We don't understand art (From Clacton and Frinton Gazette)

We don't understand art

8:31am Thursday 27th November 2008

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments(8)

We don’t understand a lot of art.

We hold our hands up.

If Tracey Emin spat in a metal bucket and called it “Reflections of a brace” it would probably sell for £30,000 or something.

To us, it is spit in a bucket and we might give you £2 for the bucket if you wash the spit out first.

Damien Hirst chops a cow and a calf in half, floats them in formaldehyde, calls it Mother and Child Divided and earns a fortune. We call it a waste of good steak.

If people want to know why there is a credit crunch, one contributing factor is that some people, companies and organisations have no concept of the value of money.

It can be banks caught up in an orgy of reckless lending, or individuals whose spending habits defy belief.

When he was floating one of his first companies on the stock exchange, Duncan Bannatyne, of Dragon’s Den fame, was appalled at the opulence and excess of many of the City offices he visited.

It made him suspicious of their prudence and spending habits. His thoughts would appear to be justified.

When you earn £7 an hour on a building site, £50 is a lot: it represents a day’s tiring, back-breaking labour.

So when Hirst filled a steel cabinet with 6,136 pills, called it Lullaby Spring, and sold it for $19.2 million you know something is wrong somewhere.

Which brings us to Jaywick and Nathan Coley’s £40,000 “46 Brooklands Gardens”.

Whether this is a “bold and uncompromising sculpture,” or, as one person suggested, a “half-finished shed”, we will let you decide.

We will simply reaffirm our ignorance.

What do we know about “its barricade-like form, establishing a dialogue with the people and perception of the town”? But we do understand the resident who said the money could have been better spent on street lighting.

The arts have a crucial role in society and we are not saying taxpayers’ money should not be spent on them.

We simply ponder if this is really the best way to spend £40,000 in Jaywick.

And when someone tells you it is from an arts budget, not for regeneration, tell them your pounds filled both, so you don’t see the distinction.

The art piece may generate some thoughts and reflections, but it will not generate improved housing, warmth or social services in an area where more are needed.

As we say, we are just ignorant. But we do know we would prefer any arts money to be spent here rather than elsewhere in the county and so well done to those who brought it to the resort.

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments(8)