in Britain will remain blue, brown and grey.
art@claire-harrison.co.uk
|
|