At the beginning of December rumours spread that Charles Saatchi had launched a TV show to grade aspiring artists. Since the programme was not available outside the UK, nobody in continental Europe did know anything concrete, yet everybody knew exactly that this was the ultimate proof of the decay of art. Spending a few days in London shortly after all four episodes had been broadcast I watched the only one which was still online and sifted through the media response.

The reason for the uproar is the apprehension that follow-ups will come, due to the collective desire to watch ‘those in the know' pronouncing judgement about something unknown, contemporary art. Although contemporary art has become an issue of general concern during the last decades, evaluation criteria remain arcane - at least to those who believe in their existence. Hence the demand for them.

HIS MAJESTY'S REQUEST

Saatchi's national and international reputation differs considerably. While outside the UK his name is mainly linked with a short-lived 1990s hype: Young British Art (YBA), inside he enjoys the status of an educational provider. An ‘artoholic' in his own terms, a ‘shopaholic' in Damien Hirst's, according to a former wife "a man of crushes - cars, clothes, artists", the collector and gallery owner has influenced cultural politics in the UK significantly. Even an opponent (1) declared: "Everything I knew about the art of late 20th and early 21st century I know from Saatchi. He was the revelation." A BBC moderator was hardly less explicit: "What we, the mainstream, know about modern art, is largely what Saatchi has told us."
What motivated this omnipresent absentee, who doesn't even attend his own openings, to stage a TV show - or rather no-show? After all he was never to be seen by cameras, although he met with jury and artists regularly. Perhaps he wants to regain the influence he lost after the art market carousel had centrifuged the YBA from the centre to the periphery of public attention. Once the most important single figure in British contemporary art, Saatchi slipped from 14 to 72 in last year's ‘ArtReview Power 100' (2). More likely he just wanted to update his collection, for he seems to prefer products with ultra-short shelf life: "I like to keep my collecting fresh. ...I am looking forward to the prospect of finding undiscovered British talent. Anyone with a fresh creative approach should enter."

HOW THINGS WERE GOING

The four parts of ‘School of Saatchi', broadcast once a week from 23 November to 14 December, are part of a BBC series titled ‘Modern Beauty', which deals with concepts of beauty in contemporary art. Press releases by the Saatchi Gallery and the BBC insist on equal chances of all applying artists, provided they were 18 years or over, UK residents and not currently represented by a gallery. Submissions were to be sent from February to March 09 via a special website.
Yet it remains unclear how this website was made public, since a blogger later asked: "Where did they get these people from?" And another replied: "They must have advertised in art schools, and I guess on the Saatchi site. I don't remember seeing it in any art magazines or art sites."
Among all entries an electoral committee of experts shortlisted twelve persons "worthy of being seen by Charles Saatchi" (3) who were then showing their work in a group exhibition. Six of them were selected by a second panel, which served as Saatchi's advisors: Kate Bush, Head of Art Galleries at the London Barbican Center, art collector Frank Cohen, critic Matthew Collings and Tracey Emin.
The remaining six applicants, four men and two women between 19 and 33, "who are felt to have the edge, raw talent and creativity to be developed and refined", were admitted to an especially-created art school to work for ten weeks under the tutelage of "key figures from the art world, with the aim of further exposing the potential of each student." (4)

The first part of the series summarized the whole procedure up to this point. The following three episodes were showing the candidates performing tasks "designed to inspire and develop their talents" (5), like the production of large-scale pieces for a seaside resort. Here the main challenge was the fact that the result had to be accepted by local residents, who were called upon to share their opinion with the artists.
After this confrontation with the present, the next step was the past. The third episode documented the endeavour to create something to stand up to the Old Masters in a private collection. According to Saatchi great art reinterprets traditions for today's audiences, and thus the owners of Sudeley Castle (6) agreed to have objects of value replaced with whatever the hopefuls would come up with.
The final commission consisted in creating work for and the organization of a group exhibition at Saatchi's London gallery. Here the panel gathered a last time to evaluate the solutions and to pick up the phone to listen to their Master's voice pronouncing the winner. After all: "Nobody can give you advice after you've been collecting for a while. If you don't enjoy making your own decisions, you're never going to be much of a collector anyway." (7)
The elect is rewarded with free studio space for three years and the participation in Saatchi's current show in Saint Petersburg, titled ‘Newspeak: British Art Now'. A second member of the group was asked to create a piece to go on display at the exhibition when it comes to London 2010.

OPAQUE TRANSPARENCY

Famous for quotes like "I primarily buy art in order to show it off" (8), this time Saatchi aims at a rather more pedagogical goal. "‘School Of Saatchi' offers a fascinating insight behind the scenes and into the minds that create the work, what inspires it and what it means. For others, it will be a journey of discovery as the series demystifies the subject and makes the art more accessible." (9)

Well, the thing about the "fascinating insight behind the scenes" is a generous description, since the audience's insight was restricted to four one-hour programmes, carefully selected from a process which took more than eleven months and had involved thousands of participants. However the programme did offer "insights into the minds that create the work", in as much the increasing pressure to excel became observable, along with the resulting rivalry among the now competitors.
Another "fascinating insight" into artists' working conditions resulted from the fact that the decision-making process, allegedly conducted by six professionals, turned out to be determined by a single one: the man with the money.
The day following the first episode, The Guardian concurred with the series' enlightening ambitions above: "‘School of Saatchi' appears to be a genuine attempt to separate wheat from chaff and leave the viewer with a real sense of why something modern might be worthy of being considered art." (10)
The "genuine attempt to separate" would sometimes proceed quite quickly, when candidates were dismissed with explanations like "you are just too weird" or "you sound too much like a madman". Having just emerged from the interrogation, an early drop-out complained: "It was like trying to explain your work to your grandmother." He was alluding to the panel's favourite question: "Why is it art?"

‘The Originality of the Avant-Garde and Other Modernist Myths' (11): among the exhibition's participants, featured in the first episode, one person had been presenting two balls of crumpled-up paper, one being his email to Martin Creed and the other Creed's answer. When the panellists put the customary question why this was supposed to be art, the candidate outlined the balls as materialization of a failed attempt to "connect with an artist". He was dismissed. Another failed attempt to connect with an artist - on the side of the ‘experts'. Surprisingly enough nobody mentioned Creed's ‘Work No.88: A sheet of A4 paper crumpled into a ball'. They must have known the piece, since Creed belonged to the "most innovative figures in contemporary art" (12) who had been appointed as consultants for the ten week tutorial.
With regard to viewers' reactions the usual rants were floating about, all pretty much on the level of "The so called art critics didn't have a clue about art, I mean real art as in drawing and painting, not rubbish modern art where it has no meaning or skill involved."
The trailer featured Tracey Emin labelling one artist's explication as "the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard in my life - which is saying something. Large parts of the audience apparently welcomed the long-awaited discovery that the emperor was naked.

UMM AHH WELL

But Mr Dowling, critic of ‘The Guardian', stated resolutely: "Some of the art was undoubtedly good". Whatever terms you employ in dealing with art - "undoubtedly" is undoubtedly totally amiss. But Mr Dowling may be forgiven because he has to be credited for putting central questions, like: "Why should artists have to explain themselves? Does good work become less good when its creator fails to present a convincing case?" Not really. The quality of the piece does not depend on the artist's articulateness. But dealing with art in a format like this provides the possibility to figure out if there is an underlying concept and if so, which one. And whoever insists on "my work talks without words", should choose one's media carefully and avoid applying for a TV show, which by definition feeds on speech. In this respect blogging viewers were unanimously disappointed: "Most of the artists were so inarticulate. (13) If your work is lacking in technical skill, you need a really strong concept and the articulacy to back it up."
In fact only one single question was easy to be answered: "Why would talented young artists with bright futures submit themselves to such a denting ordeal?" (14) Here the reply is obvious: In order to prepare for their bright futures which won't be too bright if they don't get used to denting ordeals asap.

The only problem with celebrities and viewing figures is the fact that they prevent the spectators from investing time and energy in alternative ways of making and consuming art. Not Saatchi's one-dimensional preferences but the amounts of attention they get confine the artistic landscape. Only a few commentators focussed on alternatives: "When I look at certain art websites I can promote myself better without tarnishing my image. It is sad that the older generation like Saatchi do not yet realize that artistic communities are thriving organically. The quality of art has suffered through these moguls wanting to make money. Van Gogh would have been ridiculed on TV, because everyone thought he was nuts."

Charlotte LINDENBERG
is a writer living in Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

(1) Critic Brian Sewell.
(2) http://www.artreview100.com/2009-artreview-power-100/
(3) The Saatchi Gallery's press release.
(4) The Saatchi Gallery's press release.
(5) The Saatchi Gallery's press release.
(6) http://www.sudeleycastle.co.uk/
(7) http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/charlesqa/qa.htm
(8) http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/charlesqa/qa.htm
(9) The BBC's press release.
(10) Tim Dowling in'The Guardian', 24 November 09 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2009/nov/24/school-of-saatchi-gracie)
(11) Title of a volume of essays by Rosalind E. Krauss, MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985.
(12) The Saatchi Gallery's press release.
(13) "Why is it art? I mean why is it art. I mean why is it art, why isn't it art? I mean it's a difficult one." (participating artist)
(14) Tim Dowling' The Guardian', 24 November 09 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2009/nov/24/school-of-saatchi-gracie)