He may not be the nicest person in the world but he's interesting, he's not a bullshitter and he gets a lot done.
My change of mind is based on a bit of research, reading some of the essays in Saatchi's book, Babble, and visiting the Saatchi Gallery.
Bit of research
It's easy to find out about some of Saatchi's achievements in the art world, notably encouraging Young British Artists, identifying and supporting rising stars, notably Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin, and founding the Saatchi Gallery. But it's quite hard to get an idea of what Saatchi is like as a person because he's somewhat of a recluse.
Yes, okay. He doesn't come out of his marriage break-up with Nigella Lawson smelling of roses but I don't know the full facts, it's none of my business and he wouldn't be the only person to be a big achiever at the same time as being a brute in his dealings with people around him.
I'm thinking of Apple founder Steve Jobs.
So what do I know about Saatchi, the person?
Well, he's yet another example of someone from a wealthy Jewish family fleeing to England and becoming a big name in the art world. Charles was born in Baghdad 1943 and his family moved to London in 1947.
By the way, we have to do an essay in the next year of our Context of Practice course and I've thought about focusing it on how (and why) so many famous people in the art world have a similar background - i.e., wealthy Jewish. Would it make me sound racist?Anyhow, Saatchi became obsessed with US pop culture while at school, when he was already a big collector of cigarette cards, juke boxes, comics and nudist magazines, according to his Wikipedia entry. It cites Saatchi describing his experience of viewing a Jackson Pollock painting as "life changing".
To cut a long story short, he started off buying some US minimalist stuff and then decided to focus on young British artists, which turned into a sort of mini-movement. He bought a warehouse in London to show his collection to the public and eventually, this became the Saatchi Gallery off Kings Road in Chelsea, or more correctly, The Museum of Contemporary Art for London, owned by the UK public, which I visited last Saturday.
Saatchi Gallery
No entry fee!
On the previous day, I'd paid £8.60 (OAP rate) to see Richard Deacon at Tate Britain and £9 (OAP rate) to see Martin Creed at the Hayward Gallery - and in both cases, I thought it was quite expensive for what was on show (particularly Creed's A4 sheet of paper, screwed into a ball).
In his book, Babble, Saatchi has a rant about ostensibly free galleries charging these sort of prices to see exhibitions within them. He thinks they should follow his example at the Saatchi Gallery - have everything free, have long opening hours, get lots more visitors and make their money from merchandise.
I totally agree with him, although I have reservations about "lots more visitors" because I don't like being swept along by crowds in galleries. I like to take my time looking at stuff and not have other people obstructing my view - see my previous post: "My thoughts on art galleries and museums".
Anyhow, the Saatchi Gallery is big, and perhaps that's why it wasn't crowded when I visited. There were a few "stack of wood" type exhibits but there's was a lot of stuff I liked.
Another plus for the Saatchi Gallery: They allow you to take photos!
Makiko Kudo above. Figures floating through lush colours.
The basement, above, is filled with used engine oil
Babble, one of Saatchi's books
It's a collection of essays which makes it an easy read - you can pick out the topics that interest you and each one is only a few pages long. I wondered whether they were reprints of the column Saatchi writes for London's Evening Standard - don't know the answer to that one!
I've already mentioned his rant about galleries charging entry fees, which is entitled "Are museums fooling the public or themselves?".
In another essay, "The hideousness of the art world", Saatchi pours scorn on the super rich that have pumped up the price of art, or more precisely the big names in art, without any appreciation of the art itself.
It starts: "Being an art buyer these days is comprehensively and indisputably vulgar. It is the sport of the Eurotrashy, Hedge-fundy, Hamptonites; of trendy oligarchs and oiligarchs; and of art dealers with masturbatory levels of self-confidence."
Previously, I would have counted Saatchi as not just one of this crowd but the God Father of the whole shebang. Everybody else follows in his wake - the work of whatever artist he adopts ends up rocketing in value, delivering huge profits for him.
In Babble, Saatchi says he hasn't got wealthy on the back of this: he ploughs back whatever he makes on art sales into buying more art from emerging artists, and he helps them get established by showing his collection in the Saatchi Gallery.
I love this quote:
"Few people in contemporary art demonstrate much curiosity. The majority spend their days blathering on, rather than trying to work out why one artist is more interesting than another, or why one picture works and another doesn't."Saatchi says a lot of the super-rich art collectors don't even bother looking at what they're buying. They buy based on the name. They wouldn't be able to tell the difference between "a good Picasso from a weak Picasso, or a powerful Hirst from a lazy one".
Now for a terrible admission: neither would I. The question that's been bugging me all along is whether this is something instinctive that you're born with (as appears to be the case with Saatchi) or is this something that I can learn (...from this course?).
On the other hand, maybe I should be true to myself. There's some art I really love and there's some that does nothing for me. It just so happens that a lot of the big names fall into the second category when it comes to contemporary art.
I've often thought that learning how to appreciate a great wine might spoil my enjoyment of the ordinary stuff. Maybe the same applies to art?
No comments:
Post a Comment