Courtesy Reena Spaulings Fine Art, New York
Merlin Carpenter, installation view of "The Opening," Reena Spaulings Fine Art, New York, 2007.
By Matthew Collings
Published: June 1, 2009
Contested meaning The way the routine works is that the audience starts arriving at the usual private view hour, they see a gallery full of pristine blank surfaces (expensive linen canvas expertly primed), and they mill around for a long time and start to get restless and impatient, and at that point (after he’s been milling too) Carpenter gets a bucket of paint and starts daubing. It lasts for about 10 minutes. There’s usually something disobliging about the gallerist. At Reena Spaulings in New York one canvas read: RELAX IT'S ONLY ANOTHER CRAP REENA SPAULINGS SHOW. Is it serious? Is it puerile attention-seeking? Or is it that, but with other dimensions, other depths? Which bit is the deep part? The latest edition was at the Simon Lee Gallery in London. The paintings there were priced at $40,000 each. The advance publicity featured a photo of Die collector scum from the Spaulings show, which sold at the 2007 Miami art fair on its opening day. Many others have entered collections. Buyers resist if there’s only a splash or a squiggly mark on the canvas, but so long as the words can be read, the works tend to sell. As I write, it’s too early to know if the Simon Lee show will beat the credit crunch, but it doesn’t really matter: the institution of the vernissage has still been made into a site of contested meaning: value, performance, spectacle, and money. How does the meaning work, though? You can only ask more questions. Is Carpenter morally better than Lucian Freud, whose prices are manipulated by auction house scams? And if we were at one of these "Openings" would we be better people now because we’ve had the experience? And are his galleries, following the pretend-flagellation he puts them through, now purified and morally better than hedge-fund people? The issues are too silly to follow up on (the answer is "no" to all of the above, of course), even though somewhere they are actually operating, and he has kept them in focus, and they’re the right issues, and he hasn’t done it in a turgid way, as many agitprop artists certainly have in the past (with different issues that were also the right ones at that time). He does so many twists on self-consciousness and moralizing (and doing the right thing and being strategic and careful and going way over the edge but somehow staying firmly within a protected circle) that it’s tempting just to dismiss him, if only in order to forget about the problem.
Cheerful bollocks
|
advertisements
|