Globalaffairs

Issue 14/April-May 2009
By Monica Díez

18th November was officially inaugurated the UN Human Right Room cupola, headquarters in Geneva, made by the Mallorcan artist Miquel Barceló.

We are not discussing the artistic value of the work, after analyzing many people opinions, most of them have labeled it as “shameful” and “ugly” or “colorful shits” (that should make the artist think about his art goals). Also its financing was controversial because it is contradictory that a person cooperating with NGOs helping Saharawi, Mozambique, Mali or Bolivia should not take FAD funds for his own profit. But for sure Barcelo belongs to the artist group supporting Zapatero, it seems that we have returned to the political art sponsors which are in any tyrannical regime (as the Nazi regime where it was an official art and the rest was forbidden because it was considered immoral). The difference is that in this case artists joined under democracy for climbing up regardless of their works quality.

In fact Barcelo was successful: next year he will be the Spanish representative of the popular and not recommended Venice Biennale even if his cupola inaugurated the 18th November will have fallen partially and it is already being fixed according to a journalist infiltrated in the room. The UN is trying to stop this issue of being known. The glass doors of the 20th Hall of the UN Palace have been covered, the entrance forbidden and they are working inside quickly.

This cupola has been very controversial from the beginning because it had a budget of mere 20 million Euros, 40% financed by the Spanish Foreign Ministry because it was a Spanish present. Price apart, 6 million Euros went directly to the artist (plus the middleman expenses), 500,000 Euros of the total price were from the FAD (Development Aid Fund), the Spanish ambassador argued: “It is not questionable the use of a FAD item because all related to Human Rights is development aid and in this sense what is being made in Geneva within the UN frame is the best example of this efficient multilateralism”.

But what can we say about the art world that all become shit? We can remember the shit tinned of the artist, I am talking about Piero Manzini, he sold it very quickly as work of art valued its weight in gold. But the most surprising thing is his followers talking about him to justify him, read and think if you understand something about the supposed importance of this work of art:

“The Manzoni innovation is linking these suggestions to a reflection of the artist function facing the self-reference of the work of art. The tautological closure of the Achrome (a surface that does not make any sense or exhibit any material use) and the line invisibility, hidden in a sealed container create a spectacular self-reference of the artist body.

Deprived of the object and still charmed by the memory of his heroic status of producer and author, the artist finds a compensation for the loss invading the space traditionally assigned by the communicative process of the work.

The artist body is offered to the public as a work of art and traces of the body become relics.

Thus the artist shit gets born (sold as it was gold) and also the artist breath (”Fiato d’artista”, balloons blew up with the author’s vital breath), the balloons and the artist blood (”Sangue d’artista”).”

It seems that someone is pulling our leg but here they are telling the story as it was a great and serious work of art!

Praising the artist until religious limits seems to me incredible especially because we have not to forget that the artist is above all a plastic creator and his work has to be BEAUTIFUL, as a professor told me once, he was preaching to his students the artist need to feel themselves lucky because their work consists in making people a bit happy. I say, have we lost our bearings? Or do we like to have shit? Because I believe in all homes we make shit disappear in the bathroom and we do not put them in selves as a sculpture.

As for shits we can make a long list in which it is important the article published in “El Pais” by Vargas Llosa titled “Elephant shit”, a critique regarding an exhibition made by some English boys where the work was made with pachyderm excrements. In this group Damian Hirst became popular who has broken sales record in the Sotherby’s auction because he obtained 198 million dollars for selling all his work, one of the most expensive pieces was a shark displayed in formaldehyde in a glass box. The popular and respectable art critic Hughes makes fun of “the pseudo religious and philosophical interpretations that critics give to animal displayed in formaldehyde in glass containers as the popular shark bought it for 12 million dollars by a Wall Street broker, Steve Cohen, believing the monstrosity was something like an artistic hypostasis of life and violence”.

In order to end this speculator view unaware of art, where no one cares about the artistic quality but its selling, I will add Vargas Llosa excellent words regarding the Damian Hirst work (the shark displayed in formaldehyde), I could not explain with such excellent words what art should be:

“Artist success does not depend on his own artistic merits but on factors far from art as his overly dramatic abilities, scandals and shows that he is able to do or mafia manipulations of art gallery directors, collectors, art dealers and the naivety of a lost and dominated public (…)Maybe, step by step, supported and advised by critics and artists that rebel against rudeness that the civilization of shows demands to its idols, a values frame will reemerge allowing to public, as in the old days, distinguish using the true feelings and life experiences what’s true creative art in our times and what’s fake.

It will be a long process that’s why it should start as soon as possible because art has a main function to carry out within the culture of one period, it is a nerve centre of spiritual life of a community, a voice of relaxation and pleasure, of learning to purify daily life, imperfections and a guide that is always pointing an ideal way of being, loving, living and even dying. That’s why art cannot be kidnapped by insignificant minorities of fortunetellers, clowns and businessmen, away from this nourishing material that is the collectivity, from which all great art has always taken energy and raw material and at the same time it returns shapes and models that honored its desires and dreams. Just if art recovers freedom and gets rid of those groups of snobs, frivolous and speculators where it is confined, we will get rid of Damien Hirst”.

Mónica Díez
Graduated in Arts and Law
http://www.monicajenjo.es/

Global Affairs is not liable for author’s opinion