top of page

Design has everything to do with it

Stephen Hornsby-Smith

Introduction Art Historians and Fine Art specialist's are spin Dr's ready spin a yarn about public disgust to public uproar to public intrigue to public identification with the 'on message' iconoclasm of CA. 'Don't know what it means but like every politician, Artists are a law unto themselves!' The substitution of nuance for 'in poor taste' is how the Art world rotates. We are seen as stuckists or impressionables where Art college divides the oceans of Art into a Moses dividing the Red sea where Art can safely be bred like a horse in demand. Art College stud farms-out and monopolizes the 'Youth culture', where originality is the currency of technology and the 'Art stock' has replaced the 'Art shock' to make saleable the 'annual migration' of graduate shows that are a testament of the last will and testament of anyone Painting. Going against the grain hurts your brain and your wallet! However, 'Art by popular fit' welcomes only those who are a size 'o'. Here we have cynics united who prefer to sledge Painting with all the vigour that professional qualifications can offer to legitimise to 'Art terrorize' but who are strangely moved and enlightened by a piece of cheese on a slice of fruit sped on its way by a distinctly indifferent white or red that flows into the appetite! It is often fun to watch CA enthusiasts find a way to prostletize about being on the spot when they rejected the 'sell-out' of Jon Lydon's now infamous advert. We had butter look out because punk is in the house!

'What art' is more 'contemporary' as is 'Crap or clap Art' or 'no way Art' or 'hate Art' or 'Art college Art' ,or 'Scare the shit out of you Art', or 'Anti Art' or 'If I say it is Art it is Art' Art, than contemporary medium of Painting. Prestige and money go hand in hand, but why the 'I have very strong feelings about passe Painting' and no scrutiny about 'Art that is shit'? Why has the angel of death passed over tech Art but mutilated the medium of Painting? The answer is quite simple: Art has become full of politicians! I don't really worry about politics in Art but to breed a 'new wave of politicians' to run Art is going too far!

So, if Art is what the Artist says is Art is politics what the politicians say is politics too? What if migrants from Syria turn-up at an opening of a show by a well known Artist, do we let them into the gallery or not? Perhaps if they owned half of Knightsbridge we would. But here's an Art switch: What if there was a real commercial benefit to municipal 'open door policy' and a policy of prioritizing a 'no sale exhibition', whilst secretly selling to rich collectors and powerful clients who can keep their mouths shut? What if you had the money but were not considered 'select' enough? How would you sell it to the masses whilst the identities of the clients and of the galleries could remain anonymous? By secrecy alone? Where's the plan B? Full-on maximum coverage from the press and media to distract and mislead the public from what is going on behind closed doors. Nobody expects to expose the galleries if they are more than tolerant of media coverage - it's just that they have the full story without the inside story because they have been played from the real story. Media curiosity can make for great entertainment value and there's no finer example of tabloid gossip than here in blighty! Besides, making a friend of the Tabloids can take a Gallery far!

But what if the Art Object itself wasn't what the rich buy into but the status of the galleries 'confidentiality'! Credibility and security goes far in both the Political world and the world of Art business. Money provides the lubrication of buying into an 'economic abstraction' - superiority and seniority is the nectar and ambrosia rolled into one . It is the Lord of the Rings of life! You can wield its power and influence and you become invisible to your enemies or better still, to your friends! Gaudy splashes in the media are a small price to pay to own secrecy and its powers! Welcome to the new paradigm of business! Doesn't everybody benefit from not knowing too much whilst enjoying all the entertainment, cameras and action? Further more, this offers a series of ways to circumnavigate any problems by use of simple code: Attention to prominent potential clients is versed in receiving a 'non-invitation' that demands the recipient to 'bend the knee' and not attend a function or exhibition. Leak that to the media and everybody thinks the exhibition is 'street savvy' and smart and honest-joe upfront etc This provides the opportunity for 3rd party private viewing to dupe the scoop! Stigma has never been so unemployed! Whilst moves are made to close the deal! Mr /Ms clandestine are in disguise! Bigger fish are attracted to the clientele and the weight of secrecy, not to mention the power that transactions can facilitate! Unknowingly tabloids and all the the idealists who thought that 'squeaky clean' was transparent, are used as fodder to sweeten the transaction deals. Nothing appeals to power more than using ones rivals to torpedo their own! But is that corruption or brinkmanship? It isn't illegal, it's just playing to your strengths and working a business model that involves the high end and low end markets at the same time. It fosters both relationships of pro and anti-materialism at the same time! But high end, I mean really high end 'investors' are paradoxically non-materialistic too, because they are buying into the non substance the abstraction of 'influence' and status.

Indeed, why should entrepreneurs have to do their job behind closed doors? Aren't anti-big money' groups able to get galleries to do their worst of 'Capitalism skulking around' or at least 'behaving suspiciously'? It must be so exhausting running around looking for evidence that will never be there! All that obsessive 'incrimination' by association will remain contained with its lid permanently shut. Chasing rainbows must be so time consuming? So why do Fine Art specialist's have to get 'approval' from them and the public in general? It's just politics...... and a bit of economics. Poles apart full of Art Pol-itics' aren't so very different from the media huddle of limelight on-stage ,look at me jamboree of Politics in general. But there are politically driven anti-Artist Artists who turn-up with a camera crew to expose the Art circus and then sell their visual document to the competitors or the exact same tabloid that the gallery has used to inflate the gossip yet conceal the real deal(which the paper itself isn't privy to). Ironic how these goons don't even suspect that the gallery and the paper can hush it all up, in the name of 'future and more profound sharing of information'.Anarchy in the UK does not win the Art game, ever! They may have been given a hush cheque so that they can invest in more needy causes like which French chatteau should they buy in Provence? They can claim they are 'lying-low'until the money runs out or their notoriety takes a fall! Perhaps they just want their child in a better french post-code to send her to a public school in England? I still don't know how that works?!!! And people say that anti-capitalists are idealists?! It does comfort me that Quiditch' is more popular than 'Prankville' Art, even if Quiditch is more popular than the Medium of Painting!

Or... Painting is either being downgraded for a longer playo the new drop-out cool Artists are the most anonymous - like Painters? 'Don't study at Art College' Art could make Painting more sexy, but I doubt it. But by 2050, I bet that Painting and Painter's will be vindicated; from antique to chic 'rotation of the wheel' or eternal Art crop rotation will make space for retro re-brand or genuine original image making on its own merit under its own steam! Yet I still haven't done the conspiracies yet...blast!

Conspiracy against Painting?

OK, Are all conspiracies on a sharp learning curve of 'watch out for the desperado's '? Or, am I meant to believe that 'old-hat Art has been conspired against by its own? Have wedeliberately shot ourselves in the foot? Have we created a ruse of Painting out and high tech in to be more cherished in the long run? Bollocks! Let's be realistic,the Art world does not run on conspiracies but on simple terrain of purchase and acquisition. What does that involve? Investment potetial and simple accountancy. But I believe that it is not simply the money that can resolve the downgrading of the medium of Painting, but that on many levels,viability as a original source of originality must involve risk Put simply, are you prepared to risk everything for a medium or are you already backing out by taking a 'new direction? Perhaps I should call myself PS instead of SP because Painting is seen as the postscriptum of Art today, and that will not do at all!

bottom of page