Saatchi Outburst Guardian Newspaper 3rd Dec.2011

During my researches into the life and works of Sherri Levine I came across an article (http://mrsilverthorne.blogspot.com/2006/07/author-or-forger-sherrie-levine-and.html) in which the following statement was made:

...work of the most radical appropriation artists has been accepted as art, and they have been accepted as artists, receiving every form ofrecognition for which artists and artworks are eligible: Levine has works in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Glenn Brown has been short-listed for the Turner Prize, the appropriation artists have been discussed in Artforum, Art in America, Flash Art and other major art criticism venues, and so on. Moreover, the kind of recognition the artists have received suggests that the art world takes them seriously as the authors of their work. If Brown were not considered responsible for his works, however derivative from Dali and John Martin, what would be the point of considering him for a prestigious award? If Levine were not taken seriously as an author, what would be the point of interviewing her in major art magazines?”


Here we have the proposition that an 'artist' is an artist because they appear in prestigious collections, short-listed for an award and discussed in art related magazines. It further proposes that "the art world takes them seriously as the authors of their work. No mention is made of the merits of their work. It is though Levine and others can say "I am an artist because important people in my world say I am an artist". The author is far from dead in this scenario because it is only through the recognition of the author that the art work is acclaimed.


What if the art world is denounced by one of its own? In an article in the Guardian Newspaper (p.3 3rd December 2011) Charles Saatchi who has championed contemporary art through purchases and exhibitions describes the present day buyers (who by their wealth and position have the ability to set the agenda) as "comprehensively and indisputably vulgar". He goes on "My little dark secret is that I don't actually believe many people in the art world have much feeling for art and cannot tell a good artist from a weak one, until the artist has enjoyed the validation of others."


If this description of the art world is true then we have a relationship between the artist and the art world where there is a common need to maintain the myth that all work from a particular author is 'good'. Any hint that this is not the case then the whole world comes crashing down. No one dare question the merits of a piece of work because they have spent fortunes on hanging other works by the artist on their walls and risk not only the ignominy  of being seen as having work by a naff artist but also see there chances of selling it on at a profit disappear overnight. Is not everyone in this world totally committed to maintaining the dominance of the author over the work? I should think that the articles by Barthes and Foucault are not bed time reading for these people.