Tuesday, May 08, 2012
We’ve posted before on how the NZ media’s approach to contemporary art is usually how lame it is unless it's going for large sums at auction. One of the most unpleasant outbursts in recent times was via a Paul Holmes's interview.
It was with the then Chair of Creative NZ, ad guy Peter Biggs and was about et al.’s contribution to the Venice Biennale in 2005. Holmes used most of the time to foam and froth, not giving Biggs much opportunity to comment. For et al. as the focus of this incoherent art-rage it was a miserable experience that certainly took the gloss off representing New Zealand at Venice.
Now New Zealand Herald blogger Paul Casserly has come up with some intriguing thoughts around why Holmes was so unpleasant. And guess what? Casserly reckons it wasn’t about et al. at all.
Turns out that Biggs’s agency represented Mitsubishi and they had pulled around a million dollars worth of sponsorship from The Holmes Show after his “cheeky-darky” remark.
Casserly comments about the Biggs interview, “You'd be forgiven for thinking [Holmes] hated modern art, but I reckon what we were looking at was riddled with payback.” Which while it doesn’t make it any better, does make sense.
You can read Casserly’s piece here and see a snippet of the Holmes/Biggs interview here at 4.56 mins in.
Images: Top, Holmes talks over the top of Biggs. Bottom Biggs finally gets a word in