More critics, less curators: should we read Jens Hoffmann’s cosmic pessimism in his “Art after the end of art” as a self-accuse?

 

“Art after the end of art” is a short essay published by art writer and curator Jens Hoffmann on the current issue of Mousse Magazine (#43). It stems from a weak assumption, and we don’t agree at all with the bad opinion the author seems to have in regards with some aspects of the contemporary art system. However Hoffmann takes the risk of writing something which could turn out to be very inconvenient for many Mousse’s advertisers, and that is why we appreciate his article and we would like to comment on it.

 

To start with, we disagree with the syllogism Hoffmann uses to introduce his point of view. It’s of course disputable that “every era in history gets the art it deserves”. A piece of art is not the “product” of an “era”. Perhaps it could be considered as a reflection of it, but also this statement is not necessarily true. On the contrary, art is always an element of a certain specific environment, and of a personal experience. It can be seen at the same time as both cause and effect.

 

For example, at the time “Guernica” was painted it was not the extraordinary famous iconic “Guernica” we know today. Its meaning, and even its tragic beauty, depends on how, from the present time, we look at it. Also in the case of Caravaggio it was year 1951 that marked a new understanding of this painter, when information about him were brought to light thanks to the art historians who, in that period, had a preeminent role in the society. It follows that Hoffmann’ statement “I have to admit that it has been really long time since a contemporary art exhibition had a strong effect on me” can’t be the evidence that contemporary art is dead, weak, or not interesting anymore. He could have simply been to the wrong exhibitions and with the wrong expectations. The problem could be you, Mr. Hoffmann, and not today’s entire art production.

 

Furthermore, Hoffmann says that his writing has been inspired by Arthur C. Danto’s “The end of art” (1984) and Hens Belting’s “The end of the history of art (1983). By adding Jean Claire’s “Museums and discontent” (2007) the dream-team of cosmic pessimism would be completed. That is to say, if you lie with dogs you will get up with fleas.

 

What Hoffmann considers from his respectable point of view to be a bad side effect of our society, it is in fact just the shape of contemporary art. Something that he perfectly describes in this passage:

 

Art, or what many people believe to be art has become a billion-dollar industry. While the commodification of art is not new, the level of financial power operating in the art world now is unprecedented an so is the impact of this development on the progress of art (is that so bad?). That there is serous money to be made in the art world has changed the rules of the game dramatically and irreversibly (who knows?). There is now an enormous art market with million-dollar auction records and hundreds of art fairs that need art objects for sale and that offer art as if it were made for a shopping-mall context (doesn’t this imply a wider range of opportunities for all, artists included?). In addition there is an ever-increasing community of contemporary art galleries around the world, many of which do excellent work and many of which do not, but all of which have to constantly show and sell art to keep their spaces running (poor gallerists, and the cities where these wealthy shopping-malls are… ).

 

As we said many times, the real problem possibly lies in the lack of good theorists and reliable intellectuals as a result of a curator based system in which the curator-star is rarely independent. In this regard Hoffmann actually does write something we agree with:

 

The alliances that are made between art dealers, museum patrons (most often art collectors), and the institutions are frightening and in many cases full of conflicts of interests.

 

They forget that art has always been about freedom!

 

September 22, 2014