It may take several Somerset ciders for a brave person to dare to comment on the unpredictable animal we know as the Art world. The gasps of horror, disgust and surprise from British households when the ‘Sensation movement’ landed in the 90s, was an eyes wide open moment. The uninhibited creativity born in the 60s, 70s and 80s where nothing was off the table, encouraged steps up the ladder into outrageous and potentially extraordinary creative possibilities, prompting shock ripples that still reverberate today. It could be argued that best creativity arises from revolution, societal change or disaster, but whatever the source, it seems it is profoundly necessary to take leaps of faith and to ignore the critics. We have seen the ‘normalisation’ and monetisation of artists involved in that ‘Sensation movement’ and how it has changed the perception of attitudes to creativity generally, and also of its practitioners, but not necessarily in a good way. It could be argued that exploitation of the Arts by Art markets operating for profit, cast a dubious ‘man in the mirror’ reflection onto any artist who feeds those cravings with the red meat of profit, yet remaining remote in a distance relationship alien to any creative process, whilst still reaping the benefits of others’ artistic labours.

 Surely it was the anti control sentiments, the need for the new, which prompted revolutions like ‘Sensation’ and other 20^th century Art of merit, in the first place, Picasso, Pollock, Warhol and Lichtenstein to name a few, were all short on words, and very big on Art revolution. Yet today the ambiguity of generously funded institutions formally averse to young rebels and kickback revolution from the other side of the tracks, accept and honour these artists into their halls to play by the rules of their game. This gives ‘the shock of the new’ a very different meaning, and as we know, the wings of a rebel gene are very uncomfortable in a cage. It has to be said that much recent exploitative art is neither revolutionary nor profound, and there is a narrowing  gap between the ‘shock of the new’ and the sunset on Mrs Smith’s wall in 2024. 

The ones that say ‘do’ or ‘don’t’ or ‘yay’ or ‘nay’ have taken the idea of ‘concept’ as in Conceptual Art and transformed it into the idea of process. What is your process in your practice, they ask. This immediately inhibits creative thought, pressure to not only create, but create to a formula and explain it at every turn. This was not how conceptual Art flourished and it will not supplement genius. Turning conceptual into a scientific approach has alienated free-thinkers, and sadly, many of those choosing and approving next generation in the Arts are chained to this dogma. New Art at present seeks sanctuary in revamping what has gone before in the absence of original creative thought; a bit of Boucher, but without figure skills, a bit of Picasso, but without the nerve, or as Rodin said, ‘nothing grows under big trees’. Colour has made a dramatic reappearance, however, if one is seeking originality and a deeper meaning beyond the pleasant, perhaps a visit to a Rothko room instead. 

The ‘shock of the new’ ship has sailed away from today’s too shocking world where we trip over guidelines and society’s numb from a barrage of disturbing images which shock every day, and yet it is still the emotional  viewer response to the Art presented, which prompts reaction, whatever that might be, and not the process and explanation, which is akin to explaining sex, without ever experiencing it.  Arts need freedom of expression to flourish without fear, so I guess it comes down to those who dare to step outside the cage, and those who don’t. So let’s raise a glass to all original thinkers and talents out there, and let’s leave the cage door open. Cheers!