What does the blood-soaked image of "Jesus" nailed to a cross tell us about Mel Gibson?
Daffy Duck,
Jesus & Mel Gibson in the same sentence doesn't make sense for a start. An image of a blood-soaked Jesus invokes a meaning of the cruelty of mankind in me & I'm not religious.
Most images of talented Art show highly fantasised idealistic subjects but at least there is artistic talent. Much of 21st century Art is just pure idiocy hyped up by idiots, bought by idiots & sold by callous dealers. There is not much talent in modern Art although a few contemporary Artists have outstanding talent but unrecognised by the morons dealing in Art.

I can only assume that Peter was moved to write this article after having visited the MCA during Sydney's biennale.

A few pieces were interesting; a couple of exhibits even justified a visit to the MCA.

However, much was banal, very little was cutting edge. Pieces of blue fabric hung on a wall did not really satisfy on any level. One can only assume the selection panel goes into spasms of ecstasy looking at a tie rack.

Whilst some artists were able to produce breathless explanations of their work, for the most part these explanations weren't very convincing. In future, it would be more helpful if the selection panel provided explanations for why they selected the pieces they did.

Even in the august setting of this building, the mundane remained mundane.

Contemporary art is supposed to create debate, even anger. This exhibition missed on this level also.

However, I returned home to marvel at my own 'artworks' littering around the house. Mundane - as even those on display at the MCA.

Contemporary art.

"... functioning like a commercial brand ...

...financial value was now the only meaning that remained for art."

(Robert Hughes)

Danielle,
Thanks for the comment. I have not been to the MCA, my comments were an amalgam of Christopher Allen, Robert Hughes, Peter Fuller and various other people who are disenchanted with the current art scene.
Peter

An artist working to break into the scene told me of the 'common' relationship/contract between galleries and artists.

Galleries take 30-50% of sales, and are only obliged to give an artist two exhibitions a year. And it gets worse:

The gallery can claim 30-50% of any awards or prizes given to an artist for artwork he/she enters outside the gallery.

The artist remains totally bound with the gallery, and cannot seek representation with any other gallery whilst under their 'wing.'

It seemed so draconian, I queried this with another artist, who confirmed that the information was correct.

It appears that art is big business. Emerging artists must find it very hard to establish themselves. And the general public are passed off with 'the names ... and prices' for artwork, much of which is an insult to the intelligence ... a toilet seat; an ashtray full of butts.

Dear Sells,

I have visited many art galleries and seen hordes of pictures of two dimensional insipid virgins with aged infants. In the Renaissance the subjects expanded to include classical mythology and from then on to admit a whole variety of subject matter and techniques. In contrast Chinese art had great landscape painting dating to the fifth century. In order for European art to flower it needed to remove itself from the stultifying embrace of Chriatianity.