Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘jonathan jones’

More than 100 people have commented on Jonathan Jones’s piece, “Should Banksy be nominated for the Turner Prize?”, over the past two days, despite the fact we’ve heard his arguments before. The question of Banksy’s artistic worth, it seems, is something we are all still itching to debate.

Jones has confessed in the past to being “pretty harsh” about Banksy, and to publishing more articles about this “unimportant graffiti and street artist than I care to count”. Writing about Banksy is, Jones says, the “thorn of being an art critic in modern Britain”. “Cy Twombly is the only graffiti artist I care about” (3 June 2008)

However, it is a thorn that has generated a lot of material for Jones’s blog, culminating in the latest piece on his decision not to nominate the street artist for this year’s Turner Prize competition.

His reasons for considering the artist are twofold: one, he would like to be convinced of Banksy’s worth, and two, he would welcome the media attention such a nomination would surely generate. However, he concludes that Banksy no longer generates the same column inches as before, and finally says:

The reason I don’t like street art is that it’s not aesthetic, it’s social. To celebrate it is to celebrate ignorance, aggression, all the things our society excels at. For middle class people to find artistic excitement in something that scares old people on estates is a bit sick.

The vast majority of people responding to this piece argue indignantly in favour of street art, pointing out that it is not the same as “tagging”, and is aesthetic as well as social. An early comment by mroli (15 April 09, 4:12pm) reads:

Are old people on estates scared by street art? I don’t think they are. Certainly not the kind of street art that Banksy perpetrates. How on earth does it celebrate ignorance? How does it celebrate aggression? Don’t nominate him if you think he’s crap, but not nominating him because he is a “social” artist, that encourages discussion, is open to everyone, whose work is essentially disposable and yet adopted as permanent is madness.

Another comment accuses Jones of blatant self-promotion, for the article reveals nothing new about Jones’s relationship with street art, and instead seems to be a thinly veiled boast about his role in nominating artists for the Turner Prize shortlist.

And now, to bring up a blog entry Jones wrote about lazy arts reporting in September 2007, which was always going to come back and bite him on the arse. “Imagine how little news about visual art would appear in the papers,” says Jones, “if the following generic stories were banned:

  1. The most expensive work of art ever
  2. Anything about graffiti
  3. Lost masterpiece rediscovered
  4. Contemporary artists as plagiarists
  5. Art historian/archaeologist makes earth-shattering discovery Restoration stories”
Advertisements

Read Full Post »

For once, I agree with Jonathan Jones: The new public art commission in south east England, dubbed the Angel of the South, is a monstrosity.

Angel of the South

Mark Wallinger: Ebbsfleet Landmark Project (Angel of the South)

Costing £2m, Mark Wallinger’s giant white horse will be approximately 164ft (50m) tall – twice as big as its counterpart, the Angel of the North, which was designed by Antony Gormley and completed in 1998. The BBC announced today that former Turner Prize winner Wallinger’s design for the southern sculpture had been selected from a shortlist of three.
Out of Order

Richard Deacon: Individual

The other two artists were Daniel Buren and Richard Deacon.

Why they didn’t choose Deacon is beyond me. Although the white horse is an ancient symbol of Kent, Richard Deacon’s organic forms would have rivalled Gormley’s 
powerful sculpture in a way that Wallinger’s horse cannot.

Read Full Post »