pordenone montanari – genius or senile dauber?

16 August 2010 § 4 Comments

Hoorah! A new Italian artistic ‘genius’ has been discovered according to a story published yesterday in the Observer (15 Aug) and Guardian online. ‘Eccentric’ Pordenone Montanari has been living as a ‘recluse’ for the last 18 years, spending every minute painting and sculpting. The resulting work according to experts has been described as ‘worthy of major exhibition and representation in public galleries’.

So far so good – it is not unusual for artists to receive recognition late in their life, or after-life for that matter. Nevertheless to slip by totally unnoticed up to the age of 73 seems a little, shall we say, careless, even Van Gogh desperately sought recognition during his lifetime. Then we learn of Montanari’s early history – he studied sculpture at Brera in the 60’s before ‘travelling extensively, living on family money’, perhaps doing a little painting and sculpting as he scrounged, sorry explored? It is said that he sold some paintings to a bank 24 years ago so – why a bank? The bank presumably paid money for them and he was presumably showing and selling at that time? Why not the public and why are we not being told? Could it be because he was actually a rather bad, failed artist rather than an undiscovered one? Perhaps I am jumping the gun here and I should look at the work more carefully first.

So, fast-forward twenty-four years. Montanari has apparently spent most of them in self-imposed isolation painting and sculpting, fed and watered by his, no doubt long-suffering, wife. We are shown images of half a dozen paintings – four feature female models and two still lives. Immediately we recognise them as amateurish pastiches of post-impressionist and early 20th century avant-garde art. The bold outlines of Van Gogh without the emotion, the colour fields of the fauves without any sense of colour. A full-length portrait against a red background shows a female who seems to be toppling backwards whilst carrying a rugby ball (perhaps a Welsh forward?).

One of the messy and confused still-lives seems to feature a dead dog – one recalls Picasso only in that the cubist still-lives played with our ability to recognise images and shapes from fragmented, multiple viewpoints – sadly here it is because he can not paint.  The figures are soulless, seemingly trapped in corners and surrounded by mirrors and frames – their supposed similarity to the poetic, dreamlike and humourous Chagall zero. They are meant to show ‘elements of Bacon’ – the only connection I can see is that my local builder’s caff where I eat my Saturday morning fry-up has similarly dreadful pictures on the wall. They may have had some passing historical interest had he been painting before the first war but in the last twenty years, no.

But hold on – were they not discovered by a renowned expert in post-war art? Well, not quite. Actually the find was by an Indian businessman whose friend conveniently happens to run an investment, advisory and private capital firm. Ok, what about the ‘high seven figure sum’ for rights to the artists estate? Given that seven figures is a million the sum must presumably be between about £5 and £9 million, working out at over £10k for every work of  ‘art’, then surely they must be significant works? Do you believe it? I think we should see a copy of the contract dont you? 

I think by now you will notice my scepticism. Indeed, to me this has all the hallmarks of a hyped up money-making venture. My advice – steer well clear. Me? I am off to the caff to see if they are willing to sell! Arrivederci.

If you liked this post please make a comment or like it. If you like the blog please subscribe for regular updates (top right of page). Many thanks! akuta

a review of reviews – newspeak: british art now at the saatchi gallery

5 August 2010 § Leave a comment

In Chelsea on a fine and sunny day there seemed to be no reason not to take a casual stroll around the Saatchi Gallery just off the Kings Road. It is an impulse in which I am not alone – last year the Saatchi had two of the three most visted shows in the UK. Having always championed young british talent, infamously of course at Sensation! in 1997, Charlie has recently cast his eye in the direction of the Middle East, USA, India and China. Now back with British artists there was great anticipation of what this exhibition – part one of two (the second to open 27 October) – would reveal.

However, what particularly interested me was how the major critics from the UK nationals have made of this exhibition. More, I was intrigued in the different ways they have viewed it. What are the stand-out works here? What then is the future of British art? Which artist is worth investing in?

John Wynne - Untitled

 

Saatchi has never been one for understatement; The Triumph of Painting, The Shape of Things To Come, Sensation! All imply a definitive judgment and invite contradiction. The title Newspeak was no exception and was roundly attacked. This Orwellian word represents a reductive language whilst Saatchi proudly speaks of ‘expanding and multiplying’ visual languages. The fact that only two of 29 artists shown are under thirty prompted others to call it ‘Oldspeak’ whilst Brian Sewell (Standard) brilliantly and humorously compares Orwell’s (and Saatchi’s) Newspeak with the ‘jargon and jabberwocky of present-day artspeak’ in the gallery handbook.

Once addressing the exhibition the writers, almost in unison, branded it unco-ordinated – ‘a mess… the contents of someone’s attic’ (Independent), ‘underwhelming to overambitious’ (Guardian), ‘scattergun and unfocused’ (FT). The quality was perceived as indifferent; ‘some good, some mediocre, some ghastly’ (FT), ‘one or two instances of inspired brilliance’ (Guardian), ‘20% is really very good’ (Independent’), ‘Not quite but nearly’ (Times), ‘… in such feeble company three works are perhaps outstanding’ (Standard).

Strangely, despite this criticism, to a man (and woman) the critics were loath to criticise Saatchi. On the contrary, he was generally congratulated as one who stands head and shoulders above other public British gallery curators as one willing to take a chance. He treads (and buys) where others fear and is rightly lauded for it.

With broad agreement then that the exhibition only produced a smallish proportion of worthwhile work one would assume that this accord would extend – broadly – to which pieces these were. Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Of the seven reviews (Independent, Guardian, Telegraph, Standard, Sunday Times, Times and FT) only one artist only each ‘scored’ with 5 and 4, three got 3, four got 2 (despite one being labelled a ‘genius’). In all no less than nineteen of the 29 artists received positive comments. Varied works were variously described as  ‘litter, ‘fit for the bonfire’, ‘disgusting’, ‘a joke’ or ‘the work of an infant’ whilst at the same time being praised by other critics – hilarious! I will name names and provide a ‘league table’ in the next posts!

So, how about the future of British art. Well, all the critics all agreed that it was bit of a ‘hotchpotch’ with some ‘instances of inspired brilliance’ or ‘genius’ even. There was surely then a general consensus about what this uneven view represented about what is happening in this area? Nope. Not even close. The Guardian and FT do not even bother to decide. Charles Darwent (Independent) quite enjoyed the exhibition and, presumably (he does not quite say), feels that the outlook is promising. Richard Dorment (Telegraph) worried that Saatchi’s teaming with Philips de Pury weakened any message. Rachel Campbell-Johnson (Times) thought that there was plenty of room for optimism whilst Waldemar Januszckak (Times) felt Britain still has talent.

I will leave the last thought for Brian Sewell (Standard). If thought somewhat stuffy and old-fashioned in some quarters, he is still without doubt one of the most perceptive and insightful critics around. Wise enough to see though the ‘weasel words’ of artspeak he has the courage to criticise where others sit on the sidelines. Ignore what he has to say at your peril;

‘The rest of Newspeak [other than three works] is at best cliche, kitsch and the ironic subversion that is the joke so often played by the post-modernist. It demonstrates how swiftly the energy of the YBA’s evaporated, leaving no useful legacy for their successors, nothing on which they could build. One might reasonably conclude British art is dead.’

Go Brian!  I look forward to part 2 in October and see if more of a consensus emerges.

If you liked this post please make a comment or like it. If you like the blog please subscribe for regular updates (top right of page). Many thanks! akuta

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with guardian at a kick up the arts.

%d bloggers like this: