The price of darkness
September 3 2013
Picture: Tate
I learn via Gareth Harris of The Art Newspaper that Tate has acquired Martin Creed's Work No.227: The Lights Going On and Off (2000). This won the Turner Prize in 2001, and consists of a room, or in fact anywhere, where the lights are switched on and off, repeatedly. The purchase (for an undisclosed price) was supported by the Art Fund.
The Tate website describes the work thus:
Artwork details
Artist Martin Creed (born 1968)
Title Work No. 227: The lights going on and off
Date 2000
Medium Gallery lights
Dimensions display dimensions variable
Collection Tate
Acquisition Purchased with funds provided by Tate Members, the Art Fund and Konstantin Grigorishin 2013
Reference T13868
I'm not going to try and display my modernist credentials by somehow pretending that I 'get' this work. The description of a work whose medium is (pre-existing) 'Gallery lights', with 'display dimensions variable', and which has to be illustrated on Tate's site as above is of course about as close to nothing as you can get. The only thing that can be acquired, I suppose, is the idea, and the capitalist in me can't help but admire Creed for making money out of something so daft. I'm sure some people will like it. And if you're one of them then don't forget you can try it in the comfort of your own home whenever you like (or your office, or your car, or your fridge).
I remember when I worked in the Houses of Parliament (advising on the art collection there) we were offered the chance to 'buy' Creed's work for the House of Lords. The lights would go on and off in the chamber, which would be photographed at the same time. I think the price mooted was some £50,000. I may be wrong, but I remember it being a lot - enough to ensure that their Lordships said thanks, but no thanks.
Update - a reader writes:
As a member of the Art fund (the NACF when I joined) I'm not happy at the way museum purchases, in many cases, are now directly from studio to museum, with no intermediate life for the work in between. In the past many Art fund acquisitions would gather about them a body of criticism, good & bad, that members could come to some conclusion about.
There's an interesting debate to be had about just when a museum like the Tate should start buying work. Is it the role of the state, through such museums, to build collections of the future by intervening in the contemporary art market? Or should such collections only be formed after the passage of a certain period of time?
There's an interesting parallel with the UK's export controls. Any work, no matter how good or famous, can be sold abroad if it is less than 50 years old. In other words, for the purpose of export controls, it is thought that we cannot really judge whether a work of art should remain part of our national heritage until it has had time to amass a critical weight of appreciation. Given that so much appreciation of contemporary art is about fashion and hype, then it seems to me that a similar rule should apply for institutions like Tate when it comes to buying modern art. We, critics, and Tate trustees may judge that a work fresh from the studio of some zeitgiest artist is 'good', and worth paying a hefty zeitgeist price for. But will it be judged so in 50 years time? Art history tells us most likely not...
