Morning:
5°c
The catalogue of Chris Ofili's retrospective exhibition at Tate Britain is introduced by Nick Serota with the sentence: “Great art often emerges when cultures cross boundaries.” So there we have it — with the one word “Great” we have the official assessment of Ofili's position in contemporary art, and with the other weasel words are encouraged to bracket him with Picasso, Kirchner, Heckel, Epstein and all the other European artists who, in the early years of the 20th century, expressed enthusiastic interest in the primitive fetish art of central Africa and Oceania. But with these Ofili is a false comparison, a hundred years too late, and lacking all their skills.
Though Mancunian by birth, education, circumstance and opportunity, deference to his Nigerian ancestry has, it seems, compelled him to adopt the conventions of African rather than western art.
Yet Ofili's early work did not cross boundaries — it established them. With his notorious exploitation of clods of elephant dung as their support, or incorporated as simulated breasts and nipples, or simply applied to make Painting with Shit on it, his canvases compelled attention.
With myopic decorative techniques that reflected nothing of any European tradition but were founded on the souvenirs-for-tourists art that used to flourish in Zimbabwe (where he was on a British Council scholarship in 1992), like basket and bead work they proclaimed an African origin that was shrewdly assumed but utterly bogus. His five years at Chelsea Art School and the Royal College of Art were wasted and irrelevant.
Nevertheless, his rarity as a black male in the white male milieux of King's Road, Kensington Gore and Cork Street makes him the perfect candidate for positive discrimination from the Arts and British Councils and all arms and outstations of the Tate.
In one way and another the state invested generously in young Ofili and it cannot now withdraw its support — that would be the admission of error. It even, in 2000, when he was only 32, made him a trustee of the Tate (which led to many other trusteeships and appointments through which to dispense patronage; and while in that enviable position the Tate bought from him his Upper Room for a punishing and greedy £705,000 — the vice of chrysophilia now twinned with coprophilia. A monstrous impertinence, The Upper Room, a deliberate reference to the Christian iconography of The Last Supper, were it not so profoundly trivial, might well be interpreted by the sane, civilised and reasonable man as blasphemous; had Ofili mocked in Islam as a feast of monkeys so serious an event as the institution of the Eucharist, our condemnation would have been forthright and immediate, but as lukewarm liberal Christians, thoroughly unconvinced and with no respect for those with conviction, we refused to recognise the insult and praised the gaudy bling as art. And bling it is — bright trumpery, the dozen shrill colours of the 12 apostles blasted with bright light, each canvas a thing of tinsel tawdry, the trademark Brummagem, fit only for the embellishment of bathrooms in the mansions of footballers' wives.
Ofili was never anything but a decorator of cheap and shallow sensibility (if sensibility at all), the minuteness of his industry obsessive, the sexual humour puerile, soft and sniggering, until, four years ago, he began to paint on canvas without the tinsel touch and elephant dung. In these new paintings, however, there is further proof of his inadequacy, for they are first-year student stuff on overblown scale, best summarised as a wretched fusion of Edmund Dulac, Walt Disney and Art Deco — what can have been in his Christmas stocking in 2006? In these, first having floundered where Picasso marched triumphantly a century ago with his Demoiselles d'Avignon (no shit), Ofili flounders again. Such ephemera may be new to him but they are stale in the history of art. They extend nothing, consolidate nothing and lead nowhere. They make a sorry show.
Until 16 May. Information: 020 7887 8888, www.tate.org.uk
Reader views (21)
why must one love it or hate it? to me the work is kitschy, lame and transparent. also, as one comment stated, why is all art valid? why is it such a sin to actually criticize anything? an art critic can be just as expressive as an artist. give me a break people.
- jo, ny, 20/01/2011 06:06
Report abuse
Brian Sewell has a way with words. So forceful and righeous is his rhetoric it should hang against the subject of his most recent tirade, for he is that art critic who yearns to be artist, and does so by his delicious cant. Can I get a signed giglee print of this review please.
- Richard Turneramon, Newport Pagnell U.K., 04/04/2010 14:09
Report abuse
Predictable tedious rant against the modern world from Sewell, which obviously plays well to a certain gallery. Just as predictable as Sewell being anti virtually all contemporary art is the kneejerk 'emperoers new clothes' reaction of some people, many of whom I'm sure haven't even seen the paintings
I feel genuinely fel sorry for anyone who'd descrive these paints as 'ghastly' and 'depressing', and I'm unlikely to wish to be stuck in room with anything they consider beautiful.
I'm sure they have no idea of the cultural context from which Ofili's inspiration springs, nor of the culture and outlook he's trying to express.
What's truly depressing when we're dealing with painting that can be so beautiful, moving, funny, and provocative, is people so narrow minded they'll happily cynically put the boot into something they don't only not understand, refuse to try and understand, but seem to think shouldn't even be expressed at all.
Sewell and his utter irrelevance will contain to speak to people who just like him probably secretly wish it was still 1950, and get extremely angry at other people enjoying something they don't understand. Here's a thought people, there's a lot of people out with a very diferenent take from of what constitutes beauty, and art. Get over it! Getting angry at it all, will just make you end sad and bitter.
Wonderful show, a chance to see some modern painting of immense beauty, and I'd recommend it to anyone.
- Miller, London, UK, 18/02/2010 20:57
Report abuse
We've seen this sort of stuff before. Colourful but not creative. Let him loose on his own and see where he gets.
- Edwin Underhill, beaconsfield, bucks, 17/02/2010 21:56
Report abuse
Sewell is vitriolic - and rightly so. Ofili's work is mediocre at best... there's a reason that 'the masters' are the masters...it's because they can paint and they have something to say.
Ofili fails on both counts...Ofili's an amateur - his work is neither profound nor technically skilled. He's a one trick horse...it's a shame, because i am sure that the there are more talented painters who ACTUALLY DESERVE this kind of exposure...
i don't always agree with Brian - but he has my vote on this one.
- Amanda, Brighton, UK, 13/02/2010 14:48
Report abuse
Sewell claims Ofili's art owes nothing to his Mancurian background but everything to his Nigerian ancestry. Are we missing out on something here? Picasso did some 'primitive' art in the guise of 'Cubism' and 'Modernism' - could Picasso possibly have some African ancestry.
We all need to step back once in a while to take a more dispassionate and historical look at things. Sewell appears incapable of this, and to me, he remains just another anguished and misguided Euro-centrist ideologue. Rating Ofili no better than a decorator is nothing but the ranting of an eccentric articulating his familiar eccentricities.
- M Adebayo Belo, London UK, 06/02/2010 10:11
Report abuse
dribble. and a waste of words. no examples or facts, just a whole lot of unfounded impressions. i am not even sure what i think of ofili's work but this just made me want to laugh at how bitter sierra is for some unknown reason. this makes a sorry article.
- Sarah, NYC, USA, 04/02/2010 21:56
Report abuse
Once again, Brian Sewell proves that the emperor is wearing no clothes....why don't more critics have his courage?
This smelly art is puerile and dull.
Another nail in the coffin of the art world of today. It literally stinks.
- Simon Cooper, London, England, 04/02/2010 20:11
Report abuse
Seirra, you made my point for me.
Brian, shouting 'positive discrimination' is quite a charge. I'd be very careful with claims like that.
- Arthur Wankle, London, 01/02/2010 12:07
Report abuse
Ofili's Work is Bold and his use of color very powerful. I'm Glad to be able to appreciate both the work of the Great Masters as well as those of Artists living and working today. I'm Sure that in his day, even Picasso had the prudish views of critics like Brian Sewell directed at him.
- Samuel Armstrong, London, 31/01/2010 23:52
Report abuse
young gifted black male enters the artworld redifines, raises the bar,
shows what real art is, this is the new millenia, new ways of thinking ,seeing, decade old artworks still fresh &new ,exposes the average artist &the average artworld for what it really is weak followers of what someone else says is "good" decide for your self with your own eyes....you cant see it then your blinded by your own worst enemy yourself !
- Art Lover London, london, 30/01/2010 16:42
Report abuse
I left Ofili's exhibition feeling inspired and then I sat on the tube and read Sewell's review, if one can call it that, perhaps a pouring of outrage would be a better way to describe what I read.
Sewell's writing illustrates a lack of credible understanding of the contemporary arts. His language is pitted with religious fervor, even suggesting that our response to Ofili's artistic interpretation of The Last Supper be 'forthright condemnation,' citing Islam as an example of such action. Not all Muslims agreed with the 'forthright condemnation' of artistic interpretations of religion. Many were embarrassed by such actions.
In Sewell's world, can there be a place where art allows for different opinions, where it can enable positive enquiry as opposed to severe condemnation?
Is there space in art for dialogue and understanding?
For me Ofili's art creates spaces of reflection where we can contemplate and have dialogue with eachother. The Blue Room and also The Sacred Room, I will call them that, enables deep contemplation. Whilst paintings such as No Woman No Cry can contribute to the continuation of racial justice.
To conclude, Sewell's outpouring is reminiscent of the angry reception post-modern artists received when first showing their works in Paris. People were outraged, and upset by what they saw, calling for their works to be banned.
So Ofili is in good company as these artists went on to change the face of contemporary art forever.
- Corine Dhondee, London, UK, 30/01/2010 15:57
Report abuse
Vintage Sewell! See? There IS a reason to read the Evening Standard! Went to Ofili's contribution to the Venice Biennale - it literally stank!
- Neville, London, UK, 29/01/2010 20:17
Report abuse
Brilliant invective and use of English. Always find Mr Sewell expands my vocabulary; his criticisms are one of the very few examples of the media not dumbing down. Should be used in schools to teach our language. And of course there is no fear of conventional wisdom in debunking the "Emperor's New Clothes". A treat that is looked forward to every week.
- Michael Stokes, Sundridge, Kent, 29/01/2010 14:26
Report abuse
Once again, another narrow-minded view of what art is and should be. It's not his opinion that's wrong, it's his wording and lack of context. As an art critic, he shouldn't be talking in limited terms like 'Western' and 'African' art. Artists of old like Picasso and the best of today's artists in any medium see that it is all cultural expression, therefore it's all art, and all valid. There's a major difference between those who critique, and those who truly produce. Sewell exposes himself by not sticking to the work and rubbishing the artistic traditions of a whole continent with the dismissive label 'primitive fetish art'.
- Courttia Newland, London, UK, 29/01/2010 12:18
Report abuse
Why shouldn't they bracket him with Picasso and all the other so call European greats. You seem to think its only europeans that produces great Art and therefore great art must look a certain way. In addition, you note that these great artists draw on "primative and fetish" African Art, but way draw on them if they were so primative?
So what if Chris Ofili artwork is decorative? If Picasso had done the same work you would have said it is a masterpiece.
- Jenniece, london, 29/01/2010 11:16
Report abuse
His work is vulgar . Actually Ofili's work looks like a lot of the crap you see in many galleries all over london. Vulgar , depressing and ghastly. Rather depressing really.
Elizabeth Wilson.
- Elizabeth Wilson, Richmond, 29/01/2010 10:54
Report abuse
Brilliant review Brian! I always wondered why I was missing with Ofilli that everyone else seemed to get. I remember a survey of his work my first year of art school in the early 00s where our tutors set us a task to create a personal work using 'materials with intrinsic cultural references' such as he had. I do believe I ended up sticking my gold bracelets in a mound of frijoles negros. I'd say that quality-wise I wasn't far off.
- Lmariapz, London, UK, 28/01/2010 23:42
Report abuse
The use of elephant faeces may in itself be quite novel, but of course the introduction of human bodily waste into works of art is old hat.
Piero Manzoni is perhaps the best known scatalogically inclined artist (who canned his own excrement and sold it like hot cakes), but a somewhat overlooked British artist called Martin Wolk preceded Manzoni by defecating on the work of other artists in public. It got him nowhere.
- L A Odicean, Sidcup UK, 28/01/2010 19:49
Report abuse
As ever, the inimitable Brian Sewell identifies this travesty of so-called 'art'. Mr. Sewell, the jewel in the E.S. crown, states the case so eruditely and succinctly - and without fear from the 'you don't understand' brigade, that there is little a sane person can add. Long live Brian and his terrific art criticism in this crazy world. Long live the E.S. for publishing thoughtful and brave comments. One hopes for the day when his views will be taken more seriously and 'art money' will be spent on preserving the more genuinely- talented art we have in the UK.
- Heather Chalmers, London, UK, 28/01/2010 19:18
Report abuse
"Positive discrimination", "gaudy bling", "might well be interpreted by the sane, civilised and reasonable".... Sigh.
Being born and bred in Manchester does not erase your heritage, and he has every right to draw on whatever inspiration he feels like.
- Sierra, London, UK, 28/01/2010 19:11
Report abuse
