what is happening to the London art scene? from the view of the artist -

Art students and artists alike, myself included, are fascinated by the art market. It seems like an alien vehicle which mysteriously generates money for the lucky few artists which appeal to the artistic trends of our time, albeit these trends waiver and recede, and new names emerge on the scene. Sustaining a career as an artist is not just a matter of emotional perseverance as some suggest, but of great practical organisation and awareness of the current artistic landscape and baffling world of the gallery space. Nor is success quantified or rewarded by sheer hard work. It seems the art world can be the least meritocratic of them all. To maintain this impetus and remain informed of current trends, data, and sales, seems contrary to the very traits that characterise most artists who are often focused, emotional, sensitive, and sincere people. I have personally seen great disillusionment caused by the state of this inaccessible art world towards young artists who bear such great talent yet struggle to see how they can get a foot in the door without either miraculous luck or some degree of nepotism, as is common in creative spheres. It feels like the London art world has failed to revive itself since the wave of innovation sparked by the YBAs in the 1990s at the hands of Saatchi. I find myself struck by the sterility of many contemporary galleries in recent years, which feel like stagnant salerooms. With many contemporary spaces still lauding the works of modern male masters such as Freud, Auerbach, and Warhol, who undeniably still speak to modern audiences, the reality is equally that less space is available for innovation and diverse approaches.

I am not one to suggest an ‘out with the old and in with the new’ view entirely, as this polarised stance encourages an attitude of extremes and suggests a dissolution and disregard for the past, which still influences the art world today. It is not about forgetting the artists that have formed our current visual culture and canonical view of artistic excellence, but allowing space to exhibit new creative thought alongside these representations. To give credit where it is due, there have been many brilliant shows I have seen in London within the past few years that have excelled in their ability to do so, the Freud ‘New Perspectives’ show at the National took account of the artists’ infamy and dubious morals when exhibiting his works, particularly the nudes of lovers, daughters, and young girls. I do believe censoring this work would be unnecessary and would ignore a large part of the artists’ character, but certain information is duly provided to help viewers’ form educated opinions. A show, over a year ago now, which struck me most profoundly was the Mondrian/Af Klint exhibit at the Tate last summer which did a wonderful job of reinventing the publics’ notion of abstract painting as stemming from male genius, ie. in the works of Kandinsky, Pollock etc, giving Af Klint greater credit for her innovation of purely abstract works and communication with spiritual and automatic principles in creating artwork, which bear a massive influence on the work of artists working today. Af Klint’s distinct visual language and ways of drawing out symbolism has not only massively influenced my own methodology when painting but has informed the work of many brilliant artists - when I observe the work of Ines Longevial, Amy Beager, and Naudaline Pierre, motifs such as swans, flowers, stars all emerge.

So progress has been made in our appreciation of art from broad backgrounds, but where does the London art scene lie amidst this continual progression? Is the gallery still resistant to change, and are more radical works still being shunned from a white cube space in fear they appear too much like ‘protest’ pieces. It is shocking when you look at the figures. The Financial times reported an 88% decrease in Sotheby’s earnings this year, and Christie’s sales were down by almost a quarter. If lauded institutions are suffering, how imperilled must the individual artist, or independent gallery be, in comparison. A theory for this shift in market sales may be down for the concentration of sales being made at international art fairs instead. Fairs such as Frieze, Art Basel, and other biennales attract a more diverse crowd and embrace boldness from artists old and new. The literal structure of these fairs is crafted to generate sales, and the fact that they become a ‘day out’ for many aids hype around these prestigious events. Perhaps their refreshing nature makes them so successful, and the institutions could take notes from this. Although the UK market had been declining before Brexit, the decision to leave the EU impacted the creative economy too, with UK imports of art dropping by about £1 billion after the governments’ decision. The art scene has become thus less international, potentially more insular, and monolithic. Have the arts just quietened since the political and economic scenario has gotten louder, more pressing, and problematic. The post-material nature of contemporary art has to take a backseat, some may argue, when more imminent matters are at hand. When more people are having to use food banks than before, when getting by is difficult, who gives a damn about artistic greatness. This is me playing devils’ advocate to some degree, I do believe art has a role to play in social matters. It is an issue when art and reality become alienated, but when it can be harnessed to align with current affairs its ability to view them with a sharp, creative, yet critical eye, reveals the brilliance of modern artwork. Think of Wallinger’s ‘State Britain’, or of Banksy’s continuous political mural pieces, which fearlessly question governmental policy in visible spaces, rarely in the gallery context. The legacy and continuum of works such as these show artists have not given up in challenging the status quo. That does not go without saying that it’s crucial not to hold artists to the moral standards of politicians for they are not quite literally changing legislation (in most cases!), as art should also be embraced for its means of pure expression, abstraction, and even frivolity at times. Not all art has to hold some kind of moral consensus or act as some form of intellectual posturing/academic pursuit. Art is often its purest when the artist channels their desires without the aim to form immediate change. Art that says ‘here I am, and take me as you will’, in my eyes, makes us question ourselves in front of it without fear or judgement. And change often organically resolves from these moments of quiet observation, with time and reflection. The artwork forms a bridge between artist and spectator. We are confronted with the worldview of another without conversation or tireless analysis. I think this is the beauty of visual culture, and it still remains in the capital, but as our world ebbs and flows, so do the arts. What 2025 has in store for Londons’ art scene is for time to tell. I cannot wait to marvel at Jenny Saville’s mastery of form at the NPG, carrying the fierce and disruptive energy of the YBAs into the new year. Or the Tate’s Leigh Bowery retrospective champions his flamboyance and significant impact on queer culture and identity which far transcends the art world. Remembering and honouring modern greats who challenge normative gender and identity representations suggest social progress has not entirely plateaued, even if the sales suggest otherwise. After all, the urgency and vitality of any arts scene cannot be quantified by mere numbers.