"The conflict of interests of
Angela Vettese, who reads the sublime in the coffee grounds".
Article by Demetrio Paparoni.
Full translation of the article below
(with bad Google Translate). You get the idea.
The exhibition of Anish Kapoor at the
Fabbrica del Vapore and the Rotonda della Besana in Milan has created some
concern. Not of course for the 14,000 visitors recorded in less than
twenty days after opening. Rather, those critics who never miss a
chance to promote themselves as curators of major events.
After the joke by Francesco Bonami, who
decries the first artist and the exhibition ("Vanity Fair"
of 01.06.2011) and then turns around ("Gazzetta dello Sport"
of 06.09.2011), now is the time of Angela Vettese ("Sole24Ore"
of 19.6.2011). Her article contains false information, perhaps
Vettese becomes strong that the "Sole24Ore" does not permit
denials or corrections (as shown below). According Vettese, Kapoor's
works at the fair in Basel "reveal the mechanisms that govern
promotion also shows non-commercial". She adds: "For some
it may be grossly explicit, for others it is now clear: for example,
because at the moment in Italy there are three exhibitions dedicated
to Anglo-Indian artist Anish Kapoor, artist for years but always
impressive not the most innovative, whose work always pulls the
consent of those who do not even know anything about contemporary art
for his play on the phenomena of perception? Clear. The galleries
that sell works they are doing an operation of growth in prices, and
in fact fill their booth of his works." So Gianni Mercurio and I
would have organized these exhibitions, being built with public
money, on the recommendation of the galleries, to further their
market interests.
The article expressed falsehoods demand
a response which I hope will open a debate over the Web. Kapoor
exhibitions in Milan have been proposed by me and Gianni Mercurio to
Madeinart, which in turn, assuming strong economic risks, asked the
City of Milan intestarsele to grant space and funding, not from
private galleries have been proposed, on whose role it is said later.
The interests of private galleries and the market are foreign to our
way of working.
But while accusing Vettese (though
without naming) the exhibition's curators have made a commercial to
promote the interests of the galleries, what she is doing?
Signing a script for a famous brand of
coffee, in order to promote the cups designed by Kapoor who are being
placed on the market. Read a little 'what she writes:
"Just a
cup, like all works by Kapoor, passing from art to life and
summarizes, in a painful form of mental situations which doubt,
ambivalence, but the error was as happy as the mystery, surprise, the
desire to understand what I observe and find out who we are
". In short, the second cup of Vettese
Kapoor allows "to understand what I observe and find out who we
are." Stuff of creepy. As this text may have been well paid -
always Vettese not have written for free as a tribute to the artist
or the quality of coffee (that we tell her) - is not it a bit 'too?
Maybe he had some kind of shock Vettese
contemplating cup Kapoor, but do not think that these statements
touch on the ridiculous?
Do you realize that Vettese gives
certainly the interest of galleries in a show that revolves around a
high steel sculpture of 9 meters long and 62 but is normal to sign a
text that presents masterpieces as coffee cups, cups advertised in
the context a public exhibition in Venice sponsored by a famous brand
of coffee and avowedly assembled and edited by a private gallery?
Kapoor's exhibition at the Steam
Factory in Milan revolves around Dirty Corner, a sculptural huge and
not easy to sell. At the request of the artist, his private galleries
have financed the work. As happens regularly all over the world in
such exhibitions. It could not have been otherwise, since it is
unthinkable that a public administration from funding the production
of a work that later someone can sell. Such a practice would be
illegal. Imagine the delight of the gallery that you see from their
own artist invited to shell out money for the building of a mammoth.
Usually the galleries can not help to satisfy him, because they want
to maintain a relationship with him, but they sure do not like doing.
According Vettese you do not know these things?In her agitation,
Vettese lets go to the construction of false information. It is true
that this year Kapoor is present in the stands as the Basel Fair in
previous years. The Galleria Continua, for example, this year has
presented works by Kapoor, contrary to last year. As for the Lisson
gallery, Gladstone and Minini, have always presented works by Kapoor
in their booth at Basel. It is true that Kapoor is not proposing a
groundbreaking work for years: he never ceased to risk, featuring
several works every tim, experimenting with new forms
and
materials, as anyone who follows the facts calmly art.
It is true that the consent Kapoor
tears for his works based on perceptual phenomena, as demonstrated by
the interest aroused by her wax sculptures and metal or concrete
ones.The wind is changing the entire country, and hopefully in the
art world.
Is changing to the point that for some
time now, may even happen that critics and independent curators like
Gianni Mercurio and myself - with no protections of any kind - come
to realize one of the most important exhibitions of recent years in
Italy. Denigrating is part of an old strategy. Vettese, moreover, is
not new to some concerns: last year when Gianni Mercurio has cared
for the Milan Triennale exhibition of Roy Lichtenstein, who would
later show hosted by Ludwig in Cologne, wrote an article full of news
untrue later denied by the Gianni Mercurio to the "Sole 24 Ore".
In defiance of the principles of fairness that every newspaper should
be the guarantor, the request for correction was ignored. Just to
understand the boldness of character, read the letter published by
the "Sole 24." Now, to be ignored my polite request was
made to Armando Massarenti replication: I had
been assured that I
would be attracted by the newspaper, but it did not happen.
In the U.S., those who viewed the shows
on the major newspapers (this is not true of course for the
magazines) is not himself the curator of exhibitions in order to
avoid a conflict of interest. In such a case, moreover, is the
legitimate suspicion of lack of objectivity.
Thanks to the Internet, who does not
access the media of large circulation can
defend themselves from the barons of
the critics. And you can reply to those who are also protected by the
printed press: the king is naked. Passate parola.
