The missed link
Apr. 1st, 2008 10:14 amLast 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.

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)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)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-01 09:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-01 09:30 am (UTC)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:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-04-01 10:29 am (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-01 10:26 am (UTC)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)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:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-04-01 08:44 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-01 10:49 am (UTC)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:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-01 10:28 am (UTC)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)(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)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-01 11:29 am (UTC)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:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Money or boredom?
Date: 2008-04-01 11:53 am (UTC)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)Re: Money or boredom?
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-01 11:56 am (UTC)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)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:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-01 12:47 pm (UTC)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)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-01 12:58 pm (UTC)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)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-01 02:12 pm (UTC)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)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:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-04-02 07:27 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(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)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-01 05:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:traditional view
Date: 2008-04-01 05:32 pm (UTC)Perfection Wasted
Date: 2008-04-01 06:00 pm (UTC)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)Re: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Date: 2008-04-01 11:01 pm (UTC)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)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-01 10:52 pm (UTC)I pimp out Momus
Date: 2008-04-02 02:22 am (UTC)Momus, your time is now
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-02 06:52 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-02 03:41 pm (UTC)great post
Date: 2008-04-03 01:02 am (UTC)Heddon Street W1
Date: 2008-04-03 07:12 am (UTC)