What do you think?
Rate this book


690 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 17, 2015
Art made in the absence of craft is as empty as bullfighting in the absence of a bull.
The inflation of the market, the victory of promotion over connoisseurship, the manufacture of art-related glamour, the poverty of art training, the embattled state of museums, these will not vanish as at the touch of a wand now that 1990 is here.For 1990 read 2018 – it all still applies.
'Cultural Imperium' suggesting the idea of cultural hegemony such that what appears to be ‘avant garde’ and ‘radical’ is in fact intensely conservative and defined by the forces of economy and commodity trading which have absolutely no bearing on intrinsic value.
It is no accident that the immense fetishism that sustains the art market should have reached it's present level just at the time when the old purposes of art, the manifestation of myth and the articulation of social meaning have largely been taken away from painting and sculpture by film, television and photography. Only when an object is truly useless it seems, can capitalism see it as truly priceless.But he was also a realist and not a romantic understanding that artists too had to live, had to sell, had to earn from their labour and as such he wasn't at all strictly against patronage and money.
The idea that patronage and trade automatically corrupt the well of the imagination is a pious fiction believed by some utopian lefties and a few people of genius like Blake but flatly contradicted by history itself.Not for him either the artist-in-his/her-ivory-tower or the tortured-soul-living-on-a-crust-in-a-garret. Romantic he was not. His vision was to see through and describe in print what he saw as the cant and artifice of the commercial gallery scene and name/status/celebrity building for the sake of surplus value in art. He had the tools at hand and the knowledge to call these bodies to task and to counterpoint them against explicit quotes from as diverse sources as William Blake, Samuel Johnson and ancient Greek philosophy. And he saw this not only in relation to particular artists work (the venom and contempt felt about Schnabel and Warhol and Koons and Hirst and vapid conceptualism in general is palpable) but also about the way the gallery scene manipulated a sense of value and mystery that art should and does provide but has become kidnapped and ransomed to the realm of the super rich commodity owners and dealers and the lock-away-investment merchants . He fought quite ceaselessly against the pathetic narcissism of glamour and fame to register in favour of myth and deep seated value and intelligence - not the flippant self-declamation of solipsistic whimsy but for an underlying core of human values and he was not afraid to call individuals out on it.
The frame of language around Rothko saved his work from the kind of analysis that might have argued that Rothko, far from being Yahweh's official strenographer (a role not entirely monopolised by Barnett Newman despite his vigorous efforts) was a painter, a maker of visual fictions - better than most, but still prone to repetitions and quite able to succumb to his own formulas and reflexive cliche.What Hughes was good at was social observation with regard to Art and how this has changed through time. The enjoyable self-stroke I feel reading Hughes writing in 1990 is undermined by the fact that if anything it is hyperbolically worse in terms of the narcissism, the blandness, the absence of real thought whilst seemingly being deep-'n'-meaningful in both the current Art milieu AND the institutions of Art Education. If anything the blase has burgeoned and the expectations and interests of millennials has seen all the horrors he documented magnify under their expectations and urgings of vapid art school 'tuition', such that going to Degree and Postgrad shows has become an exercise in window shopping for The Selfish, regurgitated and repackaged in the light of the decline of standards of why and what is taught as they continue to bomb like the maiden voyage of the Titanic to produce the bulimic epidemic which is now Art.
Above all their grasp of art history is only twenty years long and their connoisseurship is about a foot deep. Many of them seem to believe quite sincerely that Western Art began with Warhol. The others only behave as though it did. The idea of a present with continuous roots in history, where an artist's every action is judged by the unwearying tribunal of the dead, is utterly alien to them ......... They want to believe that right now they are living in the middle of one of the great creative moments of Western art, something like Paris in the late nineteenth century. And in a sense they are right, because at no time since 1900 has the ground been so crusted with academic art - except that the academicism is not that of Cabanel or Bouguereau or Meissonier: it is the academicism of the spray can and the pat gesture of deep "expressive" involvement that signifies only routine picture making, the academicism not of a depleted ideology but of a trivialised plurality.