"The Internet Has Taught Us We Are All Perverts": Brian Eno and Grayson Perry Discuss Creativity, Popularity and Pornography-And Why Great Art Always Involves Losing Control
When the musician Brian Eno spoke to the New Statesman in May, he complained about the art world, its inflated prices and its mystifying critical language. When the potter Grayson Perry began giving his Reith Lectures last month he paid tribute to Eno 's 1995 customisation of a Marcel Duchamp "Fountain" in New York (Eno siphoned his own urine into the artwork to explore whether the piece might be more valuable if it had been "worked upon" by two people). They had never met before but it made sense to try to bring them together in the New Statesman. They met at Perry's studio in Islington, north London. Eno came with a Dictaphone and a magazine about electronic music; Perry was dressed as a man.
Brian Eno [Looking at Perry's new kiln] That's a big machine, isn't it!
Grayson Perry Yes, if you want to make a big pot, you've got to have a big kiln.
BE So, what shall we talk about today?
GP That's up to you. I have many well-travelled pathways in interviews, and in many ways I'd rather not go down any of them.
BE Me, too. I did have one idea, coming over, and that's why I brought this keyboard magazine. I was thinking about the differences between the music and art worlds, and one thing that strikes me is that professional musicians are quite happy to share things with each other--their ideas and techniques, the tricks that made them famous. Is that something more characteristic of music than art?
GP Well, music is more collaborative. In the art world, originality is seen as a precious commodity and it's increasingly difficult to get because the territory of art is so trampled. I always think that painters are fighting over the last original brushstroke.
To find your own voice is incredibly hard. There's very few people who have a revelatory, original thought; I think they're almost mythical. Most people start off being someone else and then they make mistakes.
BE I find it interesting that artists are expected to be able to talk about their work in critical art language now--they have to have "personal statements".
GP As someone who uses words a lot in my work, I've always enjoyed that aspect of it; but I've always been one for clarity, you know. As for the language of the art world--"International Art English"--I think obfuscation was part of its purpose, to protect what in fact was probably a fairly simple philosophical point, to keep some sort of mystery around it.
There was a fear that if it was made understandable, it wouldn't seem important.
BE Do you think it was primarily economic--in the sense that if you want to charge very high prices for things, you somehow have to make them appear very valuable?
GP Well, intellectual importance is directly linked to financial value in the art world. I mean, that's the thing you really want--museum quality. You want to go down in the annals of art history.
BE I've been thinking recently about artists who were huge stars in their day who disappeared, like Sir Frank Brangwyn.
GP Or Thomas Kinkade. At one point he was the richest artist in the world. He made schmaltzy pictures of woodland scenes with cottages but he never sold the originals. He had a massive print thing going, and they reckon at one point one in six houses in the States had a Thomas Kinkade print. But he's never going to feature in any art history.
BE It's funny, because in pop music that kind of career path would be completely acceptable. First of all, we deal only in reproductions and the original doesn't matter--there's no difference between the master tape and what you hear on the CD.
GP No. I find myself thinking quite often that the art world has no equivalent of the popular, really. People always mention Jack Vettriano or Beryl Cook. Even Banksy, to a certain extent, is a very popular artist who's not necessarily welcomed into the fine art world. …