What was so sensational about "Sensation"?

This post is in response to an assignment for my Art Appreciation class. They were asked to research the "Sensation" exhibit; tell whether or not they would go see it; and check out what some of the artists are doing since.

The first disclaimer I want to make is that I didn't see the exhibit in person....so I'm taking in my information the same way you are----second hand. And regardless of how objective the writer may be, nothing replaces actually viewing and making judgements on our own. But, based on what I've read, comments from friends who saw the exhibit, and my own interpretations; I'm giving it a shot.

This group of artist, who initially formed Young British Artists (YBA), came together in protest when the Thatcher Administration cut funding for public art. Of course, they weren't known as YBA until later on. But their initial exhibit was held in a large warehouse space and was very anti-establishment; put together by the artists themselves. So, they made a little noise; some people thought they were great, others thought they were weird, and still others didn't take notice one way or the other. They might have scattered if it hadn't been for Charles Saatchi, who, as a wealthy collector, was discovering he could make or break artists by including them and selling them off of his collection. He saw this initial exhibit; was blown away by the work of Damien Hirst, and bought some of the work. Then he started collecting work of other young (20's and 30's) British artists. Eventually, he put together and marketed the "Sensation" exhibit. It's hard to say how much of the "Sensation" part has to do with the art, and how much has to do with the participants.


Certainly, there is something shocking about some of the peices. It's hard not to look at maggots devouring a cow's head even as it disgusts...it draws your eye the same way people crane their necks to see an accident. So, I wonder, doesn't it make more of a statement about us, the viewer, than anything else? However, it's so far removed from what most of us think of art in the traditional sense, it seems too far out there to be taken seriously.


Hirst also brings up another interesting point....he's as much of a media figure as an artist, and you have to wonder how much of his work an attempt to maintain the media spotlight, and how much is because he is truly invested in his work. He and Saatchi had a falling out a few years ago and Saatchi decided to sell Hirst's work in his collection. Because Hirst feared the market value would decline significantly, he convinced Saatchi to allow him to buy back the work for millions of dollars. When I see his work, or read about things like the 150 million dollar diamond studded skull....I wonder how he can outdo himself the next time.


Now, on to one I think is also a bit creepy, but more interesting. Marcus Harvey's Myra.
As you know, it's a large portrait of confessed child murderer made up entirely of children's handprints. So there is certainly shock value here, but also something more. I don't in any way excuse the murder of children, but did you know that Myra herself was an abused child? She was a witness and accomplice to these murders that were actually committed by her boyfriend. Yes, she was an adult, and there are no excuses for abusing children (or anyone), but do you think Harvey might be saying that she was a victim too?



While a some of the work was sensational in the sense that it intended to shock, when your central themes are sex, death and religion...these are issues that we the public tend to have strong views on.



I spent the afternoon flipping through the exhibition catalogue, and a few images jumped out at me....I do think Chris Ofili's work is rather striking....and while elephant dung and private parts are outside my idea of good taste, I'm not really offended by them. I think I can see the some intent in the juxtapositioning. And I will admit that I am attracted to the look of his paintings (some of the others more so than the Virgin Mary one). While I am a Christian, I do realize that not everyone agrees with the western concept of virgin birth and Mary as a demure woman with milk white skin.



I have always enjoyed the artist Jenny Saville....in part because she just paints so beautifully. Her paintings are these large, sometimes splashy figure studies that are amazing. She is part of YBA, and sometimes her work is this unflinching portrayl of death and carcasses, transvestites, and so forth. But the artist's hand is so visible there is a beauty to it that is borne of creation. So, sometimes it is hard to look at, but fun to look at the same time. And hers, I think, is an example of the artist who is trying to shock a bit for the right reasons.


So, I think "Sensation" was an apt title, but I do think that the works that caused such public outcry are in some ways either crying for media attention, or are misunderstood? I would have loved to have seen the exhibit; to walk away with my own interpretations of what's shocking and why, and just to get a sense of the work in person---there is no substitute for standing in front of a really striking work of art, absorbing it on a personal level and taking that experience with you. So much of "Sensation" seems to me to be about a temporary, almost "virtual" experience....and that's the last thing I want art to be about.

Reference: Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection, Exhibition Catalogue, 1997, Royal Academy of Arts, London, ISBN: 0-500-23752-2