Thankfully, yes; however, that´s not to say that things aren´t slowly going that way! On the matter of writing, it´s as if some of the curator-speak of today has been lifted straight off his article.
I suppose that when there is not really much to say about a picture, that´s the time when the seller feels the urgency to say much.
I might have posted this here before, and if so, please forgive me, but perhaps the incident bears the retelling. Anyway, some years ago I was in London and happened upon a show at Hamilton´s Gallery - it was by Robert Mapplethorpe´s brother. As I was walking slowly alongside the walls, looking somewhat bemusedly at the offerings thereon, I became aware of this chap and a woman standing to one side, and slightly behind me. He was telling her to notice the delicacy with which the photographer had captured the nuances of detail on the bakground to the main subject, the skill that took etc. I almost laughed out loud. The subject I can no longer remember, but the background I shall never forget: it was simply the woodchip wallpaper which the photographer had used as backdrop to the person he´d shot. I mean, how could he have AVOIDED the bloody texture using a side-light!
I have no idea whether the guy doing the speaking was an employee of the gallery or simply somebody trying to impress his girlfriend, but from the memory of the event I´d guess the former.
Sure seemed an easier route to riches than many others, including my own!
Rob C
There was an interesting program on TV last night, about lying (ie. not telling the truth). Yes, I do watch TV sometimes. Don't criticise me. I get the impression that the 'Australian Broadcasting Corporation' airs better quality programs than the 'American Broadcasting Corporation', despite the fact they are both the ABC. (Should I duck for cover? ).
There was a memorable episode which described the process of producing a painting done by a hippopotamus. The paint was applied to its tongue and it licked the canvass, producing the sort of abstract painting that might fool some folks into thinking the painting had some sort of ineffable profundity.
The painting was privately exhibited as an experiment to guage the reactions of a number of viewers, who were video recorded.
Privately, and therefore presumably honestly, a group of viewers thought the painting ridiculous. Some commented it was probably done by a monkey. Others said they could do a much better job themselves, even though they had little painting expertise. The general consensus was, the painting was crap.
In the next scene, the supposed painter walked into the room (not the hippopotamus), but an actor claiming to be the author of the work. He explained his motives, thoughts and aspirations in painting the work. He became eloquent on matters of light and shade, strength of brush technique, brilliance of primary colors which represented his unfulfilled dreams etc etc.
Suddenly, the audience responded in a completely positive way towards the painting. The viewers endorsed the painter's opinion of his work and even expanded upon it with accolades suggesting the work was a masterpiece and that it would have no trouble fetching a high price in a gallery.
Aren't we lovely .
