Back to Top
at HG HQ we are all very saddened about X Marks the Bökship closing it’s doors at the end of the month. it’s always been an excellently stocked and interesting place run by some very lovely people. we hope that all of those involved land on their feet and aren’t put off any future endeavours by the increasingly shitty rent situation in london. it’s rare an independent bookshop provides a platform for so many genuine literary/art ventures and goes beyond just being a point of sale. bökship will be missed.

at HG HQ we are all very saddened about X Marks the Bökship closing it’s doors at the end of the month. it’s always been an excellently stocked and interesting place run by some very lovely people. we hope that all of those involved land on their feet and aren’t put off any future endeavours by the increasingly shitty rent situation in london. it’s rare an independent bookshop provides a platform for so many genuine literary/art ventures and goes beyond just being a point of sale. bökship will be missed.

a very strange invitation indeed, refreshing honesty

a very strange invitation indeed, refreshing honesty

we give our interns 5 hours to update our mailing list and when we come back all they’ve been doing is playing this videogame! how does any work actually get done in the art world? outside of non-paid, non-unionised labour and secret oil money, of course.

we give our interns 5 hours to update our mailing list and when we come back all they’ve been doing is playing this videogame! how does any work actually get done in the art world? outside of non-paid, non-unionised labour and secret oil money, of course.

new-aesthetic:

Art Of The Bush School | greg.org: the making of, by greg allen

This is as good a time as any to point out that Bush painted his portraits, not just from photographs—a common enough practice as well as a long-established conceptual strategy, though I think only the former pertains here—but from the top search result on Google Images. Many photos were taken from the subject’s Wikipedia entry. Bush based his paintings on the literally first-to-surface, easiest-to-find photos of his subjects.

Is this meaningful in any way? If he had one, it would mean Bush’s studio assistant is very, very lazy. But in all his discussion of it, Bush’s painting practice appears to be a solitary one. He apparently did not tap the enormous archive of photos, taken by the professionals who followed him every day for eight years, which are contained in his giant library. Instead, it seems, he Googled the world leaders he made such impactful relationships with himself, and took the first straight-on headshot he saw. […]

The point is, once again, art matters. Art has surfaced in the most dire circumstances, at a crucial moment in our society’s history, produced by someone whose actions and moral standing confound our engagement with it. And culturally speaking, we don’t care; we’d rather see Bush’s folksy pictures from the internet. Every news story about Bush’s paintings represents ten reports not filed about Bush’s torture. In the art world, meanwhile, we’d rather not see it at all. Better to condemn and dismiss it quickly. Snark and move on. Stoke the indignance that keeps us and our practices unsullied. Ward off any engagement with cowering incantations of connoisseurship and facture.

This is how art appears in our society today. Art works, as they say, and this is what it does: it absolves and redeems and defuses and deflects. Ultimately, George Bush’s paintings are important less for what they show, than for what they obscure. And the art world’s critical structures seem unable or unwilling to meet the challenge posed by the art of the torture & terrorism school.

word

new-aesthetic:

Art Of The Bush School | greg.org: the making of, by greg allen

This is as good a time as any to point out that Bush painted his portraits, not just from photographs—a common enough practice as well as a long-established conceptual strategy, though I think only the former pertains here—but from the top search result on Google Images. Many photos were taken from the subject’s Wikipedia entry. Bush based his paintings on the literally first-to-surface, easiest-to-find photos of his subjects. Is this meaningful in any way? If he had one, it would mean Bush’s studio assistant is very, very lazy. But in all his discussion of it, Bush’s painting practice appears to be a solitary one. He apparently did not tap the enormous archive of photos, taken by the professionals who followed him every day for eight years, which are contained in his giant library. Instead, it seems, he Googled the world leaders he made such impactful relationships with himself, and took the first straight-on headshot he saw. […] The point is, once again, art matters. Art has surfaced in the most dire circumstances, at a crucial moment in our society’s history, produced by someone whose actions and moral standing confound our engagement with it. And culturally speaking, we don’t care; we’d rather see Bush’s folksy pictures from the internet. Every news story about Bush’s paintings represents ten reports not filed about Bush’s torture. In the art world, meanwhile, we’d rather not see it at all. Better to condemn and dismiss it quickly. Snark and move on. Stoke the indignance that keeps us and our practices unsullied. Ward off any engagement with cowering incantations of connoisseurship and facture. This is how art appears in our society today. Art works, as they say, and this is what it does: it absolves and redeems and defuses and deflects. Ultimately, George Bush’s paintings are important less for what they show, than for what they obscure. And the art world’s critical structures seem unable or unwilling to meet the challenge posed by the art of the torture & terrorism school.

word

no disrespect to the jerwood or anything, lovely calm place (cafe is rubbish tho) but when they try to do internet art then you know there is trouble.

no disrespect to the jerwood or anything, lovely calm place (cafe is rubbish tho) but when they try to do internet art then you know there is trouble.

surprisingly, the venga boys were ahead of their time in the post-internet cultural debate - just look at track 14. not so new wave now are ya?

surprisingly, the venga boys were ahead of their time in the post-internet cultural debate - just look at track 14. not so new wave now are ya?

accidental post-internet art trope enacted at the end of stewart lee’s comedy vehicle. out of context it could be a benedict drew work.

accidental post-internet art trope enacted at the end of stewart lee’s comedy vehicle. out of context it could be a benedict drew work.

if you like to constantly drop post-fordism into any discussion where you try pretending to be culturally “on it” then HAVE WE GOT A TREAT FOR YOU!this is danny dyer’s concept of post-skodaism, finally published in an actually readable form as the original dialectics were written in carlsberg froth on the back of a staffordshire terrier. we feel that this timely text will surpass any new aesthetic manifesto, e-flux theory, digi-feminism or genre consensus.

if you like to constantly drop post-fordism into any discussion where you try pretending to be culturally “on it” then HAVE WE GOT A TREAT FOR YOU!
this is danny dyer’s concept of post-skodaism, finally published in an actually readable form as the original dialectics were written in carlsberg froth on the back of a staffordshire terrier.
we feel that this timely text will surpass any new aesthetic manifesto, e-flux theory, digi-feminism or genre consensus.

if you weren’t placing your bets on Rub Bolton gallery being a serious contender for ‘worst gallery in London’ then this interview should change your mind.

if you weren’t placing your bets on Rub Bolton gallery being a serious contender for ‘worst gallery in London’ then this interview should change your mind.