Can there be too much art?
To some degree we are art starved. Our home could benefit from more art, and our surroundings could probably get a visual boost from several more, carefully placed, and even more carefully funded, public art works. We like to be surrounded by art. We love exploring new ideas, taking on new perspectives, shaking our sensibilities, diving into pools of color and enveloping ourselves in new forms and textures. These make up some of the reasons we founded art251.
Then, I came across a recent article by Guy Kennaway, novelist, journalist and contemporary art collector, in the Times of London (July 9), describing his fatigue with contemporary art. Surprisingly, I find myself partly agreeing with his sentiments:
I have collected contemporary art since the White Cube [leading contemporary art space, London] was two little rooms up a narrow staircase, 20 years ago. I have been a friend to modern artists and modern art for a very long time, but now - there’s no escaping it - I’ve got contemporary art fatigue. I am swamped by art; it’s on the Tube [Londoners’ term for the subway], in restaurants, bars and offices, on the street, at airports, stations and all over the telly [that’s television]. It’s impossible to find an art-free space.
It was different 20 years ago when art was confined to galleries and specialist publications, and artists were sensitive, amusing and modest. They were fun to be with, and to champion. Now, art is everywhere…
I can sympathize with his trauma. Art is being co-opted by corporations, mass media has blurred the line between design and art, consumers are printing their own art on tee-shirts, and many artists have become market savvy and market driven. Yet, although art is fast becoming integrated into the global economy its permeation into our culture does remain highly localized. I don’t think Keller or even (north) Texas is likely to become art saturated like London any time soon. And, even in London, while art haystacks may abound, the needles are still there.

Banky’s interpretation of a ubiquitous Damien Hirst spot painting. Image courtesy of flickr
Mr.Kennaway goes on to lay the blame for his exhaustion at the feet of art dealers:
If I go and see a film I can tell if it’s any good, and I am confident about my opinion; if I read a book, I can tell if it’s successful and can explain why. We all can. But with art it’s more tricky. If we are unmoved or unimpressed by a piece of art we worry that the fault lies not with the work but with us. It’s madness.
The cleverest trick the dealers have played is to make us believe that the price of a work of art reflects its quality. It’s no surprise that artists just keep churning the work out. Why shouldn’t they? Damien Hirst’s spots are the new Burberry check, but it doesn’t seem to stop them getting more and more valuable.
Again, I can see his point, but I suspect his analysis applies more so to the upper-reaches of the art market, where typical prices will be more than the average home in our area, and where there is much more to gain (and lose) and faunt. But, like many other social instruments, art continues to be a way for individuals to express their individuality, or their membership in a certain group or their social status. This cannot be a bad thing. Yet, it’s a double-edged sword. As more people enter the monied, middle-class, more will seek from art what once only the elite could afford. So, some artists will jump on the bandwagon — they’ll produce more of what the market-driven market wants, and Damien Hirst, just like Andy Warhol, will hire more “staff” to create “his” works.

