Tag Archives: charles thomson

Charles Thomson discovers a new style of painting

Charles is at my house, and asks to paint. I provide the materials, a canvas, studio, some acrylic paint, then a drastically new style of Charles Thomson painting. I interviewed him about it immediately afterwards. From this, he goes on a painting binge.

Welcome to The Turner Prize

Charles filmed me welcoming guests to the 2012 Turner Prize.

The same year. his comment was censored:

The same year, Shelley Li translated and narrated The Stuckist Turner Prize manifesto in Chinese Mandarin:

More Stuckism manifestos translated and narrated in Chinese Mandarin.

Charles Thomson’s first exhibition at Tate Modern

Charles Thomson (co-founder of The Stuckists) and Edgeworth Johnstone (of The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists) in Tate Modern, 9th November 2013.

Charles Thomson: This is my piece of text art in the Bloomberg Connects. My first exhibition at Tate Modern. It’s an appropriation from something in The Other Muswell Hill Stuckist Newspaper, written by Edgeworth Johnstone, where he says “Tate is mad”. The basis of this statement was that Tate turned down a donation of 160 artworks from an international art movement, the Stuckists, which were exhibited at The Walker Art Gallery, a national museum of art in 2004. The whole show, the whole movement was offered free of charge to the Tate, and it was turned down as being of no worth. So I guess that’s a bit of a smack in the face for the Walker Art Gallery. “Fuck Off Walker” says the Tate.

On the other hand, one of the pieces turned down, of no worth, is now actually in the Tate archive, because they said that the Stuckist protests were of worth, and of interest. So there’s a postcard of my painting of Sir Nicholas Serota makes an aquisitions decision in the Tate achives, as of worth. Whereas the original painting has been turned down, as not of worth. So there you go. Something not of worth, can be made of worth, by being turned in to a postcard.

CT: It says Tate is mad.
Tate Staff Member 1: Some people.
CT: Some people. Yeah, some people.
TSM 2: It’s good they have their opinions isn’t it.
CT: Stuckism is the future. Have you heard of Stuckism?
TSM 2: Yes. They’ve been trying to be displayed many times.
CT: They’ve been trying to be in this place?
TSM 2: Yes. They been trying to have a display many times. They’ve been proposing their works to Tate many times.
CT: Many? What they’ve been sending in their work many times? and what happens?
TSM 2: They usually get rejected I guess by the aquisitions committee.
CT: Right. Is that fair?
TSM 2: I’m not sure. I’m not the one making the decision.
CT: Who makes the decision?
TSM 2: It’s called aquisitions committee, which is probably Directors Board and some curators.
CT: Are artists on there?
TSM 2: There maybe some who are part of a Board of Trustees. There are some artists there as well.
CT: Stuckists criticise some artists. I think they actually criticise artists that are on the Board of Trustees. And then these people judge whether their work should be in the Tate. So they’re not going to want their work in, because Stucksim criticises them. So if you want your work in, you really need to be…suck up to these people and be nice. It’s politics. Politics. Here we go…Politics.

Stuckism lecture 3 | by The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists

The film that follows the lecture is of Charles Thomson, co-founder of Stuckism and I, in Tate Modern on 9th November 2013. I write “Stuckism is the future”, and Charles writes “Tate is Mad” on a screen that displayed what you drew or wrote on a wall outside one of their cafes. The music is Hui Wei by Elbow Sisters.

Stuckism is wrong manifesto

Films with Charles Thomson and Jasmine Surreal

These films were recorded in East Finchley on May 24th 2011. Charles Thomson and Jasmine Surreal, with me occasionally playing guitar or minor supporting role.
Charles Thomson of The Stuckists
Jasmine Surreal of The Merseyside Stuckists
Edgeworth Johnstone of The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists

A Brief History of Stuckism by Charles Thomson

On the 23rd and 24th November 2012, I made some short films with Charles Thomson, co-founder of Stuckism. This was filmed on day one, and is titled “A Brief History of Stuckism”.
I founded The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists in 2006, or thereabouts.

Also see Other Stuckism related videos

Stuckism in Art History by Charles Thomson

In my earlier blogs about Stuckism, I said “On 24th November 2012, I made some short films with Charles Thomson, co-founder of Stuckism.” Turns out, I was there the day before as well, so the dates might be a day out on some of the other ones. This one, was on the 23rd November 2012, and is titled “Stuckism in Art History” If you really want the correct dates for the others, check their YouTube descriptions.
I founded The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists in 2006, or thereabouts.

Also see Other Stuckism related videos

 

Stuckism Bibliography by Charles Thomson

On 24th November 2012, I made some short films with Charles Thomson, co-founder of Stuckism. These are titled “Stuckism Bibliography”
I founded The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists in 2006, or thereabouts.

Also see Other Stuckism related videos

What is Stuckism? by Charles Thomson

On 24th November 2012, I made some short films with Charles Thomson, co-founder of Stuckism. This one is titled “What is Stuckism?”
I founded The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists in 2006, or thereabouts.

Also see Other Stuckism related videos

Black Ivory Printmaking Club

Black Ivory 1.


Here is a video of Charles Thomson, Emma Pugmire and I at Black Ivory Printmaking Club, filmed in November 2017:

Dialogue:

Damien Hirst’s painting disgust discussed

Here’s a discussion that went in The Other Muswell Hill Stuckist newspaper. Charles Thomson of the Stuckists, and Edgeworth Johnstone, me, of The Other Muswell Hill Stuckists.

EJ: I know a lot of people have made a big deal of Damien Hirst really making a complete mess of Francis Bacon, which I don’t think is fair, but…
CT: No, well we didn’t agree with that did we? We thought actually he had done something quite worthwhile.
EJ: Yeah, I thought Damien Hirst’s show was good. I went to two of them, I didn’t go to the recent one but the No Love Lost show, I thought was brilliant, and downstairs at the St. James’s White Cube where they had more colourful, probably even more Francis Baconey…I thought they were amazing paintings, what he did.
CT: I talked to Edward Lucie-Smith about that, and he’s totally in agreement. He thinks they’re good. He thinks it’s ridiculous that… and I said to him that this is fashion, isn’t it? Aren’t the critics looking at it? Can’t they see that he’s using colour rather well. They’re picking up on ridiculous things, saying ‘Oh, he’s got a fetus in there. How shocking’. But when you look at the painting, that’s not what comes across at all. If he wanted to make it shocking, he would have done it very differently. It’s like, no, this is part of a composition, part of something. It’s not the whole thing. It’s not like flinging a shark in a tank, in your face. It’s not done like that at all. I mean, he’s a good painter.
EJ: And I think he paints like someone who doesn’t care what anyone thinks. Because if I was Damien Hirst, and I was doing a painting that was so obviously like a Bacon, I wouldn’t do that at all if I was worried what the critics would say. I think he must have known he was going to get slated before he put it out, and I like that fact that he still did it. And he still did it as obvious as he wanted it to be.
CT: You say it’s like a Bacon, but noone would ever think it was a Bacon.
EJ: No you wouldn’t, but you would know that he had seen Bacon from those paintings, I think.
CT: But that happens throughout art, throughout art history. In the Renaissance there’ s a whole era that’s based on previous work, on Greek work, for example. I mean, you look at anything in the Renaissance and you would have known that they had seen Greek work before, Medieval work. Whatever you look at. Look at the Fauves, for example, Vlaminck. You know he’s seen Van Gogh, You know Kirchner has seen Van Gogh with his early work, because they’re all painting with these squiggly lines. But that doesn’t disallow their work, or invalidate it because they’re doing something else. And Hirst in the Wallace Collection show was obviously doing something else. In fact, if I had the choice, I would go for Hirst because I think he’s got more depth. I think Francis Bacon is a real showman, and basically his paintings of futility, nihilism and sadism, which doesn’t give humanity very much. And I think what we see with Hirst is paintings on a spiritual quest.
EJ: I wonder if it’s the same thing, with what they’re doing to Hirst. Because Miro, his show was slated for being…they said he had misunderstood Fauvism, or he had misunderstood one other movement, I can’t remember what it was.
CT: Was this the recent show?
EJ: No, this was when Miro was young, and he put some work out that was clearly referencing Surrealism and Cubism, they said Miro has misunderstood Cubism. And I think they’re doing the same with Hirst now. And I’m wondering if years down the line, Hirst is going to be vindicated, like Miro’s been vindicated.
CT: Probably. Like the Stuckists will be vindicated.
EJ: Yeah.
CT: Rachel Campbell-Johnston, the arts critic at The Times turned up to the Spectrum, London gallery, and the gallery Director said that she had made up her mind before she had even looked at the work. And then she wrote about it in a very superficial way, saying that what the Stuckists do is they find some artist in art history, and do some kind of cartoon version of it. Which is absolute nonsense. And also, if that’s a flaw, what about all the other artists through history who have done versions of somebody elses work, and got ideas from other people. So I didn’t really think very much of that at all. I think it’s political, people have to turn against the Stuckists. If we had had a different attitude, if we had kowtowed for the establishment, we would be real hits by now.
EJ: Exactly, I don’t know why they assume our motivations are anything other that what they are at face value. I mean, why else would you paint paintings like the Stuckists do. It’s obviously not to make money because, they don’t make money. It’s obviously not to be liked, because nobody likes them. I mean, we have to be genuine, because there’s no other reason why we would do it, and put ourselves out there knowing we’re going to get so much…
CT: I think the negative response is ‘Genuine, but stupid.’
EJ: It’s probably the first thing they think.
CT: Or ‘Genuine, but or completely untalented.’ or ‘Genuine, but missing the boat.’ Mind you, you could have said the same about every art movement in Modernism.
EJ: Exactly, if we had someone like Saatchi showing us they wouldn’t say that. It’s like Picasso’s first show, they said it’s sloppy, it’s uneven, it’s all rubbish. But then as soon as Picasso gets picked up by a good dealer, they’re raving about his work from the next show, because it’s got this big dealers name behind it. But do anything on your own feet, or do anything in an environment they’re not comfortable with, like Hirst putting his own work, that he done himself in the Wallace Collection. I mean, do something on your own that’ s different, I don’t think they’ll see any value in it. They’ll just see the first thing that they can see, and that’s something negative.
CT: It’s quite extraordinary that this really quite superficial, empty work gets rated very highly by the critics, but when he does something with more depth, emotion and conviction it gets completely trashed.


In Mandarin Chinese, narrated by Shelley Li:

More Chinese Mandarin Stuckism vidoes


Image of a Stuckist newspaper

damien hirst is a good painter

Front page of a Stuckist newspaper

the other muswell hill stuckist newspaper