Ivan Massow trades blows with Jake and Dinos Chapman over conceptual art, aesthetics, philosophy and party-going
Ivan Massow and Jake and Dinos Chapman
Saturday December 6, 2003
The Guardian
Dear Jake and Dino [sic],
It's great to see you two have got yourselves shortlisted for the Turner Prize. Even you have to admit that, although your work still echoes purist "Craig-Martin" conceptualism, you've never really been like the other YBAs? You even make things - real sculptures - real forms out of bronze and stuff. I know the slightly yester-year, shock-ironic, Hoxton-mockney, über-philosophical "people get out of the piece what they need to personally" factor is still there. But it's a far cry from unmade beds and lights going on and off. Do you think I scored a small victory through my tussle at the ICA, or would it have happened anyway?
Please don't be offended when I say that Grayson Perry should win. I've always admired you two, but I think that pseudo-philosophy era is coming to an end. Grayson's work is embedded in his psyche. He's not asking people to get what they need from cleverly named pieces or trying to "shock" (these days, read "bore") them into interacting with culture. He's describing something deep inside him; imparting a wisdom more private than exhibiting himself dead and naked as what I think you conceptualists call a "ready-made". Don't you think his victory would be a victory for art?
Ivan Massow
Dear Guardian,
We must apologise for agreeing to collaborate in a discussion on the merits and downfalls of modern art, since we now find ourselves forced to decline further participation. The first point of contact with Mr Massow has baffled us with so many negatives that any productive exchange seems doomed.
To our surprise, Mr Massow has singlehandedly called an end to the "pseudo-philosophy era" and since we are - for our sins - sincerely interested in the history of ideas, we must defer to the presiding wisdom of our executioner. We must apologise; we didn't know philosophy and art would end.
Deserving of our fate, before Massow delivers his decisive blow we beg to know: where, how and when will the "real philosophy era" begin - what will it look and sound like, what language will it use, what form will it take, how will it pass from generation to generation, will such an intuitive form be the privilege of a public or private education?
We do admire Massow's concern for the masses, although we wonder whether his desire to obliterate art's apparent complexity is a solution to their alienation and exclusion. You see, in our most humble opinion, we always suspected that the overt fetishisation of pastoral handicrafts by the bourgeoisie served the purpose of obscuring the true relations of Capital. Here we go alienating people again.
Still, as the last ebb of the Age of Enlightenment fades and the Massowian Age of Light Entertainment bursts forth we might ask what will happen to all the silly old books, philosophers and artists?
Goodbye, we loved you all but one,
Jake and Dinos Chapman
YBAs-cum-OAPs
PS What tussle at the ICA?
Dear Guardian,
Thank you for forwarding J and D's email. They are being unduly modest, though - clearly it is my head on the executioner's block.
There was no need for the Brothers Faux-Dim to apologise for being unable to discuss a negative appraisal of conceptualism that seems to baffle them so much. Since being thrown out of the ICA for my comments on conceptualism, no YBA has agreed to present a case in defence of their trade to this day.
The brothers' main point may well be true. Perhaps they do occupy a higher intellectual and aesthetic ground than the people who question them. I'm jealous. I love art and aesthetics. I would love to know where I've gone wrong. Coming out of the closet about my doubts was frightening as chairman of the ICA. Indeed, it cost me my job. Fear of being viewed as an intellectual phantom-weight for not nodding knowingly at these bizarre wonders plagued me. I don't appreciate the aesthetic, and when its philosophy was eventually explained, I felt that the job would have been better left to philosophers. In the end, though, I got bored of pretending to get it.
I know the brothers' work is highly intellectual. Blimey, I scampered to comprehend some of the points they were making. They were right to use sarcasm and false modesty. Their unspoken yet deep philosophy was lost on me. I am still bored of pretending to get it. Especially when most of the Goldsmiths-style philosophy patronised the very "working classes" they passed on their excursions to the Brick Lane bagel shop.
It seems a shame that answering my questions would be demeaning for them. Allowing me into their secret Arguing Association would demean their great art.
If we could persuade them to continue this exchange, though, I'd like them to know that I am genuinely interested in the merits and downfalls of the art of which they are the self-styled grandmasters of the day.
What a long reply it was for a "non-reply". And so defeatist. They seem to prefer to lie belly-up on the boxing ring floor shouting "we're not playing" and "the ref's a c**t".
But whilst flying the white flag with one hand the conjoined Guillotine Brothers slide into attacking mode with the other. They have cast me as the Simon Cowell of High Capitalism, CEO of the international conspiracy.
Is art's "apparent complexity" real or just an illusion? Or is it about a small group of people making a load of dosh and having a laugh at our collective expense? Please - I'd sincerely like to know.
Ivan
Dear Ivan,
You're not so terrible, you're quite endearing on your back foot. You are, however, the kind of small-time petit-cunt who confuses ego and opinion for interpretation. As artists we take risks relative to our activity - all laid bare for punters, viewers, intelligentsia and rightwing moan-sharks like you to like/hate/be ambivalent about in equal/unequal measure. Our aesthetic contribution has always made itself available to a diversity of reactions - in other words, our worth is in our work, not in us. You, however, are the myopic production of your own inflated self-hood, a driving me-me who knows not when to shut the fuck up.
Your elegant negativity is an affectation of privilege: you tell us all what things are not, what they must not be, what is bad and wrong - imperatives of misery and phobic closure.
If Massow is tired of pretending to get philosophy (like Clinton pretended to inhale), does this mean we are all tired of thinking - even those of us who were not pretending? The admissions are astonishing - a messianic ego of the magnitude of David Blaine.
As far as fighting talk goes, don't use boxing metaphors because you may get what you wish for... he he.
love,
J and D
PS There are two of us...
PPS We weren't supposed to be doing this but it has turned out quite fun.
Dear D and J,
I'll take that as a yes then :-)
Ivan
PS Any chance you could get Patrick to put me back on the invite list for David and Elton's party next Saturday? He's worried because Sam and Jay will be there. It is, after all, only art.
Dear Ivan,
No problem, you're back on - you plus your shadow. Have fun,
J and D
· Ivan Massow resigned as chairman of the ICA following a row over the art establishment's obsession with conceptual art; Jake and Dinos Chapman are favourites for the Turner Prize, the winner of which is announced tomorrow.
