INTERVIEW: JOHN A WALKER ON CHARLES SAATCHI

Robert Orman: The paperback Supercollector: A

Critique of Charles Saatchi has just been published

in a fourth edition. How did it all begin?

JW: First, I would like to say something about the

limits of interviews in general. Readers should be

sceptical of them - even this one - because the

interviewee may have a poor or selective memory and

can lie or duck awkward questions. He or she may

also lack insight into their own actions and

motives. These are some of the reasons why I and my

co-author Rita Hatton were not unduly bothered by

the fact that we never obtained an interview with

Saatchi. At the outset of his art collecting habit

he was very reluctant to grant interviews on the

record.

Rita was a student of mine when I lectured in

art and design history at Middlesex University. She

wrote a dissertation on Saatchi, art and

advertising, which struck me as a fascinating

subject worthy of expansion and so we collaborated

on a book. For the title we borrowed the term

‘supercollector’ from an American art critic.

RO: It was first published in 2000 by … ellipsis of

London in a small paperback format?

JW: Yes. We decided to go with … ellipsis because

of the distinctive and smart design of their

compact books and because they had offices in

Hoxton Square near fashionable art galleries.

Unfortunately, after about a year the press

overreached itself and went bankrupt; consequently,

we received no advance and no royalties from the

first edition. Chrysalis Books/Batsford books took

over some of … ellipsis’s titles but they would not

pay us the back royalties owed to us.

RO: Was that why you and Rita decided to publish

the next edition yourselves?

JW: Yes - we employed print-on-demand type

companies for the next two editions but this time

there were problems with quality - one updated

chapter in the third edition was printed with typos

despite our best efforts. So for the fourth edition

we took even more control over the design and

printing of the book. It is now a much more

substantial and better produced volume.

RO: How was the first edition received?

JW: It was reviewed by a range of magazines and

most reviews were favourable. One described it as

‘small and malignant … slots into the pocket as

snugly as a gunslinger’s Bible’. Another declared

‘simultaneously entertaining and relentless in its

structure … good value for money’. More recently

the American art critic Donald Kuspit praised the

book as follows:‘… an absolutely brilliant piece of

investigative reporting and documentation of the

Saatchis from the very beginning and with artist’s

comments about what it is like dealing with them;

just well researched like you’ve never imagined …

The book on Saatchi is just incredible. Saatchi got

where he is through advertising. He invented

Margaret Thatcher. Walker [and Hatton] documents

this.’

One thing I regret about the reviews is that no one

gave credit for the huge task of picture research

involved or commented on the humour and wit in the

text. The contemporary art scene is a mixture of

tragedy and farce. Much of it is highly comical.

RO: Surely, Saacthi’s fans and supporters were not

happy with the book?

JW: That’s right. Some negative assessments were

published and just before the first edition

appeared Saatchi got wind of it and wanted to know

who we had talked to. I think he was worried that

some friends might have ‘betrayed’ him. However, we

responded with a note explaining that our book was

not a biography, and was not concerned with the

details of his private life. That it was an

academic and theoretical analysis based on the

massive quantity of material (books, press reports,

etc.) in the public domain about his career in

advertising and his art collecting activities. Plus

of course our own visits to his exhibitions and our

own assessments of the artists whose works he

bought and sold.

RO: The book was not therefore ‘authorized’ by its

subject and you openly admit it is ‘a hostile

critique written from an anti-capitalist

standpoint’.

JW: Saatchi commissions many tame critics to write

for his gallery’s publications. We preferred

independence so that we could undertake a more

objective critique. We also think authors should be

honest and upfront about their political

convictions - which in our case are socialist - so

that readers are under no illusions on that score.

In fact, readers will not understand our objections

to Saatchi’s influence in the art world without

first comprehending our political objections to

capitalism, consumerism, advertising and the

British right-wing Party - the Tories - which the

Saatchi brothers helped.

RO: Would you describe the text as Marxist?

JW Marx has been a powerful intellectual influence

but I would also like to point out that our ideas

have also been influenced by other thinkers such

Bourdieu, Baudrillard, Veblen and a French

sociologist who studied the art market called

Raymonde Moulin.

RO: Didn’t one supporter of Saatchi writing in the

Guardian accuse you of anti-Semitism?

JW: Yes, the rather caricatured portrait reproduced

on the cover of the first edition was criticised on

those grounds. But that was an own goal because the

image had previously appeared in the Guardian!

I must say I deeply resent the charge of anti-

Semitism. What happened to the Jews during the

Holocaust has haunted me since childhood. I admire

Jews such as Arendt, Marx and Freud and have

written favourably about Jewish artists such as

Gustav Metzger, Bette Spektorov and Ron Kitaj.

Since Saatchi was born in Iraq, one might as well

accuse us of anti-Iraqism. Just because a person is

Jewish and rich does not mean they can expect to be

exempt from analysis and criticism. It’s like the

situation of Israel - critics of that nation’s

treatment of the Palestinians are routinely accused

of being anti-Semitic.

RO: How would you describe your own class origins?

Have they influenced your attitudes to Saatchi?

JW: Certainly. I was raised in a working-class

family in a provincial town but obviously after

receiving a grammar school and university

education, and obtaining work in libraries and art

schools, I joined the ranks of the lower middle-

class. For many years I taught part-time and had to

sign on the dole during the summer months. I now

live on the state pension and a small teacher’s

pension. Any income from publishing and painting

gets ploughed back into more production.

JO: Does this make you resent the wealth and

philanthropy of Saatchi and other rich collectors?

JW: Yes. First, I think the divisions between rich

and poor in Britain and America are far too wide

and that a fairer distribution should be made by

the State. Second, if you are poor it is

humiliating to receive handouts from the rich, the

robber barons of society whose wealth is usually

derived from the exploitation of their employees.

We have a quote from Baudrillard about the nature

of gifts: ‘power belongs to the one who can give

and cannot be repaid.’ I believe that philanthropy

is an alibi designed to prevent criticism of the

way our society is organized. As a painter and art

critic myself, I do resent and envy the power

Saatchi exercises in the field of art because of

his money. As the American artist Jenny Holzer put

it ‘money creates taste’.

RO: I take it this is why in places the book

discusses alternatives?

JW: That’s right, such possibilities as community

art. And I would prefer more support for the arts

to come from the public rather than the private

sector because the former is more democratic in

character. Personally, I am deeply indebted for my

culture to public libraries, publicly funded art

galleries/museums, schools and universities, and

such institutions as the ICA and the BBC.

RO: So, do you think the book can have any social

or political impact?

JW: Given the discrepancies in wealth and power

between Rita and I and Saatchi and his many

employees, I doubt our book - with its tiny print

run - can or will have much of an impact or result

in any social changes. Nevertheless, we feel it has

a use-value especially for art students and young

artists who do not understand how the art system

functions. We suspect it is also used by newspaper

journalists who write profiles of Saatchi. Perhaps

its existence best serves as a reminder that not

everyone agrees that art and artists should be the

playthings of the rich; that not everyone accepts

it is their right to control, exploit and rule the

world.

-----------------------------------------

Supercollector is published by the Institute of

Artology for £25 and can be ordered via

orders@turnaround-uk.com