imomus: (Default)
[personal profile] imomus
Last weekend, the British artist Angus Fairhurst hanged himself at a remote Scottish beauty spot, on the last day of his solo show at London gallery Sadie Coles. Best-known for a piece involving a badly-fitting gorilla suit entitled "The Missing Link", Fairhurst was himself a sort of missing link between members of the Young British Artists generation. A close friend of Damien Hirst and ex-partner of Sarah Lucas, Fairhurst graduated from Goldsmiths with them and helped Hirst organise the 1988 group show Freeze, seen as YBA's originating moment.



Reports in the British press of the artist's death at the age of 41 sketched a portrait of a self-deprecating under-achiever much-loved by the much bigger art stars who were his friends and peers. The Daily Telegraph called him "the art world's secret weapon" but noted that his "self-effacing" work was dismissed as "frustratingly slight": "his essentially cerebral approach often seemed overshadowed by the more visually exuberant work of Hirst and Lucas". For The Guardian, Fairhurst was "a well-liked artist who tended to play down his standing and talent". Obituary photographs of the artist tended to show him together with his friends rather than alone.



My exposure to Fairhurst's work was also slight: I saw his conceptual band Lowest Expectations (they supported Pulp at the Brixton Academy once) at the ICA twelve years ago. As Frieze describes, the band, consisting of Fairhurst and his artist friends, mimed to sampled loops of music by Supergrass, Manfred Mann’s Earth Band, Gil Scott Heron and Pulp.

Nobody can say at this point exactly why Fairhurst took his own life, but the obituaries report the general context, and highlight a point my current column on the Frieze website, Metacritics and Strangers, inadvertently touches on. It's a piece about how the internet tries to quantify art algorithmically. Describing ArtFacts.net, I wrote: "Here, artists, dealers, buyers and interested observers can indulge their narcissism and schadenfreude by poring over how their artist ranking relates to their auction turnover. They can watch a plummeting exhibition ranking turning, a year or so later, into plummeting auction prices, or plot up to four artists’ auction and exhibition stats on top of each other to pick out, for instance, the winners and losers in a group show, or the high flyers from a bunch of art school friends who all graduated the same year."

Fairhurst, as reported in the UK press this week, emerges very much as that less-successful artist in a bunch of art school friends, the overlooked figure in the group show. ArtFacts ranks him at 1103 (and falling) on its "stock exchange of reputations" -- Sarah Lucas is at 318 and Damien Hirst at 49. These raw stats are, of course, arbitrary and banal. I end my article by saying that such quantifications tell us very little indeed about art. But of course they can determine life outcomes: the Daily Telegraph reports that Angus Fairhurst Ltd, Fairhurst's company, had £50,000 in the bank and owed £30,000. His friend Damien Hirst, meanwhile, sits on a personal fortune estimated conservatively at £200 million.

The relationship between happiness and money is something I've looked at here on Click Opera. In Richer isn't happier, a piece from February 2006, I looked into Richard Layard's ideas about the relativity of happiness: "Layard believes that people don't get happier in proportion to their wealth because happiness is relative. He quotes Karl Marx: “A house may be large or small; as long as the surrounding houses are equally small, it satisfies all social demands for a dwelling. But if a palace rises beside the little house, the little house shrinks into a hut”.



While increasing wealth doesn't mean increasing happiness, a sense of relative deprivation in relation to your immediate peer group can certainly make you unhappy. Angus Fairhurst died at a remote Scottish cottage. His friend Damien Hirst lives in the massive Toddington Hall, described by the Evening Standard as "a far cry from the traditional view of the lonely artist's freezing garret," and a "reward of fame". Although Fairhurst's death was by suicide, many commentators this week seemed to be suggesting that Evil Gini may have had a hand in this -- by all accounts -- lovely man's tragically premature demise.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 08:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 33mhz.livejournal.com
I dunno, "he offed himself because he wasn't rich enough" seems like an awfully mean eulogy, used as it is as a cudgel against art.hotornot.com. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he had some kind of sudden epiphany that made life unbearable. Artists love those.

Although I suppose the epiphany could've been that he's not as rich or successful as his comrades.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 08:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
I think this is more about how people measure themselves in relation to their immediate peer group, not about money. In other words, it's about the relativity of the sense of failure and deprivation, and the kind of proximity you need to the success of others to really feel your own lack of it. It's about, in other words, "a group of friends".

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 08:50 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] 33mhz.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 09:34 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] qscrisp.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 10:29 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] 33mhz.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 11:04 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 11:12 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] qscrisp.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 12:32 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 09:01 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Momus, you've got me wondering about how you stand here with regards to the Gini coefficient. You seem to be doing more or less what you want, when you want. But you're very touchy about criticism, and you're eager to point out any little mention you receive in the media, so I guess how you're perceived by your peers must be very important to you. And I also guess that a lot of your peers are doing "better" than you, at least in terms of how the culturesphere or the world at large would judge things. Does this depress you at all? Do you wish your activities were more widely noted, or doesn't it bother you?

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 09:30 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
I'm not particularly interested in personalizing this to my own case, Anon -- all I can say is that I'm perhaps lucky enough not to have any very, very successful friends, and to be equipped with a sort of psychological self-righting mechanism (which may be nothing more than a lunatic narcissism and a "delusion of adequacy") which keeps me happy with my life. Don't knock it!

What I am interested in talking about is the Gini thing. Fairhurst died with £20,000, Hirst lives on with £200 million. Now, that's a co-efficient of 10,000:1. Ten thousand Hirst pounds to every one Fairhurst pound.

I'd like to question what sort of society rewards two art school graduates so differently, and what it is about Hirst's work that makes it so vastly over-valued. I personally don't like Hirst's work much, although I do think it expresses unpleasant truths about the society it comes from rather efficiently and even elegantly -- truths about death, domination and drugs. And I think the ratio disparity (the Gini coefficient) between Hirst and Fairhurst also expresses an unpleasant truth about how our society works.

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-04-01 09:56 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 10:09 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-04-01 10:29 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 10:26 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
"I'd like to question what sort of society rewards two art school graduates so differently, and what it is about Hirst's work that makes it so vastly over-valued."

The over-valuation is purely your own perception of his work crossed with what others who do appreciate it are willing to pay. Life isn't fair, and if we are going down this road, which we are judging by the comments, then how come U2 sell millions of records and The frames sell thousands? Like the two said artists are graduates who produce art, these two are bands from ireland and produce music. It's all about giving the public what they want in art
(if you're looking to sell), and for whatever reason poorly fitted gorilla suits were not it. Simple.

wwb

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 10:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] qscrisp.livejournal.com
I'm not sure it is that simple. If you work within a given field, within the art-world, for instance, I'd be very surprised if you didn't find a lot of weird glass-ceiling mechanisms at work.

I suppose you could say it's 'simple' in one way. Someone recently, talking to me about the frustrations of writing, said that if you were the best footballer in the world, or something, and no one cared, naturally you'd be pissed off, and this is an analogy that people seem to understand... until you apply it to something like writing or art. In this case, you might call it the simple misfortune that more people are interested in football than in art or literature, but I still think there are factors at work within the commercial processes by which art/literature is mediated to the public, which also have an influence in cases like this.

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-04-01 11:00 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] qscrisp.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 12:38 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-04-01 08:44 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 10:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] thomascott.livejournal.com
Of course this leads to that intractable debate on what exactly art is?
Is it something that matches the drapes of the living-room/superficial 'aesthetic of the instant' or is it something that challenges our ideas, perspectives, prejudices?
Why is piece X valued at $1,000,000 and piece Y valued at $1,000 when I prefer the latter to the former?

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] tinyfolk.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 01:20 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] eclectiktronik.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 01:34 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 10:28 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] thomascott.livejournal.com
A more questing obituary than anything in the broadsheets..

Of course the irony in Fairhurst's passing will be a rise in the monetary value of his works, he now qualifies for 'tragic artist' status, his subtlety vis-a-vis the sledgehammer immediacy of some works by his peers will be 'discovered', he can now rise in that Gallup poll of reputations you refer to.

Premature decease is another integer in the equation that links artist, art, art's metaphysical value and it's crude monetary value.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 10:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
You know, a childish scenario passed through my mind when I read those obituaries: on the last day of his show Angus phones Sadie to ask how many pieces have been sold. She tells him "None, Angus" and he says "Don't worry, Sadie, I have an idea..." It won't save him but -- he's such a sweet man -- it will save her.

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-04-01 10:47 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-04-01 10:55 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 11:14 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
After reading all your comments I'm suddenly reminded of the tipping point theorv by Gladwell but as an artist and great fan of the arts I must say that time and time again I see that the reason people aren't as sucessful as others is because they don't want to be.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 11:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
Well, motivation has to take its place beside talent, timing, connections, tenacity and luck.

Personally, I've been inclined to believe people like Jarvis Cocker when they say fame is deeply disappointing. But I think some artists get into the position that they can't live without it, and can't live with it.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] kaipfeiffer.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 01:19 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 02:13 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] kaipfeiffer.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 04:12 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] kumakouji.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 04:20 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] thomascott.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 11:42 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] tinyfolk.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 01:25 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 02:09 pm (UTC) - Expand

Money or boredom?

Date: 2008-04-01 11:53 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I can't imagine an artist committing suicide for a reason other than romantic. Poverty, total vagabondage, they'd probably regard as a fascinating chapter in their ongoign autobiography, an armoury of experiences.

Mind you it can just get very boring.

I liked his slightness. Less of the ‘overpotent symbolism'.

£20k and a great reputation is not poverty

Date: 2008-04-02 12:11 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Wish I had it!

Re: Money or boredom?

From: [identity profile] obliterati.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-03 10:30 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 11:56 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kumakouji.livejournal.com
"I'd like to question what sort of society rewards two art school graduates so differently"

The answer is: a society with preferences.

Surely we would be happier without preferences. surely we would all be fairer stripped of our preferences, our personalities, our humanity. And if wealth and prestige can't be handed out equally to one and all, well, lobotomies for one and all! That would soon change things. Oh to be automata. In the name of equality!

The satyr chief Silenus once shared with King Midas a profound philosophy: That the best thing for a man is not to be born, and if born, should die as soon as possible. I'm not sure if Silenus revealed this secret to Midas before or after he was able to turn everything he touched to gold.


(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 12:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] thomascott.livejournal.com
Without ruling out individual autonomy it is rather interesting to tease out what creates those preferences.
I don't for an instant think a communist type equality can be applied to art and if that were what Nick were suggesting then this whole debate would become instantly bogus.
I think the element of social perception in these artists relative 'popularity' is worth investigating.


(no subject)

From: [identity profile] kumakouji.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 12:39 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] thomascott.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 01:35 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] kumakouji.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 02:27 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 12:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bikerbar.livejournal.com
perhaps the artfacts statistics are arbitrary and banal, but if people follow it, if it has some effect in the art market, then it is relevant.

I see you are doing pretty well on there (3511 +). Your last show in Prague grouped you with some big names, right, so your reputation rose.

I know a guy in the 20,000s on that scale, lives off his work ..

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 01:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
I'm doing ridiculously well for someone who's only sold one piece in the art world, yes. I'll be up and down that chart faster than a bride's nightie.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 12:58 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
All art since Duchamp has merely been the same gag repeated over and over: take something common or un-art-like, and put it in a gallery and call it art. It's amazing how people are duped into thinking each successive modern art movement is any different from the last. "Whoa! I mean, sure, a urnial can be art..but.. a shark in formaldehyde!? That's going too far!!!"

Maybe Angus finally realized how laughably pathetic the whole scene was and offed himself.

"Nothing is as good as it used to be."

Date: 2008-04-01 01:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tinyfolk.livejournal.com
Congratulations! You've been accepted to the stodgy old conservatives society.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] turkishb.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 02:16 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 02:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] turkishb.livejournal.com
i want mainly to respond to some of the comments about the illusion of meritocratic achievement in the arts. it's a whole bunch of poppycock.

i'm in media, and have been very fascinated by the tipping point debates in marketing/advertising. i'm going to assume you (whomever is reading) isn't. essentially, the book the tipping point made two assumptions: 1. some products are inherently better than others but 2. some consumers are inherently more influential than others: thus, creating trends in the market. now, this is very very appealing to marketers; just find those influential people, market the product to them, and your work is done for you.

but preliminary research into the mechanics of popularity show this isn't how it works at all. first of all it's not really that some hip cats are the influentials. it's decidedly more prosaic than this. people generally respond to those immediately viewing them. this was shown in a study with a group of songs. the songs were given a merit rank (some where judged by a list of qualifiers as "better" music) and then they were provided in a set to be played to individual users. what they found when they then grouped individual users together into peer groups is that people responded to those other users and their taste changed.

when the test was done more than once they found that, in fact, the merit rank of the music contributed very little (though some) to whether a song was popular or not. they also found an exponential return on a song the more popular it got. which is to say, as soon as something got popular, it sort of ran on its own momentum because it was branched out into so many peer groups.

to give you a real life analogy, what they essentially uncovered was it is really a matter of chance and much more dynamic forces of interaction whether something is popular or not than whether it is "good" or "merited".

similarly, they found that even if influentials existed, the group dynamics of taste (they simulated using computer models which i won't go into here, just look up fast company + tipping point for the article) do not support them being more efficient means of marketing a product than mass marketing -- the model that has always existed.

this isn't to say that people who become popular or are given the full force of marketing behind their product don't deserve it. many people work extremely hard to bring you the media you consume. but it's not hardly a meritocratic process.

alex

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 04:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kumakouji.livejournal.com
"first of all it's not really that some hip cats are the influentials... what they found when they then grouped individual users together into peer groups is that people responded to those other users and their taste changed."

So people's tastes are to a large extent dictated by their peer group. I'm sure most people would consider this obvious. Something needs to be deemed credible for the group to accept it, that's a simple enough concept. The thing is, I think some people have more credibility than others and can give things more credibility that other people within a peer group.

For this reason, I'm not sure about the discreditation of the hip cats. Not everyone within a peer group is of equal standing, that said it's very hard to gauge how much much credibility someone has within their peer group.

Being cool isnt hard; anyone can follow a peer-group formula. Being able to take something unknown/uncool and make it credible is not something just anyone can do.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] turkishb.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 04:19 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] kumakouji.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 05:14 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] turkishb.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 05:26 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] kumakouji.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 07:54 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] turkishb.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-01 08:03 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-04-02 07:27 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] turkishb.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-02 07:34 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-04-02 07:54 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-04-02 07:42 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 04:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lord-whimsy.livejournal.com
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/gallery/2008/mar/31/lifebeforedeath?picture=333325401

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 05:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mistresshellena.livejournal.com
golly. that's some powerful stuff. thanks for the link. I knew there was some reason to sift through these comments...

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-04-02 05:27 am (UTC) - Expand

traditional view

Date: 2008-04-01 05:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pay-option07.livejournal.com
Damn it just burns me to read this crap. Angus lived and was noticed and did what he wanted. Jimmy Tsutomi is content and animated with just living not to mention the Kats. But that's not the message in the media. Wish you well Angus!

Perfection Wasted

Date: 2008-04-01 06:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] count-vronsky.livejournal.com


And another regrettable thing about death
is the ceasing of your own brand of magic,
which took a whole life to develop and market --
the quips, the witticisms, the slant
adjusted to a few, those loved ones nearest
the lip of the stage, their soft faces blanched
in the footlight glow, their laughter close to tears,
their tears confused with their diamond earrings,
their warm pooled breath in and out with your heartbeat,
their response and your performance twinned.
The jokes over the phone. The memories
packed in the rapid-access file. The whole act.
Who will do it again? That's it: no one;
imitators and descendants aren't the same.

John Updike

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Date: 2008-04-01 07:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kingfox.livejournal.com
Best April Fool's Day post ever!!!!!!

Re: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Date: 2008-04-01 11:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shadowshark.livejournal.com
That's what I thought at first, too, and that Momus has just edited the wikipedia, but then the reference:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/01/nbritart101.xml
there seems to be real...

"Sorry, but you're just too... nice."

Date: 2008-04-01 10:12 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
They don't teach it at school, but they teach it down the corridors, the queue-of-one at discos, under bridges and in car parks. They teach it in the cafés, the gossip suites. They teach it in the office, at meetings, in appraisals, in cures you didn’t demand from the doctor. They teach it in your bank balance, your give without question to those born to take. You, dear friend, were just.. too nice.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-01 10:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stereoparty.livejournal.com
"Underneath this big hairy masculine thing," he explained (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/01/db0101.xml), "there I was in the end, a skinny lanky geezer."

I pimp out Momus

Date: 2008-04-02 02:22 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
http://social.zune.net/artistdetails.aspx?aid=14a10100-0600-11db-89ca-0019b92a3933

Momus, your time is now

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-02 06:52 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
maybe he was just sad. you know like emotions, like real songs people dance to, listen to.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-04-02 03:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tinyfolk.livejournal.com
Off topic, but after your post on fake folk, I've been keeping my eye out, and I ran across this Brasilian fake folk track from 2004:

great post

Date: 2008-04-03 01:02 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
this is my favorite

Heddon Street W1

Date: 2008-04-03 07:12 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
http://stormbugblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/through-telephone-box-darkly.html