Anecdotes of Modern Art XXII
elag
In hardware stores on Canal street he found that he could buy, at a
discount, cans of paint whose labels had come off, so that there was no
way of knowing what color he was going to use until he got a can home
and pried off the lid.
Dale Houstman
Leroy Niemann
After sex with a casual stranger, he often found aphids in his mustache;
one night (having bagged a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader in a telephone booth)
he attended to his usual toilette only to find a dachshund and a blowfly
waltzing together on a slick parquet floor. Needless to say, the big payoff
for his painting of the Celtics took the edge off this hallucination, and he
continued on quite unaware that the couple had named him in a palimony
case. All night the aphids yell at him and try to present a subpoena, but we
know how hopeless that is.
Perceptor
> but we
> know how hopeless that is.
That is untill the Lady Bugs break down the door to get at the Aphids.
Donner, Party of 50 !
dw-m
Donner"s wily Matr'd
elag
xepera wrote:
> de Kooning did a series of drawings with his eyes closed (what a ham)
elag
last 2 years of paintings to anything he produced in the 30 previous
years. They are more about paint and painting... the feel of it gliding
over canvas and under brush... than his earlier work. He experimented
quite a bit w/ odd mixtures of pigment and emulsion, and in his last
works he seems to have gotten the mixture just right. These really are
"painter's paintings" which are not necessarily as appealing to the
average museum-goer. They speak to me though... of the simple joy of
color and canvas and paint.
Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> xepera wrote:
>
> > >de Kooning did a series of drawings with his eyes closed (what a ham)
> >
> > I saw his final paintings, those huge ones he did when he had
> > Alzheimers. I am certain that quite a few people were overcome by his
> > heroism, but I tell you: those are BAD paintings. They are larger than
> > normal but somehow emptier: he expanded in two awful directions.
>
> DMH
Dale Houstman
Brandon J. Freels
called it something like "erased de Kooning"?
---BJF
elag
> Wasn't it Robert Rouchenberg who erased one of de Kooning's drawings, and
> called it something like "erased de Kooning"?
Yes:
"Perhaps Rauschenberg's most famous statement of
opposition to Abstract Expressionist pictorial practice is his
Erased de Kooning (1953). For this composition,
Rauschenberg requested a drawing to erase that he
would then exhibit as his own work. De Kooning reportedly
picked a complex, well-worked drawing to make the task
as difficult as possible. None the less, Rauschenberg
succeeded in erasing it and the critics went wild. But it is
very much to the point that this bold statement of
generational succession and critique should be couched,
not in the form of a manifesto or some similar positive
statement of identity, but rather in the form of an erasure,
an absence. Again, as in the White Paintings, it is as if
Rauschenberg's assertion of self could only be presented
as the negation of macho Abstract Expressionist identity,
not as an alternative to co-equal form."
from:
http://www.dnai.com/~harrison/archive/show4/forum/katz/katz_text.html
Nikolaus Maack
elag (el...@concentric.net) writes:
> But it is
> very much to the point that this bold statement of
> generational succession and critique should be couched,
> not in the form of a manifesto or some similar positive
> statement of identity, but rather in the form of an erasure,
> an absence. Again, as in the White Paintings, it is as if
> Rauschenberg's assertion of self could only be presented
> as the negation of macho Abstract Expressionist identity,
> not as an alternative to co-equal form."
I find the story of erasing a de Kooning interesting, but the explanation
of it rather painful. Does anyone else ever get the impression that an
artist can do any dumb ass thing, and a critic somewhere will find a
"valid explanation" for it? All the critic does is draw attention to the
work, pointing at it and saying, "Good!" or "Bad!" and then world believes
it.
"Well, it must be good," sayeth the art world, "because the critic said
so. You know, I think I see it too now. Yes. Masterful."
Modern art seems to be mostly about convincing other people that the
random madness that you do, whatever it is, has some intricate and
complicated meaning. In other words, you have to convince the world that
your work is in fact art. Once they believe that, you are a success.
I wonder how many artists there are right now who believe they are
complete frauds, while the art world is convinced they are geniuses? And
which of them is right?
Nik
--
"Who's going to build my death-ray?"
--MONO PUFF
Perceptor
> provoking threads I have read in this NG in a long time.
I wish to say thank you to all who contributed to this.
don wheeler-mings
Perceptor
wait. I just got new messages and may have to reevaluate.
elag
> I find the story of erasing a de Kooning interesting, but the explanation
> of it rather painful. Does anyone else ever get the impression that an
> artist can do any dumb ass thing, and a critic somewhere will find a
> "valid explanation" for it? All the critic does is draw attention to the
> work, pointing at it and saying, "Good!" or "Bad!" and then world believes
> it. "Well, it must be good," sayeth the art world, "because the critic said
> so. You know, I think I see it too now. Yes. Masterful."
e: This point is, of course, a valid one. In many cases it is politics
which decides who makes it in the art world. Once you've been
established by critics/dealers/patrons your art will sell... at least
for awhile. But none of the people in the art world exist in a vacuum.
Artists are always involved in a dialogue with art history. They are at
odds with, or carried along by the current/past trends. Basically, an
artist has two choices: look to the past, or look to the future.
Duchamps "L.H.O.O.Q." (Mona Lisa w/ moustache), for example, is a notice
that he is rejecting the classical definition of art. "Erased de
Kooning" performs a similar function for Rauschenberg's time; rejecting
the new academy of Abstract Expressionism and setting the stage for the
next stage of modernism.
> Modern art seems to be mostly about convincing other people that the
> random madness that you do, whatever it is, has some intricate and
> complicated meaning. In other words, you have to convince the world that
> your work is in fact art. Once they believe that, you are a success.
e: Duchamp's "Fountain" (urinal) injected into the Art-world the
concept that - anything an artist does is art - that, in fact, the
Concept is as beautiful and important as the Image... that an
intellectual exercise can be a work of art... that art is not
necessarily VISCERAL. Accept it, or reject it... the idea is there.
I look at art as a kind of story or serial that I follow. Some
episodes are boring, some episodes drone in the background while I cook
dinner, some episodes I skip, some episodes I missed. As a whole,
however, the sweeping drama and humor and excitement keep me interested.
I'm as addicted to this ART-serial as any Soap-watching-hausfrau, but
far more critical of it. Even the BAD episodes give me something to
think about... and I can always have a friendly argument w/ those who
liked what I hated. Some people will always insist that the old
episodes were best and the whole series went down hill... but it depends
on where you came in... and if you're up on the inside jokes.
Personally, I'm going to hang around for the finale... there should be
another one coming up next week...
> I wonder how many artists there are right now who believe they are
> complete frauds, while the art world is convinced they are geniuses?
e: I wouldn't be surprised if this were true... but it doesn't matter
that much... either you like the stuff... or not. Some people enjoy Tom
Cruise's acting (not me BTW)... should they feel cheated by the news
that he is NOT Jerry Maguire ( copyright: TriStar Pictures 1996). The
artist fulfils a similar role... he produces something... the audience
reacts... with or w/o the critics cheers/jeers ringing in their ears.
And which of them is right?
e: as you've said yourself... all points of view are equally
true/false... so it shouldn't matter to you. As far as I'm concerned,
I'll make my decisions on a work by work basis... that basis resting on
a foundation of art history (& soc.cultural history). I ENJOY this game.
Dale Houstman
Nothing too brilliant here, but I have always found Rauschenberg's erasure of
De Kooning vastly interesting, and quite in line with all sorts of vectors in art:
after Malevich's "White Square on White Canvas" what is there to do with
retinal art (as Duchamp would have it)? I think there is a "dead ending" of the
possibilities in modern painting (in the arts in general), but these feelings of
"it's all been done" have occurred before. Rauschenberg's statement is so simple
and yet has prompted so much discussion ("vandalism" "idiocy" "disrespect"
"minimalism") that it must have worth even if only at that level. Duchamp's
Mona Lisa makeover is funnier of course, but Duchamp was always hilarious
in his detached manner. But it's much the same "clear out Daddy, Junior wants some
room" attitude. Very punk before punk. And I've seen the erasure; there's just
enough
left, just enuogh texture, to make it interesting as an object, once (of course)
it is
contextualized for you by the Museum. But that's all part of the experience
anyway.
DMH
Kang
Nikolaus Maack did not write in message <753aum$9...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
>
>I wonder how many priests there are right now who believe they are
>complete frauds, while the church is convinced they are geniuses? And
>which of them is right?
> Nik
Just came to me that way. Certainly NOT a troll (I hope.) I hate my brain.
Talysman
alt.surrealism:
:)> I find the story of erasing a de Kooning interesting, but the explanation
:)> of it rather painful. Does anyone else ever get the impression that an
:)> artist can do any dumb ass thing, and a critic somewhere will find a
:)> "valid explanation" for it?
or the artist... yes, sometimes I think certain artists should
just be taken out and shot and/or viciously ignored, because
so much of their "art" is really some kind of pose.
the de Kooning story reminded me of an almost identical situation
in Sacramento. a noise artist I know -- a good guy and good artist,
but he too often stoops to this kind of nonsense -- once decided
to protest the crassly commercial Sammies (Sacramento Area Music
Awards) by standing outside the bar where the Sammie winners were
performing and recording the sounds. one week later, he returned
to the exact same spot and erased the tape, then wrote to one of
the alternative papers about it.
I thought this was stupid.
although I've seen/heard some "conceptual" pieces I thought were
pretty good, conceptual art in general is just crap. you have
to convey your concept with real talent or at least raw emotion.
best conceptual stuff I've seen was done with a sense of humor
and a good dose of self-deprecation; the bad conceptual art I've
seen, without exception, conveys the primary message of "look at
me! I am cooler than thou!"
elag <el...@concentric.net> writes in
alt.surrealism:
:) I look at art as a kind of story or serial that I follow. Some
:)episodes are boring, some episodes drone in the background while I cook
:)dinner, some episodes I skip, some episodes I missed. [... ]
good way of looking at it. I've sometimes managed to control my
rage at self-righteous poseur art by thinking in terms of the
*real* art being the art-game people play in the gallery. of course,
last time I mentioned this viewpoint here in alt.surrealism, I got
chewed out by someone who like paintings of squares.
--
our brains flog each other in a maritime hell.
His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
Nikolaus Maack
Talysman (taly...@softhome.net) writes:
> or the artist... yes, sometimes I think certain artists should
> just be taken out and shot and/or viciously ignored, because
> so much of their "art" is really some kind of pose.
This reminds me of some work I saw at the National Art Gallery. Someone
(I forget who) had taken some classic photographs of Freud and his gang,
and covered them in semi-transparent gauze and hung them up on the walls.
Looking at them... Well, they did absolutely nothing for me. I couldn't
figure out what the hell the artist was doing here.
Which doesn't necessarily make the work crap. Maybe someone else will
look at it and get it. I just couldn't get it at that moment in time.
On the wall was an explanation. (That, I think, is a bad sign. If an
artwork has to come with an elaborate explanation, I am immediately
suspicious.) The note read that this was a feminist statement about Freud
going around defining women as hysterics. This covering of Freud in gauze
was feminist revenge.
Huh. Right.
I think it would have been much more impressive to take a photograph of
Freud, and paint it so that he's a 1950s housewife standing on a chair,
lifting up his skirts, as a tiny nasty mouse scurries about below. the
word HYSTERIA should be above the picture frame in bright red neon
letters.
But maybe I'm more of a showman than an artist.
> good way of looking at it. I've sometimes managed to control my
> rage at self-righteous poseur art by thinking in terms of the
> *real* art being the art-game people play in the gallery. of course,
> last time I mentioned this viewpoint here in alt.surrealism, I got
> chewed out by someone who like paintings of squares.
I don't usually like paintings of squares. I went to the Montreal museum
of modern art (is that what it's called?) and saw some artist's work that
depressed the hell out of me. (Please note: I tend to forget artists
names, and remember their art. I think this is the proper way to live,
but you people do what you want.) Each canvas, for the most part, was
divided diagonally, reducing the canvas to two contrasting colours. There
were at least two dozen of these works.
People were walking about in that art gallery walk. Careful steps,
stopping to stare at each piece for a long time, nodding wisely to
themselves, occasionally making comments to their friends. I ran through
the room, looking for something worth looking at.
My girlfriend of the time LOVED the work. She has a degree in fine arts.
Maybe that's what it takes; I don't know. (She also likes Soutine so
she's not all bad. Pictures of rotting meat make me happy.) She couldn't
explain to me why a canvas of two colours is exciting.
Then again, I love Voice of Fire, which is three big coloured stripes. It
is a monument of paint. Blue, red, blue. And big. And somehow impressive.
So uh, yeah.
Nik
--
"It could be a total disaster, but it could also be the next
best thing to killing and eating a real angel."
--Bill Cleere