Blogcritics Comments on Part of Saatchi Art Collection Destroyed

Comment by Bill on Part of Saatchi Art Collection Destroyed

Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:40:19 EDT

I read about this fire a week or so ago, and thought that it was a real shame that so many creative endeavors were lost. I've been going through the Saatchi site, and there's a lot of stuff there that I would like to see. Regardless of how one might feel about Saatchi, it looks like he's giving a lot of artists a place to show their work. The USA Today Exhibit that will be held at the National Academy is introducing me to a lot of artists I hadn't heard of before, and would like to find out more about. I don't think that's a bad thing. ]]>

Comment by young british artist! on Part of Saatchi Art Collection Destroyed

Mon, 28 Nov 2005 08:01:10 EST

I can't believe that your making assumptions about other artists work! Have you actually ever seen the work yourself - I very much doubt it most critics haven't! The sensation exhibiton was a fantastic display of Contemporary British Art, it was bold fresh and new! (and yes I did actually go to see it myself) People are constantly asking the question how can this be classed as art? The context of the work that was on display there was very complex and definately worth thinking about! I'm not saying I agree with Harvey's use of Myra's image but the idea behind it is very chilling - the idea that the handprints represented a million testimonies of pure evil! How can artists develop and grown when people are there constantly criticising work that they've never seen - it's a shame that we live in a world where adults are unable to open up their own mind and ideas to work that is very different from the norm! well it's your loss not theirs! ]]>

Comment by Shark on Part of Saatchi Art Collection Destroyed

Wed, 26 May 2004 11:50:49 EDT

Thorzdad, never once did I say "My two year old could do that." That's not my complaint. And I'm a huge fan of contemporary art, good contemporary art -- as well as being an artist myself. I just like to point out that the contemporary emperor-artist often goes nekkid. And both of your assertions: 1) ...most museums have to resort to corporate partnerships in order to afford to keep the doors open, let alone stage a show. 2) ...most americans don't go to art museums and even fewer would go if they had to pay an entry fee. Are both totally incorrect. I was senior staff on one of the top art museums in the world, so I know whereof I speak. If I have time, I'll provide empirical data to support this, but for now, let's just leave it with "you're wrong." ]]>

Comment by Thorzdad on Part of Saatchi Art Collection Destroyed

Wed, 26 May 2004 11:35:31 EDT

Unfortunately, most museums have to resort to corporate partnerships in order to afford to keep the doors open, let alone stage a show. It's a sad fact of contemporary society that most americans don't go to art museums and even fewer would go if they had to pay an entry fee. Still, the bile expressed in the blog is amazing. I had hoped we had come just a little further than this sort of absolute hatred of contemporary art. I thought that sort of "my two-year-old can do that shit" thinking had finally faded away. Guess not. Sad. ]]>

Comment by Eric Olsen on Part of Saatchi Art Collection Destroyed

Wed, 26 May 2004 10:03:23 EDT

okay, good point ]]>

Comment by Shark on Part of Saatchi Art Collection Destroyed

Wed, 26 May 2004 10:00:40 EDT

Eric, I, too, mourn the loss of any art work, but our widening definitions of art make it a ubiquitous commodity in this world. In many cases, they can replace the original by cranking up the same factory that produced it. (see "Art of the Motorcyle"at the Guggenheim, or Jeff Koons) One of my implicit points is that one should be concerned when these non-profit, "educational" art museums team up with some entitiy and produce an "exhibition" based on a commercial brand and/or some dealers private collection (as in the case of Saatchi -- and way too many others. Art pros call this a "dealers show"; ie. a reciprocal gift meant to boost attendance and the future sales prices for the collector or dealer who makes the loan.) The significance of the art is always in question because the curators have replaced critique with marketing; they're no longer keepers and/or interpreters of cultural artifacts, but they're proxy sales and marketing people -- spokespersons trading 'product placement' for items on loan and more importantly -- "additional funding provided by...". Next time you enter one of the "non-profit" hallowed halls of art, take note of how many corporate logos you can spot. They're no longer 'educating' you; they're selling you something. Just one more sign of The End Times... ]]>

Comment by Eric Olsen on Part of Saatchi Art Collection Destroyed

Wed, 26 May 2004 07:57:42 EDT

I agree that little of this ilk will be enduring in the great spread of human art history, but the loss of any art is still a loss for mankind. You don't have to like a given work, or even an entire given genre to regret its loss. It isn't "tragic" but I wouldn't celebrate it either: this kind of art is about ideas not aesthetics and I would think free thinkers would not be grateful for the destruction of the expression of ideas. It really has little or nothing to do with Saatchi himself, who may well be the assplow you accuse him of being. ]]>