Days after being profiled for his book Con Art – Why You Ought To Sell Your Damien Hirsts While You Can, art person Julian Spalding was barred from entering the Tate’s Hirst exhibition. BBC was planning to interview him amongst all the “worthless” “not art” but the Tate staff went “ballistic” and Spalding had to do the interview outside. Shitty and censorship-like that might be, Spalding is the very worst kind of art person. What’s worse than an overhyped celebrity artist who makes bad conceptual art? Someone who doesn’t understand conceptual art at all and is proud of it.
Hear Spalding’s outrage:
“It’s sinister. The Tate’s job is to encourage debate about art… The fact that I’m not allowed to talk about the work in front of [it] is extraordinary!”
Yes. True. And though blogger has jumped all over Hirst’s plagiarizing, merchandizing, money-making art schemes, nodded at calls for his head in a bag and hated the spots – even after some, uh, serious inquiry — that doesn’t mean I’m insta-Team Spalding. Spalding is a member of the Get Of My Lawn school of art criticism. With the charm of a GOP troll who calls Democrats “dems,” Spalding says all conceptual art is “con art.”
“All genuine creative effort has been knocked into the shadows…The con lies in…calling something art that isn’t art.”
Tracey Emin’s unmade bed in art gallery? Not art, but, “The Mona Lisa is the Mona Lisa wherever it is, hung in an airport foyer or… even lying in a gutter.”
“Hirst should not be in the Tate. He’s not an artist. What separates Michelangelo from Hirst is that Michelangelo was an artist and Hirst isn’t.”
Yes, I’m about to stand up for the insufferable Damien Hirst and not just because I really like that one thing. You know what kind of art Spalding, who once headed Britain’s foremost public galleries actually likes? L S Lowry. That’s right. He likes pretty pictures of things that look like the things they look like and thinks it’s more important than being vessel for an idea.. and that’s ugly.
I really want to argue with you, but have no desire to read his drivel. tldr;
The problem is he's pretty much right concerning 95-99% of all conceptual art: it is crap. And there seems to be little, if no, incentive to actually execute meaningful and successful conceptual art.
The other problem is that Damien Hirst HAS actually accomplished real, decent, non-conceptual art, just not in the "painting things that look exactly like the things they are" sort of way. And.. sadly, not that regularly.
Given the pretty much over all lack of desire for a meaningful discussion about what ACTUALLY makes a conceptual piece of art successful in the contemporary art world, I would have to side with this ignorant dude on his all-out attack on conceptual art.
hirst obviously enjoys the publicity
we all have to look at him once more
he appears to be running out of facial gestures
such is the end of his egos dash
part of the act
an act wearing thin
as empty as his creations
no reflection
the epitome of nothingness
and worthlessness
a sign of our time
he has sucked the millions out of his gullible tribe
who see dollar signs not art
commercial brands and fads
they crave
temporary of this time
not here anymore
gone tomorrow
i am surprised we are still talking about it
and even more surprised by the tate
they must be desperate for numbers
cashing in on cheap scrap
toss his shark back in the ocean
and give the diamonds
back to the laborers