There was a heated… spirited… well, anyway interesting exchange of views about Stuckism over on Same Identical Sun. Alan Hay, the proprietor, usually writes, extremely carefully, a mixture of entertaining discussion and invective about poetry and nearby topics. On Sunday he mentioned, among other things, Dan Belton, a friend of his who is a painter and a Stuckist. He said that “personally I find Stuckism irritating and boring”.
I have never even heard of Stuckism so I followed the link and read their site and their (mostly self-written by the look of it) Wikipedia entry. Many of the paintings look great, some of them are fantastic. On reading their original 1999 manifesto some points are hard to disagree with but some are empty aphorisms and some are just strongly worded expressions of personal taste.
My objection to it, though, is that it seems mostly to be about what they don’t like and what Stuckism isn’t. It reminds me of those children who come to tea and tell me (whiney voice) “I don’t like tomatoes, I don’t like carrots.” Don’t tell me, I don’t care. If you don’t like it don’t eat it.
I was wondering what it is that makes artists feel like they should have a manifesto and a movement in the first place. Most of the musicians I like can do little more than mutter or grunt when they’re talking about their music; that’s fine by me. In fact, I don’t think that any piece of writing, any expression of opinion, has any merit apart from itself. It doesn’t matter if the subject or the writer is a film star, a painter or a politician. If the ideas are dull, if they don’t make sense, they’re not worth the ink. So what are painters, who communicate best through painting, doing writing? And then I realised that it’s just the same sort of time-wasting displacement activity as creating web-sites about your work when you should be working and there’s nobody more guilty of that than I am.
Me too. Also, after ‘having a go at’ Mr Thomson for insulting other artists, it did occur to me that it’s only a week since I referred to our very own poet laureate as a ’shit-eating weasel’. Still I only did it once, not all day every day for my whole life. He’s a tenacious sod, I’ll give him that.
And me. I suppose if one creates something, one should be allowed to write about it … but it does seem rather a waste of energy that could be better spent.
And I quite like weasels.
Believe me, it’s the work that counts and will survive. The rest is just a cunning ploy. Well, it worked. You’ve heard of us.
Ciao
Anon
Stuckism
aka Herr von Stuck
Indeed our poet laureate is a tenacious sod, still writing useless verse. As for the Stuckists, a lot of people no longer value freedom of speech, because it is taken for granted that we have it. I can’t see the problem with expressing ones views. It is a democracry, is it not?
Charles Thomson
Stuckists
Yup, I have to agree with the anonymous Stuckist above. It’s publicity and it works and what’s more, I’m glad it did because I really like Mr Thomson’s paintings. I also think it is useful to be reminded that one shouldn’t get distracted from making art by more immediately satisfying pastimes.
I don’t really agree with Charles’ point about freedom of speech. I think that one can demonstrate an appreciation of the value of freedom by writing accurately and carefully where it’s possible to do so. Making statements about what is and what is not art isn’t a celebration of freedom of speech, it’s just a process by which pressure is relieved by the emission of gasses.
Hey, well I’m glad you like the paintings. That is the important thing.
But democracy evolves through debate. I still think it’s OK to say what I think!