It’s almost painful to watch the conversation between Alberto Mugrabi and Robert Hughes. Hughes’s bullying does his wit, learning and great skill as a writer no credit. There’s no particular reason that this clip comes back to light except that it reminds one of the great antipathy that exists toward the art market.
Update: We’ve already had a response to the video remarking that it is Mugrabi’s inarticulate defense of Warhol and Prince that is most striking about the video. But that’s exactly the point of posting it. What we have here is a battle of wills between the critic and the market (personified by the private dealer, Alberto Mugrabi.) The signal feature of the last decade in the art world has been the erosion of critical authority and the rise of rapid market-determined artists.
Hughes falls into a trap here when he decides to have a confrontation. Because, although the fall of critical authority and the rise of market valuation have taken place at the same time, it is not the market that is displacing the critic. The market is filling a void as critical authority declines. So Hughes is bullying the wrong person.
Worse still, in his desire to show up Mugrabi, Hughes has forced himself into hypocrisy. He’s flattened his own ideas about Warhol simply because Warhol has gotten to “popular.” Hughes ends up playing the teenage musical prodigy who has to dismiss one of his influences because lesser fans now that band is cool. It’s reductive and distracting from the real issue.
Something important is taking place in the art world–and, indeed, in global culture. That something is destabilizing. It breaks down cultural authority and creates rapid and dramatic shifts in value. This will not always be the case. But during this period, the art market has filled the void by offering some measuring stick. Even if those valuations turn out to be illusory in the long run, the cause is not the market being an upstart but the decline of the previous regime.
In taking the bait, Hughes consigns himself to the old regime. For an instructive counter-point, look at John Richardson. But I suppose that’s a subject for another time.
Related posts:
That assessment of the interview is patently absurd. Mr. Mugrabi reveals himself to be a vapid, inarticulate buffoon. That Richard Prince is a deep thinker yet somehow his works are acknowledged as just a little shallow? For the combination of money and brains look at those who are spending their money to save lives, not spend it on overpriced crap.
I think these differences of opinion on the relative merits of contemporary works of art have always been with us. Hughes' tastes are well-known and generally shun recent American developments especially those in NYC, and so are fairly taken as conservative. Alberto Mugrabi is an avid collector of current NYC art , but is by no means a critic, much less historian. What can they say to one another? I disagree that Warhol's work is meaningful/meaningless? That Prince is important/trivial? Hughes comes looking for argument, but arguments are not what collectors do.
Should collectors have to justify their tastes? Are they anymore foolish than patrons of the past, with the tedious scandals of court favourites, salon and academy nepotism? I can't see much difference.
Hughes – Australia's Favourite Drunk Driver – is not exactly rigorous, sensitive or acute in his own judgements. His steady disengagement from contemporary art sadly parallels an ageing, lazy and dissolute life. What he really hates is getting old, tired, bored.
This is not to say I advocate recent art unconditionally, or that Hughes' reactions to it are unreasonable, but rather that he's in no place to judge.
Hughes isn’t bullying here. He lets Mugrabi talk, and doesn’t cut him off. Mugrabi is revealed to be an ignorant, unintelligent ass. He’s hanged himself here. Hughes can’t be blamed. Also, Hughes isn’t going after the wrong guy because people like Mugrabi are the marketplace. What they spend on bad art influences prices and taste. Many people collect signatures rather than art. Hughes’ opinion of Warhol is also accurate. What, really, did he have to say? Or Prince? Look at his paintings. They are empty.
Where was Hughes’ alleged “bullying”, here? It seems as if you’re projecting, based not on Hughes’ performance, but Mugrabi’s.
Hughes is now the old establisment who does not get the full picture and context of hirst and warhol. mr Mugrabi is measured insiteful and informed.
The irony is that hughes part created/ contributed to this ” market “situation which has further developed in the present – taken off and is leaving Mr Hughes behind, which is sad but inevitable if a rigid unchanging position is adopted.
‘Hughes – Australia’s Favourite Drunk Driver ‘ …… by ‘CAP’ – tireless sneering self promoter & pathetic blog muppet
[...] five minutes, watch this video, and let me know how you respond. Marion Maneker of the Art Market Monitor thinks that Hughes embarrasses himself: "It's almost painful to watch the conversation between [...]
[...] (A rebuttal to this scathingly revealing interview is offered in the Art Market Monitor blog and can be found here.) [...]
No bullying going on here that I can see. Neither party has anything interesting to say. Pointless and useless interview.
[...] Share on Twitter [...]
I thought it was hilarious. They both has something to say about art. Opinons and discussion isn’t that the true purpose of art…therefore it worked…the art worked….
Mr Mugrabi should of just said because I like it. and laughed. And because I have the money to buy it…If people follow me I don’t care and if it buys me immortality so be it. Anyone would do it that had money to do it.
and then do a big wide mouth grin…..