Book Review: The Conspiracy of Art
I think I may need to add this book to my list of ‘required reading for the art world’ because, damn, this was one hell of a read. Some of it I did feel was a little pretentious in only the way the Art World can be. It edged the reader into the realm of philosophy without really drawing any true philosophical conclusions about art, only sounding like it does. Did I enjoy this book? Can’t really say; I don’t think this is a book you are supposed to sit back and enjoy. It feels more like a book you read to justify working in the art world.
Upon reading the first paragraph of ‘The Conspiracy of Art’, you can immediately see why it was so controversial. Likening contemporary art to pornography as a disillusionment from reality is quite the opening gambit. Is it for shock value? Possibly… Jean Baudrillard, until this article, was the art world’s new Golden Boy. Highly influential, well-spoken, brimming with ideas, artists and shows he had the art world in the palm of his hand. Then boom! Calling contemporary art “mediocrity squared” and “null and void” would naturally be shocking coming from the Golden Boy.
We do have to take this with a massive pinch of salt; this text was written 30 years ago, the market has changed, and the art world has changed. Its association with ‘privilege’ has not, however, changed all that much. Auction records are continuously being broken, but buying habits have changed. While the old reliables ‘Picasso, Matisse, Magritte, Old Masters’ all do well, collectors are tightening their belts as we enter a new financial landscape and uncertainty in the gallery system (thank you, Donald Trump, for declaring a shit ton of wars). The article, to me, poses a new question: is this text the ultimate ‘mic drop’ on contemporary art culture or another theorist having a temper tantrum and throwing his toys out of the pram?
I think the article that I liked best was the one on Antonin Artaud. I know Artaud, having grown up doing a lot of theatre, so naturally, alongside the inevitable meandering into the Stanislavsky technique, the Theatre of Cruelty was a breath of fresh air. Yes, I genuinely mean that. But here is the gibe: The Theatre of Cruelty was only supposed to be theory. Did Artaud believe that it would work in practice or that he would have to put it into practice with his fellow actors and theatre practitioners? Baudrillard doesn’t seem to think so. It makes me wonder whether the theory behind The Conspiracy of Art was supposed to be just that. A theory, but people being people kinda ran away with it, and it took a life of its own. Hence the question: mic drop or toys out the pram?
Academically, this is one hell of a read; it has a lot of great ideas, thoughts and debates that you could really get your teeth into. In terms of non-fiction reads… a lot of the ones I’ve enjoyed have been factual rather than philosophical. I wouldn’t necessarily read it again; I might reference it again as it’s food for thought, but I could take it or leave it.