Adolf Hitler and the Chapman Brothers
Comments Off
Brothers Jake and Dinos Chapman have added some psychodelic rainbows and and hearts to their Adolf Hitler paintings that they bought at auction for £115,000 and are now selling them for £685,000. The paintings which will be sold as one work is called “If Hitler had been a Hippy How Happy Would We Be”
He hoped the defacement of Hitler’s work, which includes landscapes, vistas of Roman ruins and still life, which the dictator painted when he was young, would have him “spinning”. The changes they had added meant it was no longer Hitler’s work, he added.
“If hell exists and Hitler exists in it, he would be spinning if he saw these. It’s not his work any more. It’s our work,” he said. Independent
The Chapman brothers’ exhibition can be seen at the White Cube Gallery in London.
>> Exhibitions, Controversies
New Painting Titled “Why Cut Corners”
Comments Off
“Why Cut Corners”- Acrylic on Canvas12 x 12 x 1-1/2″
It’s a silly title, but it’s inspired by the faint text in some of the collaged elements. This is one of the six I showed yesterday in progress. I have declared it finished.
See you next week
Comments OffI’m taking the rest of the week off. Back on Monday with some thoughts on self-portraits and on Aaron Douglas at the Smithsonian American Art Museum.
The New Berensons?
Comments OffHmmmm…, I say…Hmmmmm
Two former museum chiefs are heading to New York—and to positions at high-profile contemporary-art galleries. David Ross, a former director of the Whitney Museum of American Art and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, has become a partner in Albion with Michael Hue-Williams, while Robert Fitzpatrick, most recently director of the Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago, has been named international managing director of Haunch of Venison.“I wanted to work more closely with artists, rather than patrons and trustees,” says Ross, explaining his transition to the commercial side of the industry. Fitzpatrick agrees, describing dealers as having a “passion for art, artists and helping their work become better known.”
Hmmmmm…
Alright, Ed, get off it…you say, what’s all this hmmm’ing about?
Well, with all due respect to my friends in museums, whom I have the utmost respect for, I’ve always gotten this sense from many of them that the commercial gallery system is seen as somewhat, shall we say, tainted, in their circles. This notion is exemplified by nothing so much as the fact that it’s widely believed to be harder for a commercial gallerist to become a major curator or director of a museum than it is for a camel to squeeze through the eye of needle. And yet, as we see, the constriction seems to apply in only one direction.
Don’t get me wrong, I wish Misters Ross and Fitzpatrick only the best of success and happiness in their new endeavors, it’s just that, after all these years of feeling somewhat like the arms dealer at a peace conference when discussing artists careers among curators or museum directors (and admittedly, that might be my own personal insecurity more so than any bias on the part of most of the museum folks I know), it is somewhat reassuring to see a former museum director acknowledging that “dealers [have] a ‘passion for art, artists and helping their work become better known.’”
Will we see more migrations from the museum to the commercial side of things? Is this a sign of the times?
Of course, most of my sensibilities about this are perhaps outdated, stemming, as they do from my love of biographies of past art world luminaries. Indeed, the title of this post references one Bernard Berenson (1865 - 1959), the highly respected art historian and Renaissance expert, who had his reputation somewhat soiled by being seen as a bit too entangled with the doings of art dealer Joseph Duveen. To many people, Berenson’s reputation never totally recovered, even after the two parted ways. Of course, perhaps Berenson’s star got tarnished more because he worked with Duveen via a secret agreement that was exposed during his testimony in a high-profile trial that Duveen had to settle out of court (a collector sued Duveen for claiming, without seeing it, that the Da Vinci she wanted to sell, was in fact by someone else).
I actually think any gallery would be lucky to have former museum staff working for them. The education, standards, and best practices they’d bring would be a remarkable asset in the gallery’s efforts to promote its artists. I just couldn’t let it pass unhighlighted that a former museum director had justified such a move because “I wanted to work more closely with artists, rather than patrons and trustees.” I’ll hold my head just a little bit higher among my museum friends from now on. ;-P
A Question of Consent and Consequence
Comments Off 
You have probably all heard or read something about the controversial works of Australian photographer Bill Henson that have been confiscated by police due to the use of naked underage girls in his work. I would not normally get involved in a debate that has already been commented on by everyone and anyone but since I have already written on a similar issue involving the work of Nan Goldin, and I am an Australian, I am going to say my piece.
Considering that Bill Henson has been producing similar works for more than 15 years it is unfortunate that he has basically been led to believe that what he is doing would not result in any serious negative consequences. I have no doubt that Henson has been treated unfairly and has been falsely portrayed as some sort of child abuse promoting monster. However, now that the works have come under scrutiny there is no way that action can’t be taken.
By not taking action after questions have been raised I believe that the police or who ever else is responsible for investigating such complaints would be seen as advocating eroticised images of children (whether or not they were). I have heard compelling arguments from both sides of the fence and would like to be able to support Bill Henson (who is a fantastic artist) and his work but as a Christian I am compelled to look beyond my opinion as an art critic.
I do believe that there are two main factors in this whole saga that should be considered above all others and they are consent and consequence. I am aware that there have been comments from one of Henson’s former child models that supports his work but the opinion of one or even a few of the former models cannot be taken as I doubt that the children in Henson’s photos were able to fully understand the gravity of the situation or fully comprehend the possible issues and consequences of being photographed naked. Because the children in the photographs were not able to make a decision with the same understanding and awareness that an adult would, they should really not have been allowed to consent to being photographed or have consent given for them by their parents. The second issue of the consequences of not taking some action, as I mentioned earlier, could be used as an excuse for more sinister activities which just can’t happen. I think it is also important to remember that Bill Henson is the only person who really has any choice in this situation in that he can choose to change the subject of his future work but the children in his photographs can’t choose to be taken out of his past work.
I do actually agree with those that are of the opinion that Bill Henson’s work is art and not pornography but as far as I am concerned the question of whether or not Henson’s work is art or not is not the primary issue. I also genuinely believe that Henson’s motives were genuinely artistic and that in no way is Bill Henson a paedophile. Having said this, the life of a child is far more important than anything related to art and artistic freedom.
Created by Nicholas Forrest On 05/29/08 At 07:33 AM
Loading ...