A Load Of Bull:Lee Bul @ Thaddeus Ropac.

Is Lee Bul's work a load of bull?

No

Is Lee Bul's work particularly interesting?

Also - no.

The first thing you see when you enter the South Korean artist's current exhibition at Thaddeus Ropac in Mayfair is a quote from the artist herself:- "every conception of utopia, historically, harbours the contradictory seeds of its own disintegration. It speaks of its own impossibility".

That's an easy enough concept to get one's head around - and there's probably some truth in too. But I'm really not sure how that relates to the wishy-washy abstract artworks Bul has made and are hanging on the gallery walls (none of which had titles available).

I know how it's SUPPOSED to relate. Because the gallery has told me. Bul's Perdu series (of which these are part of) are, apparently, representations of the fallacies of utopian visions. "Anthropomorphic forms composed of organic and artificial elements" and "fluid creatures" that "trouble the human fascination with technological engineering as a means to achieve social perfection".

It's even claimed that the art can be "read in the context of the ongoing conflict between North and South Korea". Really? You're fucking kidding me. I read on. It seems the artist has used mother of pearl in the creation of these works and that mother of pearl is produced by some molluscs to heal their own wounds.

Which is certainly the most interesting thing I learned while visiting this exhibition. Lee Bul has made some abstract artworks, some of them are pretty - some of them aren't. They don't represent the fallacies of utopian visions, they don't trouble the human fascination with technological engineering as a means to achieve social perfection, and they certainly can't be read in the context of the ongoing conflict between North and South Korea.

Not unless you are Lee Bul and you have decided, in your own mind, that they can. Which brings us to the heart of the problem with this type of art. A not uncommon problem with contemporary art. It's completely and utterly self-indulgent and seems to have been made for no other reason than to make Bul, and the gallery, money. This is commerce more than it is art and, as commerce tends to, it's soulless.