 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 16 - 22 December 1999 Issue No. 460 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 16 - 22 December 1999 Issue No. 460
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Debate Focus Profile Living Travel Sports People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Plain talk
By Mursi Saad El-Din
I have to admit that when it comes to painting I have no taste for modernism or post modernism. Call me academic, conservative or even reactionary. The truth is that my aesthetic sensibility has nothing in common with such art schools.
This is why I enjoyed the latest exhibition hosted by the new Grant Gallery which, like the majority of galleries in Cairo, is owned and run by a woman. It was an exhibition of paintings by Nagui Basilious, an artist who tends to hibernate, in the words of the leading artist Bicar, who spoke about Basilious on the occasion of the exhibition opening. The paintings varied from portraits to still-lifes reflecting the influence of the Dutch school. To me, an unpretentious art lover, it was a genuinely heart-warming experience. But it seems that I am not alone in turning my back on modern and post modern art.
The last shortlist for the Turner Prize, the most prestigious artistic award in Britain, has created a furore. Articles criticising the choice of painting and discussing the state of modern British art have filled the papers.
In his article in the Sunday Times culture supplement, the art critic Michael Wright asks whether modern art has turned its back on the world? In answering this question he goes beyond the boundaries of the Turner Prize to discuss how a small group of gallery bosses, commercial dealers, critics and Arts Council members dictate artistic taste. The art world says Wright is run by a small coterie which is responsible not only for "a conspiracy" but also that "there is an overlap between commercial dealership and publicly funded galleries".
It is no new thing for the taste of the few to dictate what is "fashionable" in art. This has been the case from the 15th century, when the Medici court played patron to the arts, to 1920's Paris. What has changed, according to Wright is that today's supposed avant-garde artists are the publicly funded darlings of the establishment, eagerly courted by everyone from corporate buyers to Downing Street.
This favouritism seems to be common in many countries other than Britain. It is reflected in the choice of works to represent respective countries in the Venice Biennale, for instance. In another article in the same issue Waldemar Januszczar writes deploring the fact that these so-called Turner Prize-winners are allowed to represent Britain abroad. He believes that "no former Turner Prize-winner is as guilty as the artist who, alas, represented Britain at the 41st Venice Biennale". He also criticises the British representation in this year's Venice Biennale, the 48th.
The coterie responsible for the art world in Britain has left many painters feeling disenfranchised. They feel that they deserve the same respect as the in-artists. As one of them says, you can make a living as an artist, but if you are not one of the favoured few, it can also be very difficult. In spite of this apparent monopoly, the art scene remains as rich, and catholic and eclectic as ever. This was evidenced by the crowds who queued, some of them all night, for get tickets to the Monet exhibition which has just ended in London. Christopher Frayling, rector of the Royal College of Art, admits that the public should vote with their feet and go in their thousands to the exhibitions that really interest and excite them. But a lot of the exhibitions representing "other" artistic tendencies are not particularly well attended, he reasons, simply because they are not getting the same hype.
These discussions reflect the importance of art in British life. In fact Britain is known to have quite a sizeable art market described as "lucrative", with thousands of people involved in it. This is why the British government is opposed to a European proposal to give artists and their heirs the rights to royalties. But this will be the subject of my next column.
