I was in Chelsea on Thursday night - though I normally avoid gallery openings - and I felt like crying. Not because I was moved by any artwork, rather, because the utter superficiality of the present art world movers and shakers was morally reprehensible. I would love to follow Hughes through Chelsea sometime - I want to witness first hand these moronic "patrons" - i.e. the vapid and rich who adorn their social subjectivities with the empty signs of culture - being ripped a new one by Hughes.
Damien Hirst is rubbish. If someone wants to throw away millions of dollars for garbage that they hope one day will sold to someone dumber than themselves for millions more then they have hope because as P.T. Barnum stated, 'there is a sucker born every day'.
Why do the rich collect the most "expensive" art... The best artists are the stupidest artists....Why. Reallly...ART IS CREATED BY THE ARTIST THAT BENDS OVER THE BEST...I think NOT.... Art is slippery. It keeps on KEEPIN..
The collector isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. That said, contemporary art reflects a culture in decline. Richard Prince makes one liners that comment on art that has become mainly one liners. It perpetuates the problem. Hughes wants art to have nobler aims. The problem is that culture is so fragmented into special interest groups there is no unifying factor. In the past the Church or the State commissioned art, now all we have are capitalist billionaires who buy whatever they are told to.
He is a miserable bastard,art like music,food,clothes is all subjective,it takes no skill to denigrate someone who actually created something,a fat kangaroo fucking twat cartoonist who couldnt carry Hirst's jock strap least of all.
@teedzy1 Brilliant. So, since Hughes has made (at least this film) and penned any number of books (actually creating whereas Hirst pays legions of artisans to create his work), what does that make you?
@SoulEaterEthan Under your broad assertions, is anything NOT about money? What about Corot? Or Manet? What about the the Codex Leicester? Kafka? Sorry, art doesn't have to be solely the pursuit of money...as far as Hughes' son, how is that remotely relevant? He didn't shed a tear for his son so his opinions about art are bogus? Nice logic.
Guess what? Art has always been about money. Religious paintings? Commissioned by the church. Mona Lisa? Commission. Sistine Chapel Ceiling? Once again, a commission. I don't even understand how somebody even define pure art from anything else. And as for Hughes? He's an ass. His son killed himself, but because they'd been estranged, (Gee, wonder why? He's such a pleasant guy.) Hughes basically said, "Oh, well. It hurts but not that much." I mean, c'mon.
I think that what Hughes attacks is not the fact that it is about money- Rather, he attacks what he perceives as art which has no aesthetic value.
I'm not going to make a judgment on controversial modern artists (and I do enjoy the pure, brutal impact of many of them), but respect that Hughes has made his decisions and thought about his position.
Only time is deciding what is an valuable piece of art and what is not. As for Warhol his/her majesty time already decided: Warhol will stay forever in the history of art.
As for Hirst time is still deciding. But I feel that time will decide in favor of D Hirst.
As for Mstr.Hughes ...I think time does not give a shit about what he is talking.
Hirst sells weath back to the weathy to make them feel important, thats the only meaning I can get from his work.Some of his work I like visually but to stick such a heafty price tag on everythingh and do illustrations which look like a 8 yr old did it in minutes (e.g US $15,000 ) can also speak a thousand words, a thousand words that say 'wanker'.
@ramadartist It seems to me that opposing Hirst and the commodification of art need not always be fair. This Art collector is pretty much a class enemy of art. The question isn't whether Hughes was fair, but whether he managed to shift the ground and articulate an alternative criteria for valuing art. I don't think he did, and I'd say his failure to do so is best sourced to his a lack of something to say. Hughes appears to hold that there is some sort of neutral criteria by which to judge m
1.) Isn't it implicit that Hughes is arguing that art critics curators should supply that criteria, not collector/investors? (if you're looking for the criteria itself, perhaps you should look to Hughes' critical body)
2.) And to that point, with Mugrabi and others trying to turn art into some form of "global currency"...I mean, does it make any sense to use something valued so subjectively this way?
Also, correction, I mentioned that painting before Delacroix was considered craft, and I don't know how they hell I jumped to Delacroix, but the reference was supposed to be Velazquez.
Further, Hughes misses the major residual impact of Warhol's career, which is in setting the contemporary precedent for production, "factory" style output, with the artist more as a director than creator. And yeah, sometimes shit like Koons comes out of the formula, or Hirst, and people generally hate it, but sometimes you get Olafur Eliason, or Murakami, or Cai Guo-Qiang, who produce relevant and meaningful work and it would be naive to say they owe nothing to Warhol.
Okay Hughes, c'mon, just because the man has money doesn't make him an intellectual (in fact there's probably an inverse relationship as a general rule,) kicking him around on the point that he spends his time being rich and not thinking critically about art is like taunting a middle-schooler for not having learned calculus yet. Hirst's true art is in playing that market like a cheap harmonica, only instead blues, money comes out. Everyone hates him because they can't do it and don't get it.
@MariyanBG (1/3) I get that the point is showing off the fact that the high profile collectors who can actually afford the ludicrous prices of contemporary art have very little taste of their own and hardly, if at all, understand the history and theory behind the work. However making that point is about as profound as saying that advertising and brand loyalty works because consumers as a whole are pretty fucking stupid, which is apparent to everyone,
@MariyanBG (2/3) because it is obvious, and yet seemingly missed by everyone at the same time, because it somehow still works. So, rather than applaud Hughes for picking on an idiot who claims to know something about a field in which he is clearly ignorant (which again, is like going up to 6th grader who just learned algebra and thinks he’s some math whiz and going, “oh yeah? really? Well if f(x)=5x^3+17x^2-cos(2x)-15, what’s df(x)/dx? Huh? Oh, no. You’re wrong. Stupid.”)
@MariyanBG (3/3) I’d prefer to point out the flaws in his argument as though he were embarking on a worthwhile endeavor to begin with, irrespective of his actual motivation. A pointless venture I know, expecting intelligentsia to be accountable for the positions they hold (Hughes should know damn well what the counter arguments are for his own (hardly critical) stance on Warhol; expecting Mugrabi to come up with them is self-important flaunting,) but it’s just this little hobby I have.
(looks like I lied about the serial, the tirade continues/?) It's infuriating to see people flock around contemp. art bashing, and all say "look at this shit, this is a waste of breathing, now take Monet, take Turner or Courbet, they... They are masters," when you could look at any of those artists in their own time and see that they were just as despised because what they were doing was at the time just as radical and challenging. And then people call collectors sheep for following trends
(yet another post/?) and yet those same people hardly follow the art world, don't understand the market, and are themselves ignorant to the history of art as a culturally significant endeavor (before Delacroix, painting was considered a "craft," like stone-masonry.) Many art students go through school all "I'm not in it for the money, I just want to paint what I feel, what's important to me," and my response is a resounding "Bullshit. Then you are not in it at all, you're irrelevant and
(more posts/?) outmoded, the entire contemporary art world is subsidized by those wealthy enough to collect and oriented by those savvy enough to deal. If you want to be a successful artist you have to realize that there is an implicit acknowledgement of the culture of money that runs this whole thing, even if it is to be consciously rejecting it, you have to at least know it is there and that it is what runs the show. If you want to wallow in obscurity, fine, but any conscientious study of
(rantrantrant/?) the history shows that it is hugely futile to expect to be doing something brilliant and original in some vacuum of significance and then actually be discovered later." Which is why when people shit all over Hirst I'm kind of in awe at their own pitchfork-waving, backwoods hilarity, because his work is almost explicit in pointing out the fact of the absurdity of the art industry to everyone, and that no one is going to be able to change it no matter how obvious it is, so he may
(blahblahitneverends/?) as well make a profit on it, since they're going to by *whatever* he does, not matter what. His name is so entrenched in the perpetuated myth of their own importance that for collectors to deny Hirst as worth of collecting would be tantamount to denying their own value as collectors. So when Hughes says Hirst has "so little ability," he's missing the point that Hirst is smarter than everyone else by a wide margin in both gaining the ire of the entire art culture, making
(the last one/9) fun of the very people who collect his work (or in the case of Saatchi and moving on to setting up his own auction, outright denying that they had any influence on his career anyway,) and pulling major bank (the most bank, as far as the arts go) out of the whole thing. So perhaps, maybe I am missing the point of Hughes' little self-indulgence, but I'm pretty sure everyone else is missing the point of, you know, art (other than the people who are actually in it, like Hirst.)
@MariyanBG Please, by no means misconstrue me to have been defending Mugrabi, I just think that Hughes was very clumsy about it and degraded himself and his own purpose in the process (Hughes essentially says "you're an idiot," but the underlying counterpoint that Mugrabi could have said, were he so articulate, is "well you're irrelevant, I move the market, not critics, and by degrading me you make the failure look look like your own blunder rather than a loss to a cunning opponent.")
I read that an insignificant Warhole went for 3 times more in millions than a Van Dyke masterpiece in the same auction house. Why? Why collect stamps?
Good old Robert Hughes...he cuts the mustard...! Here he exposed a Narcissus with too much money...and a mountain of EGO...When I saw that Lolita sculpture it was all but blown to pieces by my explosive loathing for it..it's a nasty piece of work.
"he´s such a deep person..." no requiere mucha imaginación para conocer cuál es su significado de profunidad. giotto speaks through mr. hughes. thank you
This is the equivalent of a Dad interrogating his less eloquent, less assured, 14 year old son for liking Slipknot, insisting all rock music was better in his day and didn't cost as much. Hughes is a disgruntled fuddy-duddy. Warhol was a genius because he was original. His art isn't necessarily complicated or dense with 'meaning', which seems to be Hughes main criticism - but the simplicity of the wheel seems an obvious mechanism, after someone has already invented it.
...try extracting Warhol's art from history; his soup cans, Brillo boxes, Marilyn Monroe and Electric Chair prints, and see what the 60's would look like. All your advertising, CD covers, book covers, all graphic design, and today's artists would look completely different. The 60s would have been visually poorer without Warhol. To dismiss Warhol so rashly is just ridiculous.
Repetitive images, gimmicks...that isn't art. That is the easy way to money for the unsophisticated viewer. I applaud Andy Warhol for knowing how to manipulate. But I agree with another poster, that his work doesn't inspire. I have never been moved by a Warhol print. He was "posh" and pretentious people were drawn to him.
Art should inspire the viewer to an emotion or deeper thought process. The viewer should walk away with a story - either the artist's or their own.
Dear boogiebuddy01 - So do you choose to make bad worthless commercial art only for the sake of money instead of fine new groundbreaking art? Many people think that fine artists only make art as a product for sale. Art is first a fine process before it becomes the possible product. What process will you choose today to lift the art standards to new heights? Will you fund Wall Street art Investors first or inspire and promote new groundbreaking art? Hughes makes some valid point here.
This guy tells a lot of truth, whether you agree with it all is not important. He is saying that money is now the object. Everything is the money now. Warhol loved to play that up, he was good at it. Do I look to him for inspiration as an artist? I cannot find much there to work with. I prefer more juice or vital human grit in my art. You either want the fame and ego money trip or you decide to make art real to yourself. You decide. See The Curse of Mona Lisa on youtube for longer version
@earinsound I think you're right about Robert Hughes. I'm sure he doesn't damn all contemporary art. I have seen a segment of "The Shock of the New" in which he's talking to David Hockney, for example. I'm a fan of Hockney's work, and I do agree with Hughes in his opinion of Richard Prince. But I guarantee you that Warhol was not a stupid man, and it was ridiculous of Hughes to say so. I suppose the collector was articulate, but he doesn't seem to understand the real meaning of Warhol's art.
Thank you, Robert Hughes! I thought I was the only "insane" person who thought that contemporary art is turning into a bloody piece of crap! I'm an Art History student, and I have to REALLY be open minded in order to understand these people, yet still I can't see the appeal of it. Unfortunately, nowadays Art's value derives ENTIRELY on how much it sells in an auction.
@wareshag And thank god, there are still people who can criticize this crap, without falling in the cliche of feeling that they dont have the capability of understanding contemporary super vanguard art forms; thank you
Just because this rich collector doesn't know how to articulate his opinions doesn't mean that Robert Hughs is right in his dismissal of contemporary art by default. Warhol's art is an incredible parody of commercialism... he was as much a performance artist as a painter or a film-maker, play-acting the role of a dumbed-down character in his public appearances while staying true to his intelligence in private. His work actually relates to the way the modern world is.
"The Shock of the New" is a testament to the fact that Hughes does not dismiss contemporary art. He is dismissing wealthy art collectors that merely follow trends, throwing their money at whatever is fashionable, and helping promote empty, soulless, sensationalistic art. The collector (who inherited his $ and art) was articulate, just totally without taste.
Proof that rich elite Collectors know nothing about art or even their purpose on this beautiful planet, other then to decide how to "confuse" and "destroy" human perception.
You could see this collector fumbling around with inadequate defenses of all of his arguments in favor of Warhol and the other "famous" artists. He has been completely sold a bill of goods. Hughes knows his art history, unlike the collectors that push prices up for the sake of notariety or "portfolio performance."
The attempt to collapse all cultural meaning into mere simulacra was the excuse behind the GREED of 80’s Art market: that Art no longer had any purpose beyond it’s promotion. Damien Hirst is an old 80s whore, a Homer Simpson, surviving into the 90s, dragging intellectual Artistic civilsation back to a hoary stone Age. I personally cannot wait until the sub-prime reality of his crap, plagiarised merchandise hits him slap in the gonads. Maggot breathed cretin.
People like Louise Bourgeois, Egon Schiele or Marina Abramovic are great artists!! None of them sell for millions for their work when they're alive. Not people like Koons, richard prince or tracey emin!
@telecake Honestly they are not great artists, though some of their work is interesting. It's not art just because they call themselves artists. Also, you are incorrect in that they do not sell anything. I saw editions of digital works selling for almost 200k @ art basel.
art in itself should have nothing to do with money Unfortunately; today people trade art like commodity. I applaude Robert Hughes have the courrage to stand up against the idea that as long as an "artist" is famous, his/her works sell lots of money; his/her works have been shown in the Guggenheim, then s/he must be a good artist! His/her works must be great! It's a load of bullshit
I love that just about everybody who supports and likes this video is willing to offer arguments (and in many cases interesting insights), while everybody who hates Hughes, leaves a nasty comment and usually has nothing more to say...
I think that Richard Hughes is one of the stupidest person I've ever seen. Art has always been tied to one thing: Money. The Mona Lisa? The Sistine Chapel ceiling? None of it would've ever been created without the patrons willing to pay for it. Hughes is like every other art critic.. Jealous because they couldn't actually be a successful artist. Why does anyone listen to him? Can't we just like art for what it is? I mean, who has the balls to say what art is or isn't?
@SoulEaterEthan : It's Robert Hughes, not Richard Hughes. First of all, Hughes
is making a point that money alone should not be the arbiter of what is art. If you think the Mona Lisa (which, by the way, has no provenance associated with a donor or money) or the Sistine Chapel were simply money projects with no talent, I feel sorry for you. His case against Warhol, Prince and Hirst is that they really do not have talent, but b/c they work so well with money, they control what is art/what's not
@furlip Richard, Robert. WHATEVER. I don't even care enough to learn his name. I feel sorry back for you, too, because you're full of it if you think nobody commissioned the Mona Lisa. It has documents of being a portrait. Look it up. I've seen copies of the documents and notes my freshman year in art school. Whether you like it or not, money /does/ deem what art is. These artists are going to be collected forever, whether you and Hughes like them or not. Money /is/ a factor and always will be.
@SoulEaterEthan : Just because artists have gotten paid for their work, does not mean that money is/or should be, the arbiter of what good art is. Robert Hughes
makes good points that Prince, Warhol, and Hirst's work is vacuous and the collector cannot even explain why he bought them. Translation: the collector values them less as works of art, than as emblems of his art appreciation, much like having an encyclopedia on the shelf you never read. Money is not the arbiter of art.
@furlip I only have one question, then: Can you or anyone else define what "good art" is? Quite frankly, I love Hirst's work, whether he was rich or not. Andy Warhol is my idol, because he changed everything. I have plenty of artist friends that are poor as dirt, but are good artists. They're good artists, but the have horrible marketing skills. Therefore, to me, money has to become a deciding factor in how good art is made and distrubuted. These artists are the defining artists of their times.
@SoulEaterEthan : -I think art must be made by the person calling themselves the artist, first of all (Hirst does not qualify already; neither does Koons, much of Richard Prince, etc). Secondly, the intention
of the art should have a more civilizing, elevating effect on the viewer, not a numb, brutal effect. Once again, Hirst's "work" is simply sensational, like a car wreck; it is not enlightening. So there ya go. But I guess your definition of good art is that which is expensive.
@furlip On the contrary, man. I believe art is an idea. I'm not calling these guys the best. I just like them. Koons, however, did develop his own painting style. It's incredibly realistic. But assistants are necessary. Even in Renaissance times, assistants helped create the masterpieces. Leonardo started out as an assistant to Verrocchio! I get a feeling from every piece I look at, if that's wrong, I don't wanna be right. Hirst's work may not be enlightening to you, but he's an influence to me.
@SoulEaterEthan : Art is not just an idea, it's a manifestation of some visual idea.
This is the brainwashing they've been doing in art schools: that art is only intellectual. Used to be, a painting could be sublime and beautiful. But now, it's OK to have art be jokes, clever comments on society etc. Modern art is exclusively that. Ask yourself when's the last time you've felt really astounded by the art itself, not just the "idea" the dealer writes on the cardboard.
@furlip I am in art school, and I'm all for that. However, I do have a part in my own work. I love working. I couldn't imagine not doing so. Right now, I'm adoring William-Adolphe Bouguereau. I love traditional work. It's an awesome experience, being in the studio. I've met Koons, and I've met Thomas Kinkade, who was my childhood idol. I've seen both sides, and I just personally don't have a problem with conceptual art. I know why people have problems with it, but I just don't.
@SoulEaterEthan: Kinkade and Koons? It appears by this comment, and another one you made on this post, that you like shallow, superficial art. Don't worry; that'll pass. I paid to see Koons speak back in 92. Believe me, I was just as mesmerized with him, Warhol and Matt Barney. But after 17 years out of art school, I did not get "chosen" to represent the modernistic art establishment. So I had to learn to love my art, which means live w/ it, not create "idea" monstrosities inside my house.
@furlip I'm not even going to respond anymore. I like all art. Not just the "shallow, superficial work" that apparently you think all successful artists have. My personal favorites right now, that I've been looking over, are masters such as Caravaggio, Francisco de Goya, da Vinci, Bouguereau, Frans Franken, and Luis Ricardo Falero. But, I suppose all those guys have no meaning, too.. Whatever, I'm done arguing. It's ridiculous. I like them, they're successful.. Nothing we say changes that.
@SoulEaterEthan: You're the one who said you like shallow art (in a post to another person), not I. That, along with your calling Hughes an idiot, and saying that money and great art are inextricably entwined, pegs you as a mere receiver of culture. Maybe after you've been on your own awhile, you'll stop praising these "successful" artists, because they are your competition, and will keep you off the gallery walls. Then maybe you won't be so egalitarian and accepting of big names.
@SoulEaterEthan : and I gotta wonder about the artistic vision of someone who likes the extremes of Koons and Kinkade. Artists usually are (or should be) extremely opinionated people, perfectionists about their own vision and intolerant of others'. But you are just what the art world wants: another receptive, "it's all good/anything goes" kind of "art appreciator". Once you suffer for your art, you'll be less tolerant, believe me. You're like a mom/pop shop who loves WalMart moving in.
@SoulEaterEthan : as far as assistants go, usually an artist would get assistants once he mastered his craft! But with Koons, et. al., they used the money they had to get assistants as soon as possible, and in fact it's integral to the artwork (to avoid authorship). I admit Koons, Cattelan and Prince can be heady-cool, but their work looks downright cold and ugly next to any painting done before 1850. That's because we've allowed "idea" to replace beauty completely. Look at Sherrie Levine.
@furlip I understand what you're saying, and I like that you make your point clear. I have nothing against you, I promise. I'm just around artists that allow assistants in that manner. I personally love doing my own work.. I see what you're saying though. I'm just on the side that accepts any way of working. Take a film director. It'd be like saying, "Oh, that's not your vision." to him because he didn't act it out, write the story, or film it himself.. Does that analogy get my point across?
@SoulEaterEthan : Well then, what you're in effect saying is that there are no standards. You are basing everything on the idea, and not considering how that artist or film-maker got there in the first place. Art school (I have an MFA) lets you assume all those hotshit artists like Koons got there because of merit, b/c of their ideas, but that's not really true. They got there by playing a certain game, by being hustlers with big egos--that's what you are grooving on and you don't realize it.
@SoulEaterEthan : as for Koons developing his own painting style...what have you been smoking? You mean those photo duplications on canvas? I think the last time Koons touched a brush or crayon was in that photo of him when he was very young. I can't believe you thought Koons could paint! Neither could Warhol; his "best" work are those dated shoe illustrations for Macy's!
@SoulEaterEthan For somebody railing against others dictating the definition of "good art" you're awfully interested in trying to define and impose your own parameters. Yes, art has always been associated with money (although there have been notable artists who have produced work solely for their own pleasure (Duchamp for one, who Warhol, Prince and Hirst all pay lip service to). Hughes is not attacking the patron system, he's attacking the abuse of the patron system.
@CatZula I'm beginning to think that you're starting to fall in love with me, you stalker. I didn't define good art. I like all art. I just get so tired of people bashing Hirst, Warhol, and Koons. I like their work. It's shallow, but I like it. And Marcel Duchamp? Seriously? Dadaism is your best argument? Dadaism /started/ this. They made an art genre to mean, litterally, "nothing"..
@SoulEaterEthan No: "I believe art is an idea." Then you dismiss the modifier "good" and replace it with "financially successful". That's a definition. That is, in fact, the question at hand--the abuse of the patron system by those who are trying to use "art" as an investment and giving critical value only to financially successful art. That's very restrictive. And really, Duchamp is Dada?!? You do realize that without the concept of the readymade, there is no Damien Hirst...
@CatZula Dude, unfortunately, you would completely laughed at by professors and by the professionals in the art world. Duchamp was the king of Dadaism. And they created Dadaism because people are stupid, because they knew we'd argue over this. Art is an idea. 100% And the art world has been built on that. The reason why we have modern art is because about 130 years ago, the Impressionists got fed up with the traditional movement and changed everything from there. Art /is/ conceptual.
@SoulEaterEthan Dude, you have no idea who I am--apparently you are a somewhat abusive (and snot nosed) kid. Dada was an incredibly limited and small movement (and quite disorganized), and compared to Breton or Picabia (or quite a few others) Duchamp was only peripherally involved. Further, Duchamp continued to make art long after the movement was dead. Also, Dada was a political movement...people were exiled over it...don't lecture me about art history when you a clearly deficient yourself.
@CatZula You're right, and I don't have any fucking wish to know you, you no-nothing moron. This is the last time I reply, and all I've got to say is: Fuck you, and your limited brain power. You're a nobody, and chances are good you always will be. Have a nice life, you argumentative asshole.
@SoulEaterEthan: "Who has the balls to say what art is or isn't?" You do.
You said it was tied to one thing: money. Why should those with MONEY say what art is or isn't? See the problem? Buying a work of art because it really moves you personally, and you must have it in your home is one thing; buying art as an investment and to say how much you paid for it and to look cultivated, while not knowing anything about the art or why you really like it (like Mugrabi) is quite another.
also what Hughs says at the end of this says so much about the metamorphosis of collector to gallery and the space, in some cases , the vast space in-between
Art, if done correctly in all respects, is currency.What is a dollar bill? Or should I say,what is on a dollar bill? What is more boring than a dollar bill?
@dojufitz Ah yes, look at poor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jim Carrey, Derek Jeter or Alex Rodriguez...
No, the problem here is that Hirst making millions measn nothing in relation to other artists. If anything, Hirst making money hurts other artists because he usually steals ideas from others...keeping the money and the credit for himself. In that way, it's hard to call him an artist...so maybe you're right...
But in that case, your point fails because it's unrelated.
@dojufitz I hear you and I'm not categorically disagreeing. Hirst, however, is anything but a humble artist...we're talking a net worth of 200 million pounds. I guess perhaps I was misunderstanding your comment...this video is mostly about Hirst and a few other elites...that's not a condemnation of the whole art world, but considering how many exhibition Damien now intrudes into, he's become impossible to ignore.
This is the what you get when you allow the group of nefarious social engineers to take over Culture and turn it into what they want. Culture and Art become nothing but a tool to turn our world into a sea of meanlingless, atheism and indifference. Worse is yet to come...
@BlacknWhitesAlright Yeah since when do atheists have anything like that sort of power...smacks to me like religious bigots scapegoating atheists for the world's problems. Replace 'atheist' with 'jew' and the rhetoric they're using sounds very tired and familiar. The tired old dance of the persecutor pretending to be the victim of the persecuted with crocodile tears rolling down their cheeks as they slit the throats of their enemies.
I don't agree with Hughes on a lot of things, but he well and truly tucks the well-heeled ignoramus here, and in turn exposes the ignorance of the 'King Makers'.
LOL, for Robert Hughes to believe "Andy Warhol had nothing to say" and "not having a considerable influence on painting", I am at a loss for words. Hughes somehow expects the rest of society to drift along with him into his alcohol-ridden delirium, soaked more perhaps by his ego than the gin itself.
@melissacarterTS OK, I'm game, compared to say, somebody like Jasper Johns or Pollock, how did Warhol influence painting...painting, mind you, not "art"..."painting." As far as having nothing to say, I suppose that's more of a subjective assessment...I'll defer to Hughes' authority and history on that...although I agree with him...but you can go become an art critic of renown and refute, refute away if you feel so strongly.
Warhol was a visionary artist. Hughes is dumb if he can't understand the artistic ingenuity in Warhol's work. I think Damien Hirst is a flash in the pan. But to say ALL modern art is a "sham" or a "hoax" is as ignorant as worshipping all of it for its newness. Do you really believe every artist working today is valueless? Or might it be that you just disagree with certain ones the Art World showers with praise.
Warhol did the same thing over and over again, it became so famous its fame exceeded any artistic merit.
Hughes argues that the value of art has, in some cases, been warped by material forces, i.e. money combined with the forces of celebrity
Perhaps what people are paying exorbitant amount of money for, suggests Hughes, is more to do with the fame of Andy Warhol rather than the overall artistic quality of his work - for which there is very little
These two jackoffs have such strong opinions about something neither of them understand. "Me wuv dis and embwace it cuz it sooo cool!!" .."Me no wike! All dis modern cwap is sooo stoopid!!"
Notice how the billionaire can't even articulate why he's collecting what he's collecting. He has no real love for the paintings or the painters--there is no real emotional involvement on his part, not connection, except that he wants his name recorded for posterity's sake.Interesting how during the Renaissance a burgeoning middle class could patronize the greatest artists this planet has seen, but with all our wealth, these men pour money into this shit. It says a lot about our age.
There's got to be some middle ground between blind adoration and indignant condemnation in modern art. Why not just take things at face value? If it amuses you, great. If not, move on.
@zig45 It's a good attitude, but Hughes is right on with this lot--Hughes is not remotely as backwards as you are trying to paint him--classical nudes and fruit bowls are not his paradigm. That said, it's hard not to be cynical in today's art market. BTW, Andy was...well, not the sharpest crayon in the box. Not that he didn't have a few good ideas, but Rauschenberg and a lot of others reveal his distinct lack of creativity or skill...
This guy is a jackass. "if he is a deep person, why does one (ie. why do I) not see it in his paintings?" Hughes would have us all stare at bowls of fruit and classic nudes I suppose. Van Gogh was rejected by his critics for having no ability; same argument with Elvis - "that's not real music!" And Andy Warhol being a stupid person?! Laughable, really. He's lost all of his sense of wonder. Now he's just a cynic.
I don't think either of them understand Warhol. Andy's greatest creation was ANDY WARHOL. As far as works go. I think it was his film making that was the most transformative.
@yangyin09u Andy had no great creation. His manager's greatest creation was Andy Warhol. When Andy died, everyone expected his artwork to fade away. but through hard work and endless promotion, money has been made of him yet. BTW, filming people sleeping...really? That's transformative? I can't sit through 90% of the films of his I've screened. What drugs are you on, cause they must be pretty damn potent.
@CatZula Actually watching someone sleep is deeply interesting; a film about the human condition rarely seen. lol You would have made your point better by citing his Empire State Building film. But if you lived in Manhattan anywhere near it and had a view of it out your window, you may have spent days collectively watching the ever changing light and weather illuminating and obscuring it; as transformative as Monet's many Chartre Cathedrals.
@yangyin09u I don't know. I can't sit through them. The sleep film specifically does nothing for me since I have had, and continue to have, ample access to watching sleeping people... If I want to meditate, I simply meditate. ...I'm not a huge fan of Monet's Chartre Cathedrals, but each painting required an enormous amount of skill. Andy's films are basically home movies gone awry. If that does it for you, so be it, but compared to Bresson, Mamet...nah, not for me....
If you want to understand art you have to STUDY IT!...you have to study aestethics,politics,history,phylosophy....everything is connected... it's not simply "oooh my god it's beautiful... oooh no this is simply stupid and meaningless for me".
Every period in human history had different points of view and different interpretative keys or if the "topos" is the same there is an "HAUF HEBUNG"...an elevation of problems and questions.Everything is bought and sold today...also art...
post-modernism is all complete crap
hieraxhideo 1 week ago
I was in Chelsea on Thursday night - though I normally avoid gallery openings - and I felt like crying. Not because I was moved by any artwork, rather, because the utter superficiality of the present art world movers and shakers was morally reprehensible. I would love to follow Hughes through Chelsea sometime - I want to witness first hand these moronic "patrons" - i.e. the vapid and rich who adorn their social subjectivities with the empty signs of culture - being ripped a new one by Hughes.
mrsJimmyStewart 1 week ago
I happily see both points.
jaggerlags 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Remora321 3 weeks ago
Damien Hirst is rubbish. If someone wants to throw away millions of dollars for garbage that they hope one day will sold to someone dumber than themselves for millions more then they have hope because as P.T. Barnum stated, 'there is a sucker born every day'.
MACKATTACK1970 3 weeks ago
NEVERMIND...
hideouschud 4 weeks ago
I luved being fucked....Period...Do ya want me ta spell it out fa ya.
hideouschud 4 weeks ago
KNOW. Reason.
hideouschud 4 weeks ago
Y. DO. U. Try 2 contain. Me....
hideouschud 4 weeks ago
Why do the rich collect the most "expensive" art... The best artists are the stupidest artists....Why. Reallly...ART IS CREATED BY THE ARTIST THAT BENDS OVER THE BEST...I think NOT.... Art is slippery. It keeps on KEEPIN..
hideouschud 4 weeks ago
Rob H. Is awesome... He really knows what he is talking about. He is art critic numero uno.
hideouschud 4 weeks ago
The collector isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. That said, contemporary art reflects a culture in decline. Richard Prince makes one liners that comment on art that has become mainly one liners. It perpetuates the problem. Hughes wants art to have nobler aims. The problem is that culture is so fragmented into special interest groups there is no unifying factor. In the past the Church or the State commissioned art, now all we have are capitalist billionaires who buy whatever they are told to.
proust2020 1 month ago
art about hope or morbidity....either one of those...but I guess I know which is 'better' art.
no?
thunderwithrain 1 month ago
Jealousy ... have some pride ... art is expression and creativity NOT cut and dry... very ugly
you should be ashamed.
LouMajorsPhilosopher 1 month ago
yawn
ryderripps 2 months ago
..as much as I loved shock of the new
sonetlumiere12345678 2 months ago
I think it's just snobbery. Art is about expression regardless of money.
sonetlumiere12345678 2 months ago
Andy Warhol, I think he was a print maker, not a painter but yes I agree with you Mt Hughes.
unaperrson 2 months ago
Thankyou
carolynaudetstudio 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
check out my artwork! Feed back would be nice Thanks!!!
zamiracanoaliaga. com
ArtistZamira 3 months ago
check out my artwork! Feed back would be nice Thanks!!!
zamiracanoaliagadotcom
ArtistZamira 3 months ago
He is a miserable bastard,art like music,food,clothes is all subjective,it takes no skill to denigrate someone who actually created something,a fat kangaroo fucking twat cartoonist who couldnt carry Hirst's jock strap least of all.
teedzy1 4 months ago
@teedzy1 Brilliant. So, since Hughes has made (at least this film) and penned any number of books (actually creating whereas Hirst pays legions of artisans to create his work), what does that make you?
CatZula 3 months ago
@CatZula those who cant do,teach.
teedzy1 3 months ago
@teedzy1 One of the worst aphorisms around.
CatZula 3 months ago
@CatZula you are just an expert on everything.
teedzy1 3 months ago
@SoulEaterEthan Under your broad assertions, is anything NOT about money? What about Corot? Or Manet? What about the the Codex Leicester? Kafka? Sorry, art doesn't have to be solely the pursuit of money...as far as Hughes' son, how is that remotely relevant? He didn't shed a tear for his son so his opinions about art are bogus? Nice logic.
CatZula 4 months ago
Guess what? Art has always been about money. Religious paintings? Commissioned by the church. Mona Lisa? Commission. Sistine Chapel Ceiling? Once again, a commission. I don't even understand how somebody even define pure art from anything else. And as for Hughes? He's an ass. His son killed himself, but because they'd been estranged, (Gee, wonder why? He's such a pleasant guy.) Hughes basically said, "Oh, well. It hurts but not that much." I mean, c'mon.
SoulEaterEthan 4 months ago
@SoulEaterEthan
I think that what Hughes attacks is not the fact that it is about money- Rather, he attacks what he perceives as art which has no aesthetic value.
I'm not going to make a judgment on controversial modern artists (and I do enjoy the pure, brutal impact of many of them), but respect that Hughes has made his decisions and thought about his position.
tangium 3 months ago
@SoulEaterEthan His problem isn't with rich people commissioning art - it's the fact they're commissioning rubbish.
Elitist20 3 weeks ago
I love this clip, it gave me a good laugh. You give'em shit Huges.
Nagystudios1 4 months ago
Look at the collector's face and listen to the tone of
his voice. It is so transparent
that in spite of his incredible wealth, he is insecure
and unsure of his understanding of art (which is just about zip
I'd venture to say). He tentatively ventures a few moronic general cliches about Warhol and hope he won' be found out. Amazing
that it is only money and balls that determine worth. Disgusting.
harmoniabalanza 4 months ago
@harmoniabalanza
P.S. and that whiny voice! What a dweeb.
harmoniabalanza 4 months ago
@harmoniabalanza
P.P. S. and along with the whininess the
utter inability to form a coherent articulate statement.
harmoniabalanza 4 months ago
Only time is deciding what is an valuable piece of art and what is not. As for Warhol his/her majesty time already decided: Warhol will stay forever in the history of art.
As for Hirst time is still deciding. But I feel that time will decide in favor of D Hirst.
As for Mstr.Hughes ...I think time does not give a shit about what he is talking.
deCaravagio 6 months ago
how in the heck do i get in touch with Hughes?! can anyone help me?!!!!! susanmsimcox@yahoo.it
susanmsimcox 6 months ago
Hirst sells weath back to the weathy to make them feel important, thats the only meaning I can get from his work.Some of his work I like visually but to stick such a heafty price tag on everythingh and do illustrations which look like a 8 yr old did it in minutes (e.g US $15,000 ) can also speak a thousand words, a thousand words that say 'wanker'.
MrGlennsftmb 6 months ago
@ramadartist It seems to me that opposing Hirst and the commodification of art need not always be fair. This Art collector is pretty much a class enemy of art. The question isn't whether Hughes was fair, but whether he managed to shift the ground and articulate an alternative criteria for valuing art. I don't think he did, and I'd say his failure to do so is best sourced to his a lack of something to say. Hughes appears to hold that there is some sort of neutral criteria by which to judge m
douglain 6 months ago
@douglain Two questions:
1.) Isn't it implicit that Hughes is arguing that art critics curators should supply that criteria, not collector/investors? (if you're looking for the criteria itself, perhaps you should look to Hughes' critical body)
2.) And to that point, with Mugrabi and others trying to turn art into some form of "global currency"...I mean, does it make any sense to use something valued so subjectively this way?
CatZula 6 months ago
Also, correction, I mentioned that painting before Delacroix was considered craft, and I don't know how they hell I jumped to Delacroix, but the reference was supposed to be Velazquez.
RamadaArtist 6 months ago
Further, Hughes misses the major residual impact of Warhol's career, which is in setting the contemporary precedent for production, "factory" style output, with the artist more as a director than creator. And yeah, sometimes shit like Koons comes out of the formula, or Hirst, and people generally hate it, but sometimes you get Olafur Eliason, or Murakami, or Cai Guo-Qiang, who produce relevant and meaningful work and it would be naive to say they owe nothing to Warhol.
RamadaArtist 6 months ago
Okay Hughes, c'mon, just because the man has money doesn't make him an intellectual (in fact there's probably an inverse relationship as a general rule,) kicking him around on the point that he spends his time being rich and not thinking critically about art is like taunting a middle-schooler for not having learned calculus yet. Hirst's true art is in playing that market like a cheap harmonica, only instead blues, money comes out. Everyone hates him because they can't do it and don't get it.
RamadaArtist 6 months ago
@RamadaArtist you are missing the whole point.
MariyanBG 6 months ago
@MariyanBG (1/3) I get that the point is showing off the fact that the high profile collectors who can actually afford the ludicrous prices of contemporary art have very little taste of their own and hardly, if at all, understand the history and theory behind the work. However making that point is about as profound as saying that advertising and brand loyalty works because consumers as a whole are pretty fucking stupid, which is apparent to everyone,
RamadaArtist 6 months ago
@MariyanBG (2/3) because it is obvious, and yet seemingly missed by everyone at the same time, because it somehow still works. So, rather than applaud Hughes for picking on an idiot who claims to know something about a field in which he is clearly ignorant (which again, is like going up to 6th grader who just learned algebra and thinks he’s some math whiz and going, “oh yeah? really? Well if f(x)=5x^3+17x^2-cos(2x)-15, what’s df(x)/dx? Huh? Oh, no. You’re wrong. Stupid.”)
RamadaArtist 6 months ago
@MariyanBG (3/3) I’d prefer to point out the flaws in his argument as though he were embarking on a worthwhile endeavor to begin with, irrespective of his actual motivation. A pointless venture I know, expecting intelligentsia to be accountable for the positions they hold (Hughes should know damn well what the counter arguments are for his own (hardly critical) stance on Warhol; expecting Mugrabi to come up with them is self-important flaunting,) but it’s just this little hobby I have.
RamadaArtist 6 months ago
(looks like I lied about the serial, the tirade continues/?) It's infuriating to see people flock around contemp. art bashing, and all say "look at this shit, this is a waste of breathing, now take Monet, take Turner or Courbet, they... They are masters," when you could look at any of those artists in their own time and see that they were just as despised because what they were doing was at the time just as radical and challenging. And then people call collectors sheep for following trends
RamadaArtist 6 months ago
(yet another post/?) and yet those same people hardly follow the art world, don't understand the market, and are themselves ignorant to the history of art as a culturally significant endeavor (before Delacroix, painting was considered a "craft," like stone-masonry.) Many art students go through school all "I'm not in it for the money, I just want to paint what I feel, what's important to me," and my response is a resounding "Bullshit. Then you are not in it at all, you're irrelevant and
RamadaArtist 6 months ago
(more posts/?) outmoded, the entire contemporary art world is subsidized by those wealthy enough to collect and oriented by those savvy enough to deal. If you want to be a successful artist you have to realize that there is an implicit acknowledgement of the culture of money that runs this whole thing, even if it is to be consciously rejecting it, you have to at least know it is there and that it is what runs the show. If you want to wallow in obscurity, fine, but any conscientious study of
RamadaArtist 6 months ago
(rantrantrant/?) the history shows that it is hugely futile to expect to be doing something brilliant and original in some vacuum of significance and then actually be discovered later." Which is why when people shit all over Hirst I'm kind of in awe at their own pitchfork-waving, backwoods hilarity, because his work is almost explicit in pointing out the fact of the absurdity of the art industry to everyone, and that no one is going to be able to change it no matter how obvious it is, so he may
RamadaArtist 6 months ago
(blahblahitneverends/?) as well make a profit on it, since they're going to by *whatever* he does, not matter what. His name is so entrenched in the perpetuated myth of their own importance that for collectors to deny Hirst as worth of collecting would be tantamount to denying their own value as collectors. So when Hughes says Hirst has "so little ability," he's missing the point that Hirst is smarter than everyone else by a wide margin in both gaining the ire of the entire art culture, making
RamadaArtist 6 months ago
(the last one/9) fun of the very people who collect his work (or in the case of Saatchi and moving on to setting up his own auction, outright denying that they had any influence on his career anyway,) and pulling major bank (the most bank, as far as the arts go) out of the whole thing. So perhaps, maybe I am missing the point of Hughes' little self-indulgence, but I'm pretty sure everyone else is missing the point of, you know, art (other than the people who are actually in it, like Hirst.)
RamadaArtist 6 months ago
@RamadaArtist I agree , but i don't agree that Alberto Mugrabi should not be made fun of.
MariyanBG 6 months ago
@MariyanBG Please, by no means misconstrue me to have been defending Mugrabi, I just think that Hughes was very clumsy about it and degraded himself and his own purpose in the process (Hughes essentially says "you're an idiot," but the underlying counterpoint that Mugrabi could have said, were he so articulate, is "well you're irrelevant, I move the market, not critics, and by degrading me you make the failure look look like your own blunder rather than a loss to a cunning opponent.")
RamadaArtist 6 months ago
@RamadaArtist If we have to be honest Mugorabi voluntarily put his foot in his mouth.He simple can't explain the things he is saying.
MariyanBG 6 months ago
I read that an insignificant Warhole went for 3 times more in millions than a Van Dyke masterpiece in the same auction house. Why? Why collect stamps?
savingbeauty 6 months ago
Art with a capital F
s7409651 6 months ago
Good old Robert Hughes...he cuts the mustard...! Here he exposed a Narcissus with too much money...and a mountain of EGO...When I saw that Lolita sculpture it was all but blown to pieces by my explosive loathing for it..it's a nasty piece of work.
xyzllii 7 months ago
"he´s such a deep person..." no requiere mucha imaginación para conocer cuál es su significado de profunidad. giotto speaks through mr. hughes. thank you
Barloventi 7 months ago
I'm an artist n I am just falling in love with this guy...Robert Hughes up hoes down.
art2raw 7 months ago
"so much n so little ability"
art2raw 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is the equivalent of a Dad interrogating his less eloquent, less assured, 14 year old son for liking Slipknot, insisting all rock music was better in his day and didn't cost as much. Hughes is a disgruntled fuddy-duddy. Warhol was a genius because he was original. His art isn't necessarily complicated or dense with 'meaning', which seems to be Hughes main criticism - but the simplicity of the wheel seems an obvious mechanism, after someone has already invented it.
douglasjmontgomery 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...try extracting Warhol's art from history; his soup cans, Brillo boxes, Marilyn Monroe and Electric Chair prints, and see what the 60's would look like. All your advertising, CD covers, book covers, all graphic design, and today's artists would look completely different. The 60s would have been visually poorer without Warhol. To dismiss Warhol so rashly is just ridiculous.
douglasjmontgomery 8 months ago
Comment removed
douglasjmontgomery 8 months ago
Comment removed
douglasjmontgomery 8 months ago
ha this is awesome,, robert hughes is sick, he can see straight through this money grabbing soul destroying art dealer
spritey16 9 months ago
Repetitive images, gimmicks...that isn't art. That is the easy way to money for the unsophisticated viewer. I applaud Andy Warhol for knowing how to manipulate. But I agree with another poster, that his work doesn't inspire. I have never been moved by a Warhol print. He was "posh" and pretentious people were drawn to him.
Art should inspire the viewer to an emotion or deeper thought process. The viewer should walk away with a story - either the artist's or their own.
JudiG 9 months ago
Dear boogiebuddy01 - So do you choose to make bad worthless commercial art only for the sake of money instead of fine new groundbreaking art? Many people think that fine artists only make art as a product for sale. Art is first a fine process before it becomes the possible product. What process will you choose today to lift the art standards to new heights? Will you fund Wall Street art Investors first or inspire and promote new groundbreaking art? Hughes makes some valid point here.
cosmiclight 9 months ago
what is the alternative, you have to make money if you dont want to be homeless
boogiebuddy01 10 months ago
This guy tells a lot of truth, whether you agree with it all is not important. He is saying that money is now the object. Everything is the money now. Warhol loved to play that up, he was good at it. Do I look to him for inspiration as an artist? I cannot find much there to work with. I prefer more juice or vital human grit in my art. You either want the fame and ego money trip or you decide to make art real to yourself. You decide. See The Curse of Mona Lisa on youtube for longer version
olliearl 10 months ago
Comment removed
artistdalehammond 10 months ago
@earinsound I think you're right about Robert Hughes. I'm sure he doesn't damn all contemporary art. I have seen a segment of "The Shock of the New" in which he's talking to David Hockney, for example. I'm a fan of Hockney's work, and I do agree with Hughes in his opinion of Richard Prince. But I guarantee you that Warhol was not a stupid man, and it was ridiculous of Hughes to say so. I suppose the collector was articulate, but he doesn't seem to understand the real meaning of Warhol's art.
EchoCram 10 months ago
Thank you, Robert Hughes! I thought I was the only "insane" person who thought that contemporary art is turning into a bloody piece of crap! I'm an Art History student, and I have to REALLY be open minded in order to understand these people, yet still I can't see the appeal of it. Unfortunately, nowadays Art's value derives ENTIRELY on how much it sells in an auction.
CosmicDancer589 10 months ago
man did he get shredded
ammusi 11 months ago
Bless you Mr. Hughes, these idiots have ruined the art world and you are not afraid to tell them so.
wareshag 11 months ago 32
@wareshag And thank god, there are still people who can criticize this crap, without falling in the cliche of feeling that they dont have the capability of understanding contemporary super vanguard art forms; thank you
romaquema 8 months ago
Just because this rich collector doesn't know how to articulate his opinions doesn't mean that Robert Hughs is right in his dismissal of contemporary art by default. Warhol's art is an incredible parody of commercialism... he was as much a performance artist as a painter or a film-maker, play-acting the role of a dumbed-down character in his public appearances while staying true to his intelligence in private. His work actually relates to the way the modern world is.
EchoCram 11 months ago
@EchoCram
"The Shock of the New" is a testament to the fact that Hughes does not dismiss contemporary art. He is dismissing wealthy art collectors that merely follow trends, throwing their money at whatever is fashionable, and helping promote empty, soulless, sensationalistic art. The collector (who inherited his $ and art) was articulate, just totally without taste.
earinsound 11 months ago 18
@earinsound
Excuse me he is not articulate at all. He generalizes, does not offer
any specific examples to support his floundering blather, gives no
indication that he even understands the questions he's being asked!
He is an example of someone so rich he doesn't have to think,
or justify himself, never did. It's clear
he never had to develop any intellectual capacity whatsoever,
probably asks his chauffeur what he should say or just parrots his daddy.
A total mushbrain.
A total mush brain.
harmoniabalanza 4 months ago
IRONY, $, HYPE = bullshit art
earinsound 11 months ago 2
Proof that rich elite Collectors know nothing about art or even their purpose on this beautiful planet, other then to decide how to "confuse" and "destroy" human perception.
xwaystranger 11 months ago
SNOB
TheYazoo321 11 months ago
Robert Hughes is a Bad Mother fucker !
hankjunior 11 months ago
@hankjunior .. no he's not, he's seeing things as they are.
I wonder if Mr. Mugabre would care to buy our boxes of prunes ( Cure for Contemporary Art ) work? He could use them.
LondonDada 11 months ago
uncomfortable to watch but so gratificating
rayolacer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
handsome guy just now need bbw naneedj.info
sonika763 1 year ago
Great art requires great skill. So does juggling chainsaws. A world without art would be more beautiful.
martinheideggershut 1 year ago
You could see this collector fumbling around with inadequate defenses of all of his arguments in favor of Warhol and the other "famous" artists. He has been completely sold a bill of goods. Hughes knows his art history, unlike the collectors that push prices up for the sake of notariety or "portfolio performance."
FuzzysWuzzy 1 year ago
The attempt to collapse all cultural meaning into mere simulacra was the excuse behind the GREED of 80’s Art market: that Art no longer had any purpose beyond it’s promotion. Damien Hirst is an old 80s whore, a Homer Simpson, surviving into the 90s, dragging intellectual Artistic civilsation back to a hoary stone Age. I personally cannot wait until the sub-prime reality of his crap, plagiarised merchandise hits him slap in the gonads. Maggot breathed cretin.
DIONYSES000AD 1 year ago
People like Louise Bourgeois, Egon Schiele or Marina Abramovic are great artists!! None of them sell for millions for their work when they're alive. Not people like Koons, richard prince or tracey emin!
telecake 1 year ago
@telecake of course Marina is still alive and well today :p
Sorry my first language is not english
telecake 1 year ago
@telecake Honestly they are not great artists, though some of their work is interesting. It's not art just because they call themselves artists. Also, you are incorrect in that they do not sell anything. I saw editions of digital works selling for almost 200k @ art basel.
martydrooo 1 year ago
art in itself should have nothing to do with money Unfortunately; today people trade art like commodity. I applaude Robert Hughes have the courrage to stand up against the idea that as long as an "artist" is famous, his/her works sell lots of money; his/her works have been shown in the Guggenheim, then s/he must be a good artist! His/her works must be great! It's a load of bullshit
telecake 1 year ago
Let me guess, he thinks Duchamp is a chancer as well? I am sure Robert wishes art stopped moving forward at around the time of Turner.
redmirror2 1 year ago
All I could think about is ... " that could be stephen chandlers dad " I missed the whole point and was fixated on the gaze of the interviewer.
mnc90034 1 year ago
I love that just about everybody who supports and likes this video is willing to offer arguments (and in many cases interesting insights), while everybody who hates Hughes, leaves a nasty comment and usually has nothing more to say...
CatZula 1 year ago
robert hughes is just a really negative asshole. i know people like him.
sexlessparents 1 year ago
he's an bum . fuck robert hughes
sexlessparents 1 year ago
Robert Hughes. You're great. Thank you. Keep on truckin.
oldagetraveler 1 year ago
Hughes ripped him apart. Mugrabi came off like a modern art tool.
furlip 1 year ago
I think that Richard Hughes is one of the stupidest person I've ever seen. Art has always been tied to one thing: Money. The Mona Lisa? The Sistine Chapel ceiling? None of it would've ever been created without the patrons willing to pay for it. Hughes is like every other art critic.. Jealous because they couldn't actually be a successful artist. Why does anyone listen to him? Can't we just like art for what it is? I mean, who has the balls to say what art is or isn't?
SoulEaterEthan 1 year ago
@SoulEaterEthan : It's Robert Hughes, not Richard Hughes. First of all, Hughes
is making a point that money alone should not be the arbiter of what is art. If you think the Mona Lisa (which, by the way, has no provenance associated with a donor or money) or the Sistine Chapel were simply money projects with no talent, I feel sorry for you. His case against Warhol, Prince and Hirst is that they really do not have talent, but b/c they work so well with money, they control what is art/what's not
furlip 1 year ago
@furlip Richard, Robert. WHATEVER. I don't even care enough to learn his name. I feel sorry back for you, too, because you're full of it if you think nobody commissioned the Mona Lisa. It has documents of being a portrait. Look it up. I've seen copies of the documents and notes my freshman year in art school. Whether you like it or not, money /does/ deem what art is. These artists are going to be collected forever, whether you and Hughes like them or not. Money /is/ a factor and always will be.
SoulEaterEthan 1 year ago
Comment removed
furlip 1 year ago
@SoulEaterEthan : Just because artists have gotten paid for their work, does not mean that money is/or should be, the arbiter of what good art is. Robert Hughes
makes good points that Prince, Warhol, and Hirst's work is vacuous and the collector cannot even explain why he bought them. Translation: the collector values them less as works of art, than as emblems of his art appreciation, much like having an encyclopedia on the shelf you never read. Money is not the arbiter of art.
furlip 1 year ago
@furlip I only have one question, then: Can you or anyone else define what "good art" is? Quite frankly, I love Hirst's work, whether he was rich or not. Andy Warhol is my idol, because he changed everything. I have plenty of artist friends that are poor as dirt, but are good artists. They're good artists, but the have horrible marketing skills. Therefore, to me, money has to become a deciding factor in how good art is made and distrubuted. These artists are the defining artists of their times.
SoulEaterEthan 1 year ago
@SoulEaterEthan : -I think art must be made by the person calling themselves the artist, first of all (Hirst does not qualify already; neither does Koons, much of Richard Prince, etc). Secondly, the intention
of the art should have a more civilizing, elevating effect on the viewer, not a numb, brutal effect. Once again, Hirst's "work" is simply sensational, like a car wreck; it is not enlightening. So there ya go. But I guess your definition of good art is that which is expensive.
furlip 1 year ago
@furlip On the contrary, man. I believe art is an idea. I'm not calling these guys the best. I just like them. Koons, however, did develop his own painting style. It's incredibly realistic. But assistants are necessary. Even in Renaissance times, assistants helped create the masterpieces. Leonardo started out as an assistant to Verrocchio! I get a feeling from every piece I look at, if that's wrong, I don't wanna be right. Hirst's work may not be enlightening to you, but he's an influence to me.
SoulEaterEthan 1 year ago
@SoulEaterEthan : Art is not just an idea, it's a manifestation of some visual idea.
This is the brainwashing they've been doing in art schools: that art is only intellectual. Used to be, a painting could be sublime and beautiful. But now, it's OK to have art be jokes, clever comments on society etc. Modern art is exclusively that. Ask yourself when's the last time you've felt really astounded by the art itself, not just the "idea" the dealer writes on the cardboard.
furlip 1 year ago
@furlip I am in art school, and I'm all for that. However, I do have a part in my own work. I love working. I couldn't imagine not doing so. Right now, I'm adoring William-Adolphe Bouguereau. I love traditional work. It's an awesome experience, being in the studio. I've met Koons, and I've met Thomas Kinkade, who was my childhood idol. I've seen both sides, and I just personally don't have a problem with conceptual art. I know why people have problems with it, but I just don't.
SoulEaterEthan 1 year ago
@SoulEaterEthan: Kinkade and Koons? It appears by this comment, and another one you made on this post, that you like shallow, superficial art. Don't worry; that'll pass. I paid to see Koons speak back in 92. Believe me, I was just as mesmerized with him, Warhol and Matt Barney. But after 17 years out of art school, I did not get "chosen" to represent the modernistic art establishment. So I had to learn to love my art, which means live w/ it, not create "idea" monstrosities inside my house.
furlip 1 year ago
@furlip I'm not even going to respond anymore. I like all art. Not just the "shallow, superficial work" that apparently you think all successful artists have. My personal favorites right now, that I've been looking over, are masters such as Caravaggio, Francisco de Goya, da Vinci, Bouguereau, Frans Franken, and Luis Ricardo Falero. But, I suppose all those guys have no meaning, too.. Whatever, I'm done arguing. It's ridiculous. I like them, they're successful.. Nothing we say changes that.
SoulEaterEthan 1 year ago
@SoulEaterEthan: You're the one who said you like shallow art (in a post to another person), not I. That, along with your calling Hughes an idiot, and saying that money and great art are inextricably entwined, pegs you as a mere receiver of culture. Maybe after you've been on your own awhile, you'll stop praising these "successful" artists, because they are your competition, and will keep you off the gallery walls. Then maybe you won't be so egalitarian and accepting of big names.
furlip 1 year ago
@SoulEaterEthan : and I gotta wonder about the artistic vision of someone who likes the extremes of Koons and Kinkade. Artists usually are (or should be) extremely opinionated people, perfectionists about their own vision and intolerant of others'. But you are just what the art world wants: another receptive, "it's all good/anything goes" kind of "art appreciator". Once you suffer for your art, you'll be less tolerant, believe me. You're like a mom/pop shop who loves WalMart moving in.
furlip 1 year ago
@SoulEaterEthan : as far as assistants go, usually an artist would get assistants once he mastered his craft! But with Koons, et. al., they used the money they had to get assistants as soon as possible, and in fact it's integral to the artwork (to avoid authorship). I admit Koons, Cattelan and Prince can be heady-cool, but their work looks downright cold and ugly next to any painting done before 1850. That's because we've allowed "idea" to replace beauty completely. Look at Sherrie Levine.
furlip 1 year ago
@furlip I understand what you're saying, and I like that you make your point clear. I have nothing against you, I promise. I'm just around artists that allow assistants in that manner. I personally love doing my own work.. I see what you're saying though. I'm just on the side that accepts any way of working. Take a film director. It'd be like saying, "Oh, that's not your vision." to him because he didn't act it out, write the story, or film it himself.. Does that analogy get my point across?
SoulEaterEthan 1 year ago
@SoulEaterEthan : Well then, what you're in effect saying is that there are no standards. You are basing everything on the idea, and not considering how that artist or film-maker got there in the first place. Art school (I have an MFA) lets you assume all those hotshit artists like Koons got there because of merit, b/c of their ideas, but that's not really true. They got there by playing a certain game, by being hustlers with big egos--that's what you are grooving on and you don't realize it.
furlip 1 year ago
@SoulEaterEthan : as for Koons developing his own painting style...what have you been smoking? You mean those photo duplications on canvas? I think the last time Koons touched a brush or crayon was in that photo of him when he was very young. I can't believe you thought Koons could paint! Neither could Warhol; his "best" work are those dated shoe illustrations for Macy's!
furlip 1 year ago
@SoulEaterEthan For somebody railing against others dictating the definition of "good art" you're awfully interested in trying to define and impose your own parameters. Yes, art has always been associated with money (although there have been notable artists who have produced work solely for their own pleasure (Duchamp for one, who Warhol, Prince and Hirst all pay lip service to). Hughes is not attacking the patron system, he's attacking the abuse of the patron system.
CatZula 1 year ago
@CatZula I'm beginning to think that you're starting to fall in love with me, you stalker. I didn't define good art. I like all art. I just get so tired of people bashing Hirst, Warhol, and Koons. I like their work. It's shallow, but I like it. And Marcel Duchamp? Seriously? Dadaism is your best argument? Dadaism /started/ this. They made an art genre to mean, litterally, "nothing"..
SoulEaterEthan 1 year ago
@SoulEaterEthan No: "I believe art is an idea." Then you dismiss the modifier "good" and replace it with "financially successful". That's a definition. That is, in fact, the question at hand--the abuse of the patron system by those who are trying to use "art" as an investment and giving critical value only to financially successful art. That's very restrictive. And really, Duchamp is Dada?!? You do realize that without the concept of the readymade, there is no Damien Hirst...
CatZula 1 year ago
@CatZula Dude, unfortunately, you would completely laughed at by professors and by the professionals in the art world. Duchamp was the king of Dadaism. And they created Dadaism because people are stupid, because they knew we'd argue over this. Art is an idea. 100% And the art world has been built on that. The reason why we have modern art is because about 130 years ago, the Impressionists got fed up with the traditional movement and changed everything from there. Art /is/ conceptual.
SoulEaterEthan 1 year ago
@SoulEaterEthan Dude, you have no idea who I am--apparently you are a somewhat abusive (and snot nosed) kid. Dada was an incredibly limited and small movement (and quite disorganized), and compared to Breton or Picabia (or quite a few others) Duchamp was only peripherally involved. Further, Duchamp continued to make art long after the movement was dead. Also, Dada was a political movement...people were exiled over it...don't lecture me about art history when you a clearly deficient yourself.
CatZula 1 year ago
@CatZula You're right, and I don't have any fucking wish to know you, you no-nothing moron. This is the last time I reply, and all I've got to say is: Fuck you, and your limited brain power. You're a nobody, and chances are good you always will be. Have a nice life, you argumentative asshole.
SoulEaterEthan 1 year ago
@SoulEaterEthan Good luck with your social networking.
CatZula 1 year ago
@SoulEaterEthan Nobody's don't exist!!
There are no known nobody's.
davidoffon 1 year ago
@SoulEaterEthan: "Who has the balls to say what art is or isn't?" You do.
You said it was tied to one thing: money. Why should those with MONEY say what art is or isn't? See the problem? Buying a work of art because it really moves you personally, and you must have it in your home is one thing; buying art as an investment and to say how much you paid for it and to look cultivated, while not knowing anything about the art or why you really like it (like Mugrabi) is quite another.
furlip 1 year ago
also what Hughs says at the end of this says so much about the metamorphosis of collector to gallery and the space, in some cases , the vast space in-between
professorzupp 1 year ago
Art, if done correctly in all respects, is currency.What is a dollar bill? Or should I say,what is on a dollar bill? What is more boring than a dollar bill?
professorzupp 1 year ago
hahaha damn i like this guy
msa1985 1 year ago
And for the few artist whose work sell in the millions...$....
most of them make very little......just like actors, sportsmen.....etc..........
dojufitz 1 year ago
@dojufitz Ah yes, look at poor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jim Carrey, Derek Jeter or Alex Rodriguez...
No, the problem here is that Hirst making millions measn nothing in relation to other artists. If anything, Hirst making money hurts other artists because he usually steals ideas from others...keeping the money and the credit for himself. In that way, it's hard to call him an artist...so maybe you're right...
But in that case, your point fails because it's unrelated.
CatZula 1 year ago
@CatZula the West seems to evaluate everything in extreme ways....whos the best? what the most expensive? what is the ultimate?
There seems to be a handful of people who make millions out of what they do and some make a living and most very little....?
dojufitz 1 year ago
@dojufitz I hear you and I'm not categorically disagreeing. Hirst, however, is anything but a humble artist...we're talking a net worth of 200 million pounds. I guess perhaps I was misunderstanding your comment...this video is mostly about Hirst and a few other elites...that's not a condemnation of the whole art world, but considering how many exhibition Damien now intrudes into, he's become impossible to ignore.
CatZula 1 year ago
@CatZula He's a hack without a single innovative bone in his body save for his marketing ability and the sheer scope of his scumbagged-ness.
HisEmptyHouse 1 year ago
Comment removed
CatZula 1 year ago
This is the what you get when you allow the group of nefarious social engineers to take over Culture and turn it into what they want. Culture and Art become nothing but a tool to turn our world into a sea of meanlingless, atheism and indifference. Worse is yet to come...
thegreatfearblog 1 year ago
@thegreatfearblog Yes, because a bunch of atheists control all the elite institutions of the Western world... wait, we do?
That's news to me, I'm afraid.
BlacknWhitesAlright 1 year ago
@BlacknWhitesAlright Yeah since when do atheists have anything like that sort of power...smacks to me like religious bigots scapegoating atheists for the world's problems. Replace 'atheist' with 'jew' and the rhetoric they're using sounds very tired and familiar. The tired old dance of the persecutor pretending to be the victim of the persecuted with crocodile tears rolling down their cheeks as they slit the throats of their enemies.
HisEmptyHouse 1 year ago
I don't agree with Hughes on a lot of things, but he well and truly tucks the well-heeled ignoramus here, and in turn exposes the ignorance of the 'King Makers'.
MartyFunkhouser00 1 year ago
LOL, for Robert Hughes to believe "Andy Warhol had nothing to say" and "not having a considerable influence on painting", I am at a loss for words. Hughes somehow expects the rest of society to drift along with him into his alcohol-ridden delirium, soaked more perhaps by his ego than the gin itself.
melissacarterTS 1 year ago
@melissacarterTS OK, I'm game, compared to say, somebody like Jasper Johns or Pollock, how did Warhol influence painting...painting, mind you, not "art"..."painting." As far as having nothing to say, I suppose that's more of a subjective assessment...I'll defer to Hughes' authority and history on that...although I agree with him...but you can go become an art critic of renown and refute, refute away if you feel so strongly.
CatZula 1 year ago
I wonder how many gins Hughes needs to knock back before he can properly stand and walk without shaking.
melissacarterTS 1 year ago
@melissacarterTS
That might be the after-effects of that terrible car crash he was in?
NebulaRasa 1 year ago
Warhol was a visionary artist. Hughes is dumb if he can't understand the artistic ingenuity in Warhol's work. I think Damien Hirst is a flash in the pan. But to say ALL modern art is a "sham" or a "hoax" is as ignorant as worshipping all of it for its newness. Do you really believe every artist working today is valueless? Or might it be that you just disagree with certain ones the Art World showers with praise.
thornbird7556 1 year ago
@thornbird7556
Warhol did the same thing over and over again, it became so famous its fame exceeded any artistic merit.
Hughes argues that the value of art has, in some cases, been warped by material forces, i.e. money combined with the forces of celebrity
Perhaps what people are paying exorbitant amount of money for, suggests Hughes, is more to do with the fame of Andy Warhol rather than the overall artistic quality of his work - for which there is very little
Cocoheadedcannibal 1 year ago
All of the shit in that guy's apartment is just another expression of material ownership. There's nothing deeper to think about.
MrEinZwei 1 year ago
ROBERT HUGHES IS GANGSTA. Thank you for keeping it real.
ThatCoCoa 1 year ago
Hughes shows clearly that that some collectors have more money than brains
bagoona 1 year ago 2
queen victoria said it best: "you can't trust artists they mix with all the classes"
destroyallart 1 year ago
BAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
pragmatismnotidealis 1 year ago
Can you post the text of the "joke" in the red painting? Thanks.
FantasmaBAnco 1 year ago
These two jackoffs have such strong opinions about something neither of them understand. "Me wuv dis and embwace it cuz it sooo cool!!" .."Me no wike! All dis modern cwap is sooo stoopid!!"
andrewweis 1 year ago
Almost too painful to watch.
keytoothed 1 year ago
@keytoothed oh, i felt real pain!
"isn't it a miracle what so much money and so little ability can produce." - best line ever.
helloisa22 1 year ago
Notice how the billionaire can't even articulate why he's collecting what he's collecting. He has no real love for the paintings or the painters--there is no real emotional involvement on his part, not connection, except that he wants his name recorded for posterity's sake.Interesting how during the Renaissance a burgeoning middle class could patronize the greatest artists this planet has seen, but with all our wealth, these men pour money into this shit. It says a lot about our age.
keytoothed 1 year ago
There's got to be some middle ground between blind adoration and indignant condemnation in modern art. Why not just take things at face value? If it amuses you, great. If not, move on.
ral1334 1 year ago
Andy Warhol was more of a businessman than an artist
RoadKillZebra 1 year ago
yep...not all of it, but I give it a chance.
zig45 1 year ago
@zig45 It's a good attitude, but Hughes is right on with this lot--Hughes is not remotely as backwards as you are trying to paint him--classical nudes and fruit bowls are not his paradigm. That said, it's hard not to be cynical in today's art market. BTW, Andy was...well, not the sharpest crayon in the box. Not that he didn't have a few good ideas, but Rauschenberg and a lot of others reveal his distinct lack of creativity or skill...
CatZula 1 year ago
because a 'combine' is different from a 'readymade'. if you wanted to go with originality it would have been better to pick his buddy Johns.
nooninho 1 year ago
@nooninho Ah, yes, how daft of me since most of the combines utilize readymades. But yes, you're right, Johns wield more artistic punch.
CatZula 1 year ago
This guy is a jackass. "if he is a deep person, why does one (ie. why do I) not see it in his paintings?" Hughes would have us all stare at bowls of fruit and classic nudes I suppose. Van Gogh was rejected by his critics for having no ability; same argument with Elvis - "that's not real music!" And Andy Warhol being a stupid person?! Laughable, really. He's lost all of his sense of wonder. Now he's just a cynic.
zig45 1 year ago
@zig45 i guess u like modern art , good for you !
tavokoti 1 year ago
Deskilling is dying, along with all the fake absurdities of post modernism.
Thank you Mr. Hughes.
chauza11 1 year ago
One of few real life mutants, who has the ability to transform material into crap and crap into money.
sheba021 1 year ago
I don't think either of them understand Warhol. Andy's greatest creation was ANDY WARHOL. As far as works go. I think it was his film making that was the most transformative.
yangyin09u 1 year ago
@yangyin09u Andy had no great creation. His manager's greatest creation was Andy Warhol. When Andy died, everyone expected his artwork to fade away. but through hard work and endless promotion, money has been made of him yet. BTW, filming people sleeping...really? That's transformative? I can't sit through 90% of the films of his I've screened. What drugs are you on, cause they must be pretty damn potent.
CatZula 1 year ago
Comment removed
yangyin09u 1 year ago
@CatZula Actually watching someone sleep is deeply interesting; a film about the human condition rarely seen. lol You would have made your point better by citing his Empire State Building film. But if you lived in Manhattan anywhere near it and had a view of it out your window, you may have spent days collectively watching the ever changing light and weather illuminating and obscuring it; as transformative as Monet's many Chartre Cathedrals.
As for my urine test results, those are private.
yangyin09u 1 year ago
@yangyin09u I don't know. I can't sit through them. The sleep film specifically does nothing for me since I have had, and continue to have, ample access to watching sleeping people... If I want to meditate, I simply meditate. ...I'm not a huge fan of Monet's Chartre Cathedrals, but each painting required an enormous amount of skill. Andy's films are basically home movies gone awry. If that does it for you, so be it, but compared to Bresson, Mamet...nah, not for me....
CatZula 1 year ago
If you want to understand art you have to STUDY IT!...you have to study aestethics,politics,history,phylosophy....everything is connected... it's not simply "oooh my god it's beautiful... oooh no this is simply stupid and meaningless for me".
Every period in human history had different points of view and different interpretative keys or if the "topos" is the same there is an "HAUF HEBUNG"...an elevation of problems and questions.Everything is bought and sold today...also art...
r1cc4rd000 1 year ago