Anyone who hasn’t spent the best part of the last decade on hiatus will probably already be familiar with the Stuckists. As for me, well, I’ve only come upon them lately:
That’s right. The stuckists are the concept art haters, called ‘Stuckists’ because Tracey Emin, the notable British conceptual artist famous for exhibiting her unmade bed in the Tate Gallery, accused one of the leading proponents of the movement, Billy Childish, of being “stuck, stuck, stuck”. I have a soft spot in my heart for these honorable people. Really I do, even though I suppose my own practice – thriving as it does on the concept of hiatus – might be considered on the threshold at least of the concept art movement, which they despise, it’s their reason d’etre, you can read their manifesto here.
So, I’ve been reading what art critics and art journalists have to say about this hot topic, and it makes me curious, what do everyday, knock about artists have to say about this particular can of worms? Are you tempted to sign up? Or do you agree with Jonathan Jones, that “Stuckists are the enemies of art”?
If you ask me, it’s rather a shame that the people to pit themselves against the concept artists, and against the establishment that rewards and encourages the concept art movement, should be so darn bad at the type of art they supposedly champion. I mean, really:
A Man That Thinks He Can Fly
Aren’t there any good artists out there who can help these guys out? To be fair, I do quite like some of the art coming out of this movement. It has that quirky, naive sort of directness that bypasses the grey matter if you know what I mean. It seems to me the cartoonesque style they exhibit draws self-consciously on a more or less creditable tradition of primitivism and outsider art, but this does smack suspiciously of irony to me, so I’m not sure if they’re contradicting themselves or not. It also raises the question, if they’re not appealing to beauty or brains, what exactly are they appealing to? Heart? Angry hearts? Really starved angry hearts?
As for their theoretical position, I think they have some stand up arguments - anyone can see their passionate, punkesque plea for a new definition of art has reason in it, even if it’s not quite enough reason to satisfy the highbrow white cube elite. But they’re not so silly that the Art world can dismiss them out of hand, which is probably how they’ve gained momentum with the public, quality of art notwithstanding. You can see a really, really horribly grainy reproduction of an Oxford Union debate featuring Matthew Collings on the subject here. I’ll be reviewing their manifesto shortly, as part of my Cumulo Manifesto project.
It’s too much toast for one post – I’ll be sticking with the Stuckists for a little while, I think, so stay tuned for future posts.
So, dear flailing artists – what’s your honest opinion? Do you have some constructive criticism to offer?
