Comments
Isn't shock value just required for our short attention spans, and because we're unwilling to engage properly with serious art?
Posted by Tammy Lewis on 19/01/2012 3:04pm
The intention to "shock" is dishonest, sadistic manipulation. One cannot compare the YBAs to Goya, the Impressionists or any other past art. There's a huge difference between honest painting that surprises or shocks because it's innovative, as with the Impressionists, and dishonest art that deliberatly intends to shock in order to gain market share. Furthermore, nothing organized or supported by Charles Saatchi can be said to be a critique of bourgeois values. This is simply naive. Is Hirst using Saatchi, or is Saatchi using Hirst? Maybe the real issue is how they are both using the public. Matthew Collings and Matthew Stone seem oblivious to the manipulation of so much contemporary art--which is all about marketing and not at all about art. Thank you Julian Spalding for trying to break through the market death grip of "shock" art.
Posted by Janet Contursi on 21/01/2012 5:15pm
Join the conversation
You must be a member to comment. Log in or Register now »About this performance
Almost a generation ago, a handful of British artists - with some help from Charles Saatchi - realigned the cultural landscape with their sensational, unorthodox conceptual work. Is shock value a legitimate goal for art or a distraction from the real thing?
BBC presenter Mary-Ann Craig keeps order as broadcaster and critic Matthew Collings, artist Matthew Stone, controversial critic and curator Julian Spalding, and Director of the ICA Ekow Eshun take issue over the end of taboo.
You might also like
