Artforum has published a pretentiously written, vacuous hand-wringer about the Tut show/consumerist state of the art world. Read it and comment on our message boards.
congratulations on your move to the utdallas residency.
i thought you name only had 1 r. your plug (stating you are at smu) has 2 r’s.
Kenny Goss and Nietzsche in the same thought bubble: now that poetically delineates the epochsâ€¦
Art historian Paul Johnson coined the phrase â€œFashion Artâ€ to better encompass the art of Warhol and his prolific progeny, with the YBAâ€™s being foremost among them recently.
I like the YBAâ€™s, and they deserve their due. But itâ€™s not like they are unknown and in need of Gossâ€™s largesse. Heâ€™s going around and buying up their work when itâ€™s at its highest prices ever – arguably too high. Just from a business standpoint, I wonder about it. From an aesthetic one, I think heâ€™s found his niche, his way to brand his name in town and in the art world, at a time when its â€œsimply THE thing to do, darling.â€
I wonder what it mean for those artists â€œjust out of collegeâ€ he speaks of that dilettante speculators like Goss now turn their eyes (and wallets) upon? And how itâ€™s symptomatic of the continuing fashionizing of the fine arts, where itâ€™s all increasingly indistinguishable from the pure celebrity worship found, well, everywhere else.
Goss has a lot more money than sense, and what he doesnâ€™t know about art could fill a gallery (or two) with some pretty questionable product (as heâ€™s amply demonstrated.) Unlike Saatchi, who despite certain peccadilloes at least has a preternatural ability to spot trends and actual/fabricated genius, Goss doesnâ€™t have any kind of real sensibility, but more just an interest in the glamorous fashion of it all. Recent British art is simply the most fashionable Goss is aware of, and so heâ€™s going for it. Yes, I know he probably feels a “real personal connection” to the work, but since his world is George Michael’s London and Uptown Dallas, does that make his taste knowledgeable and balanced?
All that hyped-up pabulum (its like an adverb frenzy up there; its absolutely intensely wonderfully incredibly fantastic!) about art being an idealistic storybook island where all boundaries are erased and we all live in peace and harmony is irritating â€“ even if it might to some degree be true. I donâ€™t doubt that he thinks this is what heâ€™s doing. But to many that appears more like a thin veneer on a drive much more mercenary in intent, all the more so for the lack of apparent awareness about his motives. I would trust it all a lot more if he just admitted he doesnâ€™t really know much, has a bottomless pit of money, and wants to just buy his famous friendâ€™s art (which, between the lines, is in effect is what he says in this interview.) Up to now, he’s just a yes man to what is already canonized.
That said, I look forward to seeing some of it. After all, more art is never a bad thing, especially here, and now.
titus, art is fashion. we sell people. we eat brains.
yeah, i don’t think goss wants to be like saatchi and stick his neck out. he’s more of a sloppy seconds kinda guy.
art isn’t fashion. sometimes its the absolute obverse. they overlap, and engage in perverse dialogue, sometimes appearing nearly indistinguishable. But they are by definition distinct, if in perpetual uneasy alliance. One I think that should remain uneasy, no matter the seeming futility.
but I agree, it tends toward cannibalism.
i will see your disagreement, and raise you an impasse.
christian art is god fashion, nobility art is aristocratic fashion. bourgeois portraiture is fashion. modernism made overt ideas fashionable. postmodernism is the market, which is fashionable.
99.9% of contemporary art is crap. hirst’s saint sebastian isn’t. kudos to g. michael and his partner, k. goss for bringing it to dallas. but, i don’t get the eternal return thing you’re throwing down.
nice engaging article, even if it is disturbing.
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail