stuckism - new art movement

[godfrey]

i don't know how many artists who contribute to WC are aware of a new art movement called "stuckism". it was started in britain by billy childish and charles thomson a few years back. the name of the movement came from an insult to billy childish by his ex-girlfriend, tracey emin, who retorted that his paintings were "stuck, stuck, stuck!".

the stuckists famously demonstrate against the turner prize and are strongly pro-painting. what started as a few artists in the uk has spread to over 125 groups world-wide, each with their own take on the philosophy behind the movement.

i am the founder of the perth stuckists in western australia and remain the sole member here. the stuckists have a comprehensive website and can be found at www.stuckism.com at the moment an artist called joe machine is featured. joe's work is strongly expressive and reflects his past background. i find his stuff very strong.

here is one of my paintings. please get back to me if you any questions to ask.

regards,

godfrey.

[Keith2]

Godfrey, I like the painting.

How significant is the stuckism movement ? It doesn't get that much publicity. The reason could be that the excesses of installation and conceptual art are much better copy for print and TV journalists.

[vhere]

I don't want to belong to any label but I love the poem about Serota

[godfrey]

thanks for your contributions. and yes stuckism is very significant. some of the powers that be have been strongly influenced by much of what stuckism has been saying , without giving credit to the stuckists. for example, charles saatchi, recent run of exhibitions entitled "triumph of painting" demonstrates the big influence stuckism has had on the british art scene. and i don't think a movement with over 120 groups world wide is insignificant! recently a painter was nominated for the 2005 turner prize, once again revealing the stuckist strong influence. the people who are pro-installation and conceptual art have done all they could to silence the stuckists (its in their interest- a group that comes along and questions the status quo is extremely dangerous, particularly to their hip pockets). so it is no wonder perhaps they don't get the publicity they deserve. the walker gallery in liverpool recently invited the stuckists (2004) to put on a major show, and was part of the liverpool biennal, the largest art festival in britain. the stuckists have grown from a small group to a large international art movement!

no i don't like labels either! stuckism is not something you join. its about integrity and a passion for painting. nobody is forced to follow a particular line or philosophy, its a very open way of thinking. everybody has a different style, there's not a particular way of painting, artists follow their own directions - no labels! the label was put on by somebody else as an insult!

incidentally i challenge the concept of there being conceptual art and painting! one of the british stuckists, guy denning pointed out that a craft based art could also be conceptual! conceptual art is not a medium! ironically much conceptual art seems to be devoid of any ideas. stuckists are for painting with strong ideas!

regards,

godfrey.

[alfreda]

I looked up one of the artists mentioned: Joe Machine and here is what he said on an interview:
"JM: I hope to continue painting and to get my paintings seen. If I can do this without compromising my values, I’ll be happy. Art movements are just platforms, manifestos are often rhetorical clap trap. The only important thing is to endure, to enjoy life and enjoy painting. All the while I feel this compulsion to exhibit these elements of my life, I’ll keep doing it."
http://www.heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA...%20Machine.htm

So how does the stuckist manifesto and stuckist title fit in if joe is saying they are just platforms and rhetorical claptrap?

I am not putting down the efforts to promote painting (I am a painter who loves to use the medium to make bold political social and personal statements) but why the need to put down the creative efforts of other artists and art forms in order to promote painting?
My understanding of conceptual art is that artists express an idea or concept using various materials/mediums arranged in a pattern that fits that concept. why is that artists mode of expression any less valid than a painters? It is just a different way of expressing a social,political statement.

just pondering.

[godfrey]

I t is true that frequently art movements are just platforms, but often a platform is needed/required and sometimes manifestos are rhetorical claptrap. This does not mean that they cannot be valid. And quite often they are used to challenge orthodoxy. I see nothing wrong with that. And yes it is good to enjoy life and painting. I'm sure we all try to do that. The Stuckist title is a convenient title for an insult leveled at one of the earlier founders!

Stuckists do not put down the creative efforts of other artists and art froms to promote painting. Stuckism promotes painting because we all love to paint! Over the last few years in fact the boot has been on the other foot. Take the statement quite often heard that painting is dead! Stuckists are just saying that painting is very much alive and just as relevant as other medium.

I did not say that "conceptual art" is less valid than a painters' form of expression. "Conceptual art" is not a medium. Painters can be conceptual in their approach! I merely stated that quite often the rhetoric surrounding much so-called conceptual art is empty and devoid of ideas. This is not, I believe saying that it is not valid but rather making a valid criticism. This is not to say that ideas could not be expressed in any way an artist chooses to express a social, political statement.

Thanks for your pondering!

Regards,

Godfrey.

[alfreda]

People have been saying painting is dead for a very long time, I think since the advent of photography, then when computer art gained favour. I guess what I am wondering is why need a movement to promote something that has never gone away and is as popular as ever with the public and as a means of expression for artists? Fads come and go and some types of art gain favour for a while, then others (representational or classic) reemerge. I just don't see that painting needs a movement or a platform since it continues to be a major means for artists to express themselves and the public continues to appreciate it and buy it?

[godfrey]

Nothing wrong with promoting painting, since over the past years it has come under a sustained attack from people who promote installation, video and computer art etc. Stuckists merely balance the ledger. And it is working, exhibitions by the Stuckists in Liverpool, shows in the Saatchi gallery and other shows are certainly having an impact. And if some artists feel the need to form a movement or a platform then I think this only adds to give spice and vitality to the visual arts.

Regards,

Godfrey.

[alfreda]

Originally Posted by godfrey

Nothing wrong with promoting painting, since over the past years it has come under a sustained attack from people who promote installation, video and computer art etc. Stuckists merely balance the ledger. And it is working, exhibitions by the Stuckists in Liverpool, shows in the Saatchi gallery and other shows are certainly having an impact. And if some artists feel the need to form a movement or a platform then I think this only adds to give spice and vitality to the visual arts.

Regards,

Godfrey.

Not sure how one can claim the ledger is unbalanced when painting has always dominated the art market and museum attractions. As for the spice and vitality in arts, totally agree, and saatchi certainly added to the mix with his personal choices of artists over the years. According to this site they quote from the stuckist manifesto "Artists who don't paint aren't artists".
that is a pretty bold and damming statement to make against artists who use a variety of other means and media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuckist

Even if Saatchi had a monopoly (which I don't agree with) how does that affect the millions of artists worldwide who are represented in galleries and other venues? Any kind of movement, this one included, that includes a strict idea of what and how an artist should be screams dogma. Of course there is a benefit to belonging to a group that makes such a bold claim, such as getting publicity and attention for doing nothing more that what millions of others have done before and continue to do, which is to paint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuckist


nice chatting with you though.

alfreda who will plod along painting, and continue to support and promote the creative talents of others, whether they paint or not.

[CANDYCANER]

HI!...okay...I think I am still "unclear" as to what "stuckism" is ...please "dumb it down" for me, as I am not a painter...I work in graphite...but, I am interested in this very much as I see that there has been a decidely stale art scene in galleries in some areas... I am always interested in new things and especially new concepts...and I will not pretend that I understand something that I do not...so any help would be appreciated... a "nutshell" version will be fine...I went to the website...but I am not seeing the "obvious"...but that is so me!!!

Thanks for your patience!!!
CANDYCANER

[godfrey]

Nice talking with you as well. Stuckists do not the things for the pubilicity, but because they believe that painting is a vital means of expression. I am certainly not claiming that other artists who use other art forms should drop those in favour of painting! People can do what they want! Also I don't believe that painting as always dominated the art market, played a part yes, but certainly not dominated!

I also will plod along painting and continue to support and promote the creative efforts of others. I wish you well and its been good chatting with you!

Best wishes,

Godfrey.

[alfreda]

Originally Posted by CANDYCANER

HI!...okay...I think I am still "unclear" as to what "stuckism" is ...please "dumb it down" for me, as I am not a painter...I work in graphite...but, I am interested in this very much as I see that there has been a decidely stale art scene in galleries in some areas... I am always interested in new things and especially new concepts...and I will not pretend that I understand something that I do not...so any help would be appreciated... a "nutshell" version will be fine...I went to the website...but I am not seeing the "obvious"...but that is so me!!!

Thanks for your patience!!!
CANDYCANER

"Stuckism promotes figurative painting in opposition to conceptual art" they formed " as an alternative to the Charles Saatchi-patronised Young British Artists (also known as Brit Art)."

In their manifesto they "place great importance on the value of painting as a medium, as well as the use of it for communication and the expression of emotion and experience" which is nothing new, painters have been and are still doing that irregardless of the stuckists.

"In a second manifesto, the Stuckists declared that they aimed to replace Post Modernism with Remodernism, a period of renewed spiritual (as opposed to religious) values in art, culture and society."

so it seems it isn't just about promoting painting.

It seems ironic to me that one of the founders started the movement because he believed in " amateurism and free emotional expression" and yet their manifesto objects to the free expression of other artists if they don't paint?

If you look at the remodernism manifesto many of us are already remodernists although I don't go along with number 10:"The making of true art is man's desire to communicate with himself, his fellows and his God. Art that fails to address these issues is not art." or "12. The Remodernist's job is to bring God back into art but not as God was before. Remodernism is not a religion, but we uphold that it is essential to regain enthusiasm (from the Greek, en theos to be possessed by God)."
http://www.stuckism.com/remod.html

I don't trust others telling me what my job is as an artist,and I am not stuck on the idea of subscribing to a dogma that dictates what an artist is and despises other art to the point of forming a movement to replace it. I guess I don't sympathize too much, although I do understand why. The pomposity and artsy fartsy chatter along with being told that your work or painting isn't relevent as a result can be tiresome.

Ps. I had to add that in looking at many of the artists involved, I really like their work. I have a love of outsider arts, folk art, raw art, visionary art amongst others.

[godfrey]

Thanks for everybody's thoughts and contributions. I 'm certainly not telling anybody what to do or think. If you are already a "remodernist" then fine. Artist are free to pursue whatever form of expression they wish. Manifestos don't have to be rigidly followed. "Stuckism embraces all that it denounces!"

Regards,

godfrey.

[alfreda]

Oh, I wasn't under the impression you were trying to tell anybody what to do or think. You introduced a subject that is interesting and some of us wanted to clarify or understand further.

My comments to candycaner were in reference to the stated ideology in the manifesto, not to you personally godfrey.

well time for a cuppa
regards
alfreda

[godfrey]

Many thanks for clarifying your comments. I appreciate that. Also pleased that artists found the subject interesting enough to make a contribution.

Regards,

Godfrey.