51Under discussion:Art is seen by some as a product which gathers or has the potential to gather, enormous [future] financialbenefits for investors, albeit, as in many cases, over a long period of time.We have witnessed almost obscene mountains of money exchange hands for ‘Art’ over the last four decades,some would say a longer time period. And there is no doubt that in recent times Contemporary Art has beenhigh on the ‘must-buy’ list of many institutions, pension fund managers and so on. Indeed in the past thebiggest collectors have often been Socialists Workers Unions (i.e. the Railway Union). Which in itself is asort of philosophical political hypocrisy. Of course the mega auction houses have helped in promoting or atbest, facilitating the platform for these transactions. Auctions of Art become headline news with familiar TVcoverage of hammers going down for millions upon millions of someone’s cash for the all stars of historical orcontemporary Art and the almost sickening sight of audiences applauding the sheer monetary size of the sale.Someone once said that the twentieth century was when Marketing triumphed over Art, especially in lifting orexaggerating the bottom line of its actual artistic worth. And it is true that our society has created a specialistart playing field, significantly when the words Contemporary Art are tagged after any specific artists work. Thatword ‘contemporary’ has ceased to be associated with its real definition (sic: of-today) and now it is used toidentify an Art which sees itself as special or separate from the rest of the Art, one that is perhaps is createdoutside of Contemporary Art strict limitations of the accepted artists process. Here, I am referring to painting orany other creative output that may employ what you could call ‘traditional’ mediums.The ‘practise’ of these ‘Contemporary’ Artists is very much intertwined with the curators of large institutionsand/or the professional high profile art galleries. So much so that now it is not uncommon for the Galleriesrepresenting the Artist to contribute large sums of money to ‘help’ the Art institution mount exhibitions,apparently. Personally, I think that habit, should it be true, is a very worrying and an anti-democraticdevelopment. Many critical voices envisage the larger Art Galleries using this system as a sort of ‘back-hander’to ensure any specific artist gains an immediate international reputation, merely because the work will beexhibited in one of the world renown Art institutions and not because the Art is an authentic or an absolutewonderful work of Art. This inevitably follows with the subsequent financial gain, a gain that is guaranteed forthe galley or the artists representative, even before the Art is actually made available within the public realm.The other worrying trend is the myopic habits of the institutions themselves when selecting Art. It doesseem that ‘only objects’ that can be mass produced are considered for exhibition (a contradiction of the verymeaning of an Art work in itself I think). This habit is possibly down to the Art institutions strategy to prepare theground for the same ‘Art’ to be shown around the world in other Art institutions roughly at the same time. Dealsare made by like minded institutions, which sort of gives them guaranteed high audience attendance (with thecomplicity of the mass media) and thus perpetuates their own international reputation.

52 above: “a rolled up piece of A4 paper” - ‘Work of Art’ - by Turner Prize winner Martin Creed. It’s a self congratulatory system and one which I think should be seriously looked at by the monopolies commission. This system also raises an odd thought. J.M.W.Turner, should he be alive and creating his Art today, could never win the Turner Prize in the UK - But only because each of his artworks would be unique and they could not be reproduced en mass, therefore disqualifying him from even being entered for consideration in the first place. On a lesser scale there are the smaller commercial galleries who maintain a stable of selected art according to their own client list preferences. Whereas the large institutions are funded in the main by ‘tax payers’ (through grants or bursaries) the independent commercial galleries have to meet their own rent and expenses on a monthly basis. And to some extent are hoping to turn a small profit. So, you can can forgive them for pandering to their clients, even though it would be to the advantage of any commercial Art Gallery today to expand the choice of art offered, now and then, that is rarely the case. In the North of England there has been a sort of artistic nostalgic hysteria over the last decade or so, where images of the industrial grime and the grit of past centuries have provided the main sustenance for many of the commercial galleries and artists alike. Artists are still painting images of the ‘environmental-mistakes of the past despite many of them never actually witnessing or experiencing the environmental apocalyptic scenarios of the previous last centuries. These pseudo industrial images have a few things in common, they have been ubiquitous in galleries, small in stature and at a low price. It’s a sort of artistic Primark mentality that has prevailed among artists and art galleries, certainly over the last decade or so. Then of course, along came the trend to paint the ‘reconstruction’ of the Northern Cities - which is a kind of reverse strategy - but still employing the same principles of the art nostalgia trend. So is it Art or is it a product? Many artist will tell you that they only paint these types of images because they sell easy - And they create their ‘real-art’ in private - I’ve yet to see it, which makes it difficult to disprove, although it is a very good cop out for many painters to quote that ‘dubious line’ and thereby maintain their street cred among their peers. Of course there are the painters who create quite lovely landscapes. That’s a safe bet, because landscapes are still the highest seller on the art market, and lets be honest, they do look rather nice over a fireplace.

53This critical way of thinking will be probably met by the “I have to earn my living off my Art” from artists.That’s understandable if you subscribe to the view that you should live off your Art, rather than live for Art.I guess the old cliché of “the artist starving in his garret” is an attractive, albeit totally false, romantic thoughtto have for art collectors too. It’s a vacuous image that many artists still employ and promote.The truth is most real artists today ‘do other things’ to turn a steady buck - And they turn their bucks in anupwards direction rather well and often, according to the evidence I’ve witnessed.I guess Andy Warhol was the first artist to declare that Business Art was the best kind of Art - even thoughhis initial thoughts on Art was to make it accessible for everyone and uniform and common - like a canof coke - or a tin of soup - That ambition was soon swept away when he succumbed to the dark side ofthe New York Business Art World and started to believe in his own publicity that he was really a greatartist, which many still think he was. Personally, I have my doubts about that, as I do about many fromthat particular epoch of Art. However, the likes of Hirst, Koons and their ilk, who have all walked in Andy’sshoes, have made ‘Business Art’ a roaring success in the 20th & the 21st Century and seemingly haveproven me totally wrong about my belief of what authentic and real valueable Art is and what it is Not.There again I have never measured Art by how much it cost or by how much I would invest in it based onthe hype of this new business commodity art , proliferated by the artist themselves or by interested partiesrepresenting the artist. Perhaps there is where I have gone wrong?I opened this essay making a proposal that opposites attract, based on my belief that Art is far moreimportant than money, in its value to humanity, I mean and therefore ‘opposites’ - I may have proved tomyself perhaps, that in society today, that is simply not the case and they are in fact, two cheeks of thesame arse seperated only by on a tenuous crack. ©Spike - for painters Tubes magazine May Andy Wharhol. Dollars.

54 painters TUBES magazine new study articles NEO ABSTRACT PAINTING from 20th century expressionism to a new form of abstraction Painters - contact the magazine to feature your work (no fee) within a comprehensive study article discussing the new movements in 21st Century abstract painting [email protected] painting: Sunset over a Lake - ©Denis Taylor

55 UK Artists Onlyorder one printed copy for only £10.00 (delivered to your door) articles, interviews and art gallery features. Order your printed copy today - email: [email protected] or visit our website and purchase by credit card/debit card on line: www.painterstubes.com#1 SOLD OUTARTISTS - New regular page... #2 SOLD OUT“...in your own words.”Write about your Art ingeneral or new work forinclusion in the magazine,to include images(no fee involved)Contact the Editor by text on,0046 76 19 19 007Editorial and article submissions or full page gallery exhibition announcements gallery features, advertsiement rates (note: full pages only available) text: 0046 76 19 19 007 email: [email protected]

56 photograph of Dave Gunning in the gallery by Mike Holcroft ©2016 Todmorden Fine Art Oil Paintings - Watercolours email: [email protected] www.todmordenfineart.co.uk Telephone: 01706 81 4723