They were:

1) He is a curator, not an artist, which is OK, but explains why he is a curator-darling — underlines the fact that the “international independent curator” types see themselves as the true artists

and

2)I see nothing in his work which I haven’t seen better elsewhere, often done as “admitted” curation, or as non-art activities, not primary artwork in itself — e.g.: historic recreations are carried on excellently by many groups world-wide and for ages, the involvement of Northern UK brass in pop music as a political statement (Sgt. Peppers anyone?), installations of found “folk objects,” CDS of collections of local music, etc. ad infinitum.

I find his assertions, as in too much Late Neo-Conceptualism at the moment, to be dupliciously evasive — he says it is “art” when confronted about its quality in comparison to other activities of this sort that are not art but much technically better, and, alternatively, says it is “not art” when confronted about its quality in comparison to other art.

I keep thinking of the line in One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich….something to the effect of ‘give me bread not sugar’……and isnt that what most good art does? That within a good work of art -its cosmology, such a small amount is actually given/dedicated to art -War and Peace -its about WAR Tolstoy would say -having little to do with art- -this argument holds equally true when it comes to painting…which has been an argument of mine-

…and as for the emperors new clothes, – Luc Tuymans (to bring it back to painting) and Liam Gilllick are not dissimilar in their specious like qualities ….as for Dominic Molon, he of the awful exhibitions, the question is, where lies his area of expertise? Certainly not in rock music/SYMPATHY For THE DEVIL -with Patty Smith reportedly stalking out of the exhibition wondering out loud who was the asshole who thought up this show and didn’t know shit about rock music -to the Karen Killimnik crapola fest….perhaps his exhibitions need to start coming with a disclaimer -a warning to the viewer beware, given the quality of previous outings, , this may suck.

what matters is whether deller’s work has some sort of impact within the particular social constructions in which it locates itself.

It seems to me that Deller’s rhetoric about it being “not-art” follows Allan Kaprow’s much earlier assertions about a kind of “social-insulation” that comes about at the moment in which the audience realises that the action or object before them is “just” art (ie, not something “real”). In this moment its danger is diffused and it becomes ‘mere’ spectacle.

However, the more that artists do “real things in the real world”, the less the designation “art” will stand for this social-insulation. Deller’s Battle of Orgreave is a great example.

My own experiences of Gillick’s art and writing, however, have been that it is almost entirely art-specific, and of little interest in social situations beyond the high-art world.

His 2009 venice biennale work is a (very resource-heavy) case in point… The direct experience of the work yielded only a mild sense of alienation for me, compounded by an impenetrable didactic catalogue essay. It’s in considering this writing component (where Gillick’s work is shown to have come about from extensive research and labour, and is claimed to be Very Important) that I’m inclined to agree with R.Szott about the Emperor’s New Clothes. It seems an arrogant exercise.

Which is why I’m intrigued to hear the author above say that Gillick is in fact a “charming” fellow. Life’s like that eh?

Why on earth would this be insulting? And the only thing you could fault him for is not being a bit more precise in saying that it is not *intended* as art. Just as he alone can’t ultimately decide the determination of this activity as art or not, you can’t either. Of course you mention he said the conversation would “be the art” which appears to be a contradiction on his part, so one could have an issue with that I suppose.

Sure it is happening in an art museum, but do you have any evidence that he was offered other venues which he turned down in favor of an art space? If not, his “choice” to show in an art museum is not as pertinent is it?

I can’t read his mind and wasn’t there to pick up on his tone, but to say something isn’t art might not mean it detracts, but rather *distracts*. Maybe he thinks conversations about how this fits into art history or whether the furniture is arranged properly

Your choice of the word “admit” is puzzling. Let’s say he ‘confesses’ that it is in fact art what do we gain from calling it that? What does that add to our experience? And isn’t it entirely possible that whatever you think it adds, another reasonable person could say it doesn’t?

And can I just say that if ever an artist could be accused of embodying the spirit of The Emperor’s New Clothes – Liam Gillick is it. So Lauren, I hate to tell you, but he wasn’t wearing shoes – “very nice” or otherwise.