Art Euthanasia

// February 3rd, 2010 // b-scene // Lawrence

It does exactly what it says on the bin.

These must be the skips they’re using in Dubai on those colossal hotels. A 600 cubic meter, black steel-framed, transparent paneled ‘bin’ is presently rather empty. Well unless you are fond of work by Damien Hirst, Tracy Emin, Fiona Banner, Gillian Wearing or Gary Hume. As you enter the space in the South London Gallery the art tomb dominates. At the other end of the art aquarium there’s a platform accessed by that classic, fire exit staircase. Lemmings would no doubt queue up at this sacrificial podium. And Landy adds to his scrapping ceremony only entitling himself, high priest of art destruction. He has had to appoint an altar boy to perform the drop when he’s not around though.

When I first entered and saw the bin so unfilled, I was underwhelmed. I had a sudden urge to turn around and walk out. After all, why am I standing in front of an oversized, empty bin. Well I’m here now, I might as well find the Hirst. So I encircled the mass grave eyeing the bundled art.
On seeing the glass encrusted skull that Hirst deemed rubbish, I recalled something I heard earlier in the week. ‘Someone would pay good money for that.’ So as I thought about a night time burglary, I also thought how eloquent, “money is a fickle son of a bitch.”
Philip Hensher said “Landy’s important…because just at this moment we’re slightly disenchanted with money itself, we’re slightly disenchanted with money’s power to act as an aesthetic judgment in itself.”

There are things in this world that go beyond a ‘logical’ price. Bankers bonuses are one example and Art another. Seeing the Hirst in there was thought provoking. I’m glad he did it. In fact I now hope a pilgrimage begins for many arty cash cows out there. To emphasise money hasn’t got such a tight grip on art or artists alike. Come on; protest to the value of numbers and paper! Bring an offering to the gods, you never know it may save you yet.

***Applications to dispose of an artwork are open to everyone so why not take part

b-uncut will be following the ArtBin exhibition throughout so stay in touch with our blog. They’ll be an exclusive interview with Michael Landy and some slideshows documenting the growing submissions.

Exhibition runs until 14 March 2010 @ The South London Gallery.

.

  • Jane
    Cool article Lawrence, can't wait to read the interview! did Hirst just throw in a picture of the skull? That seems like cheating....I mean he is making a statement but not really following through there...
  • Lawrence
    Hey Jane, how is everything going? Well Hirst did submit the skull as rubbish. Why do you say he's not following through? L
  • Jane
    Hi Lawrence, how are you? I just think it is a bit hippocritical considering he is invested in that piece of artwork--he and a group of "investors" own the skull so basically he is confirming what everyone thinks of him--rubbish work that people pay a hype price for. hope to see you sometime soon :)
  • It does seem to me that the DAMien Hurst skull piece doesn't belong--I doubt he thinks it is failed work, and I can't help but wonder if someone will dig it out of the bin after hours when no one is looking...
  • Lawrence Whiteley
    Dear Art Counsel, Just read your review. Interesting that you miss a vital piece of the puzzle; Art is inherently subjective, one man's castoff is another man's gold. Damien Hirst, for example, deemed his encrusted skull as a failure, however many would scramble for the chance to own it.
    As art conjures subjectivity it reveals value far beyond the confines of numbers in the stock market. It is something felt, experienced and lived by everyone differently. It therefore reveals a truth within us.
    I understand you're living in the States, have you visited the show? Imagine how hard it must be to review a Tom Waits concert you never went to.
    It is brilliant how opposing your rant is to mine. This debate about its relevance and quality is immediate proof of a potency within an inspirational piece of work.
    For any one who embraces life, money is but a drop in the ocean. It doesn't make the earth move.
  • Art Counsel
    No, I have not seen the show, nor did I pretend that I had. I was discussing a concept and was careful to make that clear. Part of my reason for foregrounding the concept is that it seems weak and gives no clear reason to visit the show. So, not a review of the exhibition, a critique of an advertised concept.

    Also, I did allude to subjectivity, (one man's trash is another's treasure etc.) though briefly as it seemed redundant to flog the issue.

    As for your last comment - I do not disagree. Money is just money. It is a common thing, but a common thing that people need to get by, but this is beside the point. Isn't the money alluded to by the exhibition discretionary spending - that which is left over after necessities have been met? Isn't spotlighting this kind of purchasing power rather myopic and a bit late considering the world economic situation? Perhaps the intended audience is more limited than I perceive...

    As for the debate about it's relevance, yes it is debatable and the reason it exists rests primarily on the fame of the artist. I think people want to like it. Hell, I want to like it, but am not interested in insulting the artist with sycophancy, but rather seriously considering whether the concept is worth seeing in action.

    Anyway, so far you have not mentioned anything that was not considered in the blog post. Is there a good reason to go to this exhibition? I am really not interested in watching someone destroy official rejects in order to watch the artist bite the hand that feeds him. Not a fame-groupie, so I won't go just to be in the presence of the master. Sorry, so far this seems repetitive and far short of Landy's potential.

    Enlighten me please.
  • Lawrence
    Art Counsel, It is impossible to provide an accurate insight into whether or not the bin is worth visiting without doing it. Conveniently the gallery is close to where I live. I can assure you, I had reservations that you have more than adequately described. But your process has been restricted by the fundamental issue of not experiencing it first hand. All the criticism is just a culmination of blindly negative hear say.
    Imagine you wake up in a new land where there is no sun. One day you try and describe the beauty of a sunrise to the indigenous. Do you think they'll experience the same thing as when you sat one morning, feeling the warm kiss of those rays?
  • Art Counsel
    Dear Lawrence,
    I understand your point, but I do not think that you understand mine. A response to a concept (the idea of something) is not the same as responding to a concrete manifestation. Being fully aware of this I did not attempt to critique the actual exhibition, but the concept behind it.

    By the way, I had actually not read or heard anything negative about the exhibition before writing my opinion piece - so not a bit of second hand gossip. I felt the concept was weak and needed further development, seemed incomplete, been there, done that, and still do.

    By the way, to clarify, I am disappointed in what appears to be an attempt by the artist to keep a high profile at the expense of quality, thoughtful work. I was not disappointed in the quality of your article. You are entitled to your opinion and you expressed it well enough.

    Anyway, I would truly like to know if the show is more than it appears. Can you give me something more?
  • Lawrence
    Hi AC, I understand your point. So you require quality, thoughtful work to be satisfied with a piece of art. Remember that is not everyone's point of view.
    That aside, Landy's concept may appear limited but we know Landy, through previous work, to be an artist who is thoughtful. Who was very close to winning the Turner Prize. Therefore despite what strikes us first as a thoughtless whim produced soley for a high profile. Maybe first we need to trust in his integrity as an artist.
    No artist could ever maintain a high profile if the work had no value, even if there was a spectacle nature involved. It is a giant assumption to think Landy would risk his already established reputation purely for fame and the like. No doubt, he is not playing it safe with this concept. But that is not to say it is careless. He is older, more experienced and due to his track record under more pressure than ever to produce something with more quality than ever so previous.
    What attracted me to the exhibition was that it is fresh. Not carved from previous masters but a development from his own work, from the world around us. When I encountered the Bin it took on a completely new tone. No photographs are allowed as if the to make the room sacred. Only Landy decides what goes in and only he throws it in, again something quite religious through it's hierarchy and entitlements. The white gloves are worn through this ceremony. All the while this is no mere skip. It's ginormous. Over-bearing. It's practically the size of the space, squashing all those who come in around it. The panels are clear exposing the innards like a Sea World show. There is a pulpit from which each piece is dumped. All the while constructed like a brutish industrialised machine. Exposed, steel framed and girdered.
    I certainly could be wrong because no one can ever reach into another man's mind, but I strongly believe all of these finer details were no accident; they are part of the concept.
  • Art Counsel
    By the way, Landy said that he makes no judgment on what goes into the bin and is actually not picking and choosing what goes in. You should read the exhibition literature.
  • Art Counsel
    Thank you for the explanation. Sorry, but if you read my comments carefully your explanation confirms my analysis of the concept - a throw-away idea built from tired overused concepts, tired architectural/industrial motifs, (zzzzz). I suppose the pseudo-religious (yawn) overtones are (nod, nod, zzzz) wha? Oh yes, Landy... There is more quality in the construction of the bin than of the concept, which is lazy and perhaps even mildly contemptuous of his audience. If this were the point, it would be more interesting, but not by much because this is not fresh. Musing further, if the concept were devoid of thought or care it would be more interesting, but this is not part of Landy's reputation. The concept is mediocre - Don't hate it, don't like it. It is lukewarm, like an exercise more than an entity. Still not convinced to visit. Still appears to match my original analysis.

    Oops, had a moment of subjectivity - the whole exhibition appears to be constructed of old rotting concept, motif, action, architecture, and filled with an ironic and disingenuous nod to failure... Nope, still the same analysis.

    I guess I don't understand why you are acting as an apologist for this bit of artistic Sleepy Nighty Snoozy Snooze. Did this really transport you, or do you just like to debate? I'll understand. Love playing devil's advocate myself.
  • Art Counsel
    Much as I like Landy, This is a bit disappointing. Please see my extended response http://artcounsel.wordpress.com/
blog comments powered by Disqus