Hey now, hey now, my bunting’s back. Again.

12 05 2013

 

Image

Banksy, ‘Slave Labour (Bunting Boy)’

So it appears Banksy’s troublesome wall mural will appear at auction yet again, having been withdrawn from sale in the US earlier in the year (if you’re curious, you can read more about that here) … and yet again, I ask – was Banksy involved in the ‘restoration’ of the previously absent bunting, and if not, will the auction house make note of their handiwork in their catalogue entry?

What do you reckon the odds are? Somewhere between Buckley’s and none I’ll wager.

 





Have you been missing me?

9 05 2013
Image

Guido Reni, ‘The Penitent St Peter’.

Sincere apologies.

It’s been very, very busy.

In a good way.

My inactivity is unforgivable. As a small offering to compensate for my absence, here’s a link to a feature article I wrote on the market in Aboriginal art for The Age on the weekend…. click here.  





Art in the Headlines

12 04 2013
Image

Jackson Pollock, ‘The Key’, 1946 (via ibiblio.org).

Ah, Jackson Pollock.

What’s that, you say? Your two-year-old could have done that?

Well, perhaps you’re right… from The Age … 

‘Toddler young at art but showing a maturity to turn a profit.’ **

To all you jaded and mature-age art practitioners… meet what is described in reporter Matthew Dunn’s article as “art in its purest form, untouched by life’s pollutants and representative of what is important and beautiful”. Art made by a two-year-old. There’s your problem. You’re all far too polluted.

So there you go.

** ‘Young at art’. Love it. Those puns just pen themselves.





Copyright or wrong?

10 04 2013
china-copyright-Capotondi

On the left: Claudio Capotondi, ‘Sferosnodo’, 1983. On the right: copy of ‘Sferosnodo’ outside Kunshan station, China. Image via The Art Newspaper (www.theartnewspaper.com)

I’m sure I’ve used that headline before. Actually, I know I have. But it’s too good to resist. Besides which – it was two years ago, and more of a subheading than a headline.

Anyway, another to add to my ongoing file of copyright/authorship conundrums… (a couple more linked here and here).

According to The Art Newspaper (TAN), Italian artist Claudio Capotondi has made inroads into the Chinese art world. A version of the work he produced in 1978, Sferosnodo, was selected for permanent display at the front of a station in the city of Kunshan, China.

The only catch? Capotondi had nothing to do with the creation of the sculpture on display in China. It is much larger than the artist’s own work, which he first made in bronze in 1978, and again in marble in  1983. He also had no idea the gargantuan version was being made.

But now here’s the mind-bending thing. Think about ‘authorship’ and what you think it means in the context of fine art. Well, Capotondi is now campaigning to have the new version attributed to him. Although I had a look, and it appears that his website is now offline, according to TAN, Capotondi lists the sculpture as his own on his site. He has also said that he admires the work. “There are excellent craftsmen over there. It is a complex structure and the copy is much bigger than my original.”

So according to this, blatant plagiarism can result in a work of art for which an artist can claim authorship, even if he or she had no idea it was being made, far less any involvement with its creation.

OK. So, does that mean that Gucci is going to claim authorship for the dodgy knock-off handbags sold in the streets? Unlikely, because they wouldn’t want to acknowledge such shoddy craftsmanship. Not to mention, their trade relies on the premise of ‘exclusivity’. Does that mean artists will claim authorship of a stolen design only if the object produced measures up to their exacting standards? And does that mean that if I were to whip up a completely excellent Damian Hirst, that he would claim authorship, and I’d be in possession of an original Damian Hirst, rather than a derivative Meaghan Wilson-Anastasios? Of course, there are laws in Australia and internationally that would make the latter scenario more complicated. But I’m talking theoretically.

Makes you think, doesn’t it?





Priscilla, Queen of the Desart

20 03 2013
Image

Still from ‘Priscilla Queen of the Desert’ (image via rockymusic.org)

A little quiet on the Western Front this week, I’m afraid, as I prepare for my keynote at Desart’s annual conference in Alice Springs next week. Under consideration will be all things Aboriginal art market-related.

I promise to update as soon as possible after I get back. Yes, I could do something on my iThing while I’m up there, but I plan to spend as little time working on the small screen as possible.

 





Creative Australia?

14 03 2013

Image

Because I’m disinclined to let you off with the ‘executive summary’, here’s a link to a pdf of the Gillard government’s new cultural policy in its entirety. While I’m on it…why is it always assumed that executives want nothing more than a digestible and condensed version of a complex document? It’s always struck me as akin to the mummy-bird regurgitating pre-digested worms for the baby bird. If I were an ‘executive’, I’d want to be the mummy-bird.

The Gillard government is summoning the shades of two great Labor leaders of years gone by and pioneers when it came to cultural policy. In the document, Julia Gillard writes: ‘It is now 40 years since the Australia Council for the Arts was formed and almost two decades since our first cultural policy, Creative Nation, was launched. Its successor, Creative Australia, continues the spirit of engagement with the arts embraced by my predecessors Gough Whitlam and Paul Keating.”

Yes – Gough Whitlam, who established the Australia Council, and whose government held its collective head high and bought Jackson Pollock’s Blue Poles for the National Gallery of Australia in spite of general consensus at the time that “my five-year-old daughter could’a done that!”; and Paul Keating, whose Creative Nation is credited with inspiring Tony Blair to initiate the ‘Cool Britannia’ campaign (does that mean we can hold him personally responsible for Oasis and Patsy Kensit?). Shame Keating didn’t get some good copywriters on the job – Cool Britannia stuck. Creative Nation? Little too ‘blah’, unfortunately, although the principles it promoted were certainly worthy. And it does carry a fair deal of currency in the Australian arts sector.

So it’s no accident that the new arts policy doffs its cap to its predecessor – from Creative Nation we now have Creative Australia. Given the prognosis for the ruling party, any straw is worth grabbing at this point. Still. I really think they could have wrangled a name for the policy that was far catchier, and a little less public service.

But what about the details?

First thoughts…

The principal goal of the policy warms the cockles… to ‘recognise, respect and celebrate the centrality of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures to the uniqueness of Australian identity’. This is a wonderful ideal. But money, meet mouth. To celebrate and recognise is all well and good. But the Aboriginal visual art sector is facing a fairly bleak horizon at the moment. Without significant investment in restructuring the industry, things ain’t looking great.

The emphasis on the inclusion of arts education in the Australian Curriculum is also very reassuring. As is the funding allocated to the establishment of an Indigenous Employment Strategy in collaboration with Screen Australia, and to assist contemporary musicians establish career pathways.

But the one impression I took away from my (admittedly fairly rapid) read of the policy, is that the visual arts don’t seem to get much of a look-in. Any time there is a list of art forms, visual art appears at the rear end of the queue; for example, from p. 14, under the heading ‘Creative Expression and the Role of the Artist’: ‘Whether it is through live, interactive or recorded media or whether it is through drama, documentaries, comedy, music, dance, design, visual art, writing or traditional cultural practices…’ I just picked this at random. The pattern recurs at such a frequency that it is difficult to dismiss it as an accident.

What does this mean? The document seems to be promoting ‘participation’, ‘audiences’ and ‘community’. I need to think more about this, and read the document again more closely, but my first impression is that the principal focus seems to be on our diverse cultural heritage, and the many layers of social fabric that comprise the delicious mille-feuille that is contemporary Australia.

But…and I hesitate to say this, because I do want to read it again more carefully… most of what I absorbed tells me that this is about using public money to give The Australian People (caps used advisedly) what they want. There is far less talk of innovation and excellence in this document than previous iterations, which makes me suspect it’s leaning in a far more populist and community-oriented direction.  The shift in emphasis concerns me. A great deal. When it comes to the arts end of town, quite often the most visionary work doesn’t find an audience when it’s made… and that’s what public funding for the arts has often been about. The People don’t always know best. And if an artform or particular artist has already attracted public acclaim or community support, they are in a better position to generate funds from their practice as a matter of course.

Luckily, Mr Whitlam didn’t take public sentiment to heart when he listened to his expert advisers and made the call on Blue Poles. Thanks to his audacity and vision, the Australian public now owns one of the acknowledged masterpieces made by one of the greatest artists of the 20th century.

As for the news that every federal MP will be given $23,500 a year to ‘help students pursue their artistic dreams’? Given how small the pot is already, this would seem to be a rather futile, misdirected and somewhat immoderate use of available funds – the total of $8.1 million for the project is 3.5% of the total amount of the policy package of $235 million ($75.3 million of which is going to the Australia Council). Take OzCo’s cash out, and 5% of available funds will be distributed willy-nilly by standing MPs to artistic causes they deem worthy. Grab for cash, anyone?

But I reserve my right to withdraw this statement if you see me lining up at my local member’s office to share of the Gillard-given bounty.





Would you like a little culture with that?

12 03 2013

 

Image

Otto Pliny, ‘Dance of the Seven Veils’ (image via http://www.artvalue.com)

Cue drum roll…..

The day has dawned. Minister for the Arts, Simon Crean, will unveil the Labor government’s National Cultural Policy at the National Press Club today (I’m hoping he teases us, and reveals the details slowly… enticingly… think ‘Dance of the Seven Veils’).

We haven’t had one of these since Paul Keating’s much-vaunted ‘Creative Nation’ in 1994 – a cultural policy that (ominously for the current government) didn’t survive Keating’s ignominious ousting in 1996. In the lead-up to the release, Mr Crean has trotted out those well-worn public service buzzwords: ‘consultation’, ‘stakeholders’, and ‘arts constituency’. Do you think they’ll manage to squeeze a ‘paradigm’ and a ‘benchmark’ or two in there? One thing’s for sure – given the government’s obsession with holding onto a surplus in the upcoming budget, any spending they plan to do on the arts will certainly have to be smart. And creative.

If you can’t wait, or can’t be bothered trying to find the journalistic wash-up in tomorrow’s papers, the launch is to be televised and can be viewed live from 12.30pm (EST) today… link here.