 |
James Panero, the art critique at the New Criterion, has an article about the horrendous productions of China's contemporary artists. Such horror stories include "a dead fetus snuggled against the face of a deceased old man in bed covered with ice -titled Honey)" and "[an artist who] cut a fetus specimen into five handy pieces (two arms, two legs, one head-and-torso) and gnawed—or at least pretended to gnaw—the morsels for a still camera - titled Eating People)."
Panero exhibits the normal shock and abhorrence reserved for such atrocities. Yes "art" using dead fetuses and corpses of old men is repulsive to anyone. Something's wrong with you if you don't feel that way. But Panero goes one step further and blames these Chinese modern artists for scamming innocent New York art speculators millions if not billions of dollars for their works.
Well, just a minute. Is anyone twisting the arms of these speculators to buy these atrocities? Just like no-one is forcing Damien Hirsts into Sotheby's galleries?
Panero does a great job of panning these Chinese opportunists, but when the occasion came to review art communities which are trying to subvert and eliminate such modern terrors, he is far lest indulgent (in the praise that is, not the admonishments).
For example, about the Classical Realism groups that are forming around the country, he says:
Classical Realism is enraptured with its urge to teach, but much of its best work can resemble a demonstration piece of technical abilities without a vision beyond the schools.Sure, each and every art atelier will resemble a demonstration piece. How else are students to learn and masters to experiment?
And at an earlier blog, I commented on his mild cynicism regarding the Hudson River School revival by Jacob Collins (whom he also derides as the recipient of old money, hence his success at establishing his various studios. What's wrong with being a talented artist and having money?). His position, again, is that the technical mastery of these painters doesn't necessarily mean they have found the essence in their paintings - which in the Hudson River School for Landscape apparently is God.
Panero writes a 2,300 word article about the atrocities of Chinese contemporary art (and Chinese art imports), but cannot utter real words of praise for those who are countering, one brush stroke at a time, these horrible forces in the art world.
It is easy to be indignant about fetus art, but why not be generous about neo-revivals?
In the final analysis, Panero doesn't believe in revivals. He doesn't believe that they have anything to offer us. Instead, he would rather we march down the brave road of progress. Toss everything else aside and see if we can come up with something just a little better than fetus art. Who wants to "copy" those old traditions anyway?
So, who's to blame, then, for the Chinese art market? Those who buy it, or those who sell it? I think Panero has actually bought (into) it. Just leave out the dead babies, but keep the rest, he seems to be saying.