Book Review: "Playing to the Gallery" by Grayson Perry

About three months or so ago, I read Grayson Perry's book The Descent of Man and I absolutely loved it. I've actually read it again since and if you want to read the review of it, it is linked below...

Different to the first book I read, Playing to the Gallery is a book about art itself and the way in which the art world has very purposefully shrouded itself from popular public view. Now, after having read books like Among the Bohemians, I can definitely say that once art becomes liked by the general public and is therefore popular, it also becomes stale to the artistic world. Grayson Perry takes this idea and he lifts this shroud that the art world covers itself in. He wants to demystify things for us - and of course, there are funny little satirical cartoons throughout, just like in The Descent of Man. It was delightful to read.

The book is based on Grayson Perry's Reith Lectures which had quite a large audience (I must go back and listen to these soon!) and one thing the author makes a statement about is the way in which art is almost seen as the world for elites even thought much of the great and rebellious art is created by the marginalised and the less fortunate. He argues that this is not because of what the art is, but rather caused by the way it is presented. We have these big galleries, private exhibitions, sales for thousands and thousands of pounds to collectors - it becomes an activity which the rich want to clearly keep for themselves. If you know about the art collection world as well, you'll probably also realise somewhere down the line that it is basically a way for rich people to hide their money and not get taxed on it. But that's a story for another time.

He explores the concept of “quality” in art, questioning who gets to decide what counts as good. He argues that judgments of artistic value are shaped by institutions rather than being purely objective, and that these systems can reinforce particular tastes and exclude others. I mean, I couldn't agree with him more. There have been countless times where art has gone viral because of the elites treating it as something with deeper meaning or some great masterpiece only for the general public to make jokes and memes out of it. I am definitely talking about the banana taped to a wall here, how could you think I wasn't talking about the banana taped to a wall? Grayson Perry is correct, but I will go one step further. If you want to know whether this piece of obscure art is any good, let the internet have its way with it. If they photoshop it with cool sunglasses, you know the Mona Lisa is good, but if they make horrific jokes about it then you know the banana taped to a wall is not even considered to be art.

He discusses the importance of the audience, showing us that art is not complete without viewers. He suggests that meaning is created through the interaction between artwork and audience, making interpretation a shared, dynamic process rather than something fixed by the artist alone. Again, this is something which requires that the work have an audience, though there is a question of who that audience is. If it is only the elites then the meaning gathered behind the paintings is possibly going to be one that is not actually rooted in any tangible reality - especially considering why the person would have painted the piece in the first place. The challenge he makes to the popularity of art correllating usually with how unartistic it is definitely has something to do with this point too. The larger the audience, the more interpretations there are and the more interpretations can thus challenge the elite ones and present them as a minority view. I like this idea - it makes sense.

I really enjoyed this book because it's one of those that forces you to think about art and the way we see it in our society. From the role of the artist to the role of the audience, Grayson Perry takes us through the medium of art, inserting his own experiences into this mystical and strange world.