London Art Fair 2010

In the eccentric art market family, the London Art Fair resentfully assumes the role of the under-achieving older brother. Despite attempts at imitation, he’s never quite as cool as his sibling fair The Zoo or ubiquitous as The Frieze, and at fifteen years their senior, subordination looks set to linger into longevity. Yet, he soldiers on, preferring to go it alone in Islington’s decidedly unglamorous Business Park for the 22nd consecutive year instead of returning to the comfortable lineage of auction houses from which he emerged.

On paper, it’s difficult to detect where its weakness lies; over a hundred commercial galleries are showcased at the event and although visitor numbers are modest in comparison to the Frieze’s 60,000 guests, among the 23,000 people who attend the London Art Fair are some willing to part with up to £120,000 for a Modern work of art. A brief wander through the boxy warren of dealers however, elucidates the major flaw which discredits the Fair in the art world; the spectrum of work ranges from tepid, abstract painting to kitsch, iconic prints, with an overwhelming array of unmemorable, commercially-constructed images in between.

The entrance is wallpapered with contemporary pieces, mainly the latest collections from well-established artists rather than emerging talent. Eight screen-printed skulls from controversial Young British Artist Damien Hirst are presented by the Paul Stolper Gallery, priced at £1,175 each. Surrounding them are the portfolios of Hirst’s Saatchi-sponsored classmates: Gavin Turk, Abigail Lane and Tracey Emin. Through carving celebrity status in the mid-'90s these artists show little commitment to maintaining the standard of art which earned them critical acclaim. Instead they operate like businessmen, satisfying their collectors by providing a mass produced, ill-considered supply to their insatiable demand.

Upstairs the names get bigger as the work gets older and the price tags inflate proportionately. The Modern works of the St. Ives School artists are particularly prevalent but although Peter Lanyon, Ben Nicholson and Barbara Hepworth hold more artistic integrity than their successors, the works on sale are still disappointing. Most pieces are preparatory or unfinished, dressed up in thick rimmed frames and paraded as complete as if to disguise the Modern as an inexhaustible bank of images when this is clearly not the case.

The Fair’s conclusion ‘Art Projects’ presents a glimmer of revolution through a shift in attention towards contemporary photography. The photograph assimilates well into proceedings, satisfying the economic premise which the fair operates upon through its easy and fast production whilst strategically filling the void left by Photo-London’s closure a few years ago. The Foley Gallery’s collection of Thomas Allen’s images of close up, cut-out figures from pulp-fiction comics are some of the most engaging pieces on offer and their location next to the Whitechapel Gallery puts them in the company of equally strong images from the artists Sophie Calle, Albert Oehlen and Turner-nominee Lucy Skaer.

It was a short-sighted decision to relegate the finest aspects of the Fair from the main arena. Virtually out of sight, the Fair discredits the one asset which could elevate it to the success and status established by its peers. Until the hierarchy of galleries currently imposed by the fair is over-turned, the London Art Fair faces a continued life of anonymity.