snubbing the stuckists
the Tate Museum has turned down a proposed gift of 160 paintings offered by a group of artists known as the stuckists. Tate director Sir Nicholas Serota wrote to the Stuckists, who offered the gift: “We do not feel that the work is of sufficient quality in terms of accomplishment, innovation, or originality of thought to warrant preservation in perpetuity in the national collection.” ouch. the ol’ hierarchical bitch slap from the local gatekeepers of art history. here’s the thing, in my view the tate was absolutely right in handing out said bitch slap.
the stuckists are a group which formed officially in 1999 by Charles Thomson and Billy Childish (who left in 2001) along with eleven other artists. The name was derived by Thomson from an insult to Childish from his ex-girlfriend, Brit artist Tracey Emin, who told him that his art was ‘stuck’. The Stuckists stand for contemporary figurative painting with ideas. They oppose conceptual art, mainly because of what they regard as its lack of concepts.
having chosen an ism they eventually issued a manifesto which begins like this:
Against conceptualism, hedonism and the cult of the ego-artist.
-Stuckism is the quest for authenticity. By removing the mask of cleverness and admitting where we are, the Stuckist allows him/herself uncensored expression.
-Painting is the medium of self-discovery. It engages the person fully with a process of action, emotion, thought and vision, revealing all of these with intimate and unforgiving breadth and detail.
-Stuckism proposes a model of art which is holistic. It is a meeting of the conscious and unconscious, thought and emotion, spiritual and material, private and public. Modernism is a school of fragmentation — one aspect of art is isolated and exaggerated to detriment of the whole. This is a fundamental distortion of the human experience and perpetrates an egocentric lie.
they call their anti-conceptual, and anti-anti-art paintings remodernism.
i must say that i am very sympathetic to certain of the stuckists broad stroke ideals, in theory anyway. i happen to be less than enthralled by the prevailing winds of conceptualism, less than impressed with most of the propped-up “art royalty” getting coronated by the lucre chewing king makers, and i’d certainly be thrilled to see painting rise again to prominence. no question. they even have this bit in their manifesto Stuckism is anti ‘ism’ a sentiment i’m sure i don’t need to get into. but here’s the thing: by and large, to my eye at least (luckily the only eye i need to concern myself with) their paintings stink. for the most part. manifesto writing and monicker adopting is good fun for the whole self important family, but in the end, if your paintings don’t move me… well, then all those words which accompany them only serve as convenient kindling for my cozy crap-art bonfire.
course, you, reader, might eat and breathe stuckist. fine. subjective, etc etc. but should this work be in the permanent collection of the tate? maybe. should it be there today? seems a touch presumptuous for a “movement” which has existed for only 6 years to be represented by any museums permanent collection whatsoever. that’s what galleries are for. a venue that the stuckists are evidently doing just fine in. so hey, don’t get greedy stuck-ites. furthermore if you read the manifesto you might even be struck with the thought that “hey, wanting so badly to be enshrined forever in any institution sounds suspiciously un-stuckist…” haha, so is the trap of grand pronouncements manifest.
Charles Thomson, co-founder of the Stuckists, called the decision “a massive snub”. Noting their recent stuckist exhibition’s success, he added: “It shows the Tate is completely out of line with the rest of the country and the public, whose money it spends on things the public don’t want.” touchy touchy mr. high minded “new spirituality” in art, mr. anti “the ego-artist’s constant striving for public recognition”... haha. maybe next decade.
see the work and judge for yourself, maybe you’ll dig it.
international stuckists
uk stuckists
some of the specific works rejected by the tate.
oh, p.s. click the first thumbnail to see the actual non-snide painting.
Read Less...
Museum directors get their definitions of art from the short list of wealthy patrons who bankroll building expansions and blockbuster exhibitions. The Stuckist stunt was, like their paintings, failure by design. That the Tate’s permanent collections most certainly contain works of art far uglier and more humorless than My Grandfather Will Fight You is immaterial.
posted by
eponymagain on 07/29 at 11:11 PM
thanks for the comment eponymagain. in response:
o.k. so museums do not choose pieces for their collection based on the quality of the art and the tate in particular already houses art uglier and less amusing than certain stuckist works? fine.
the stuckist stunt was, like their paintings, failure by design. also fine, but here’s the thing, i’m personally uninterested in their machinations, their stunts, their level of cleverness, or their theory; i’m interested in paintings, and theirs (by and large) still look like thrift-store paintings to me. whether that is by design, by accident, by government decree, by act of god, or as a result of a lack of ability does not matter to me, the result is the same.
btw interesting site you’ve got there.
posted by
jmorrison on 07/30 at 12:32 AM
Perhaps the Stuckists biggest problem is their name. Better had they presented themselves to the Tate as The Aristocrats.
posted by
eponymagain on 07/30 at 05:21 PM
Tate mistaked, stuckists do some cool stuff, time will show.
posted by
Grijsz on 08/07 at 08:15 PM
- Criticism is the child and handmaid of reflection. It works by censure, and censure implies a standard.
Richard Grant White (1822 - 85) American author
posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/12 at 09:23 PM
If those big museums reach their end of space, we just need new money for new ideas, for some new spaces. Museums never liked the art of their own time, because 99 curators are stupid by default. Art can not be valued immedeatly, but ofter some time. The stuckists too. I do not say, that all their works are great. But to refuse them all, is a sign of time and of Tate.
posted by
Hans on 08/12 at 10:11 PM
if its in a museum it can not be modern.
I think I’m quoting Gertrude Stein.
posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/13 at 03:39 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
the Tate Museum has turned down a proposed gift of 160 paintings offered by a group of artists known as the stuckists. Tate director Sir Nicholas Serota wrote to the Stuckists, who offered the gift: “We do not feel that the work is of sufficient quality in terms of accomplishment, innovation, or originality of thought to warrant preservation in perpetuity in the national collection.” ouch. the ol’ hierarchical bitch slap from the local gatekeepers of art history. here’s the thing, in my view the tate was absolutely right in handing out said bitch slap.