Musea Art Contest 4/29/04
TomHendricks474
our last contest question of:
Musea has called for the end of modern
art. See Musea site for the 1/08/02 event that
used conceptual art to end the abuses of
conceptual art and signaled the end of
modern art - the salon art of our day.
<A
HREF="http://literaryrevolution.com/essays/essays.tom.B.htm">http://litera
ryrevolution.com/essays/essays.tom.B.htm</A>
But art revolution is nothing new
A painters group manifesto, written
in 1922 repudiated "so called easel art"
as "aristocratic." They said
"We hail the monumental expression of art
because such art is public property."
They painted art for the masses,
on the walls of public buildings.
Name the country these artists came from
and worked in.
Was MEXICO - remember all the great muralists?
"The Manifesto of the Sundicate of Technical
Workers, Painters, and Sculptors"
Our elligible winner was
Kevin from Dallas.
Congratulations.
It seems the rest of you couldn't paint
yourselves out of that corner.
I don't
dumb down,
so please
wise up.
Now on to a new Q.:
Win a copy of my Inwood CD if you
are the first to e-mail me at
tomhend...@cs.com
with the correct answer
to this art question:
Here's a UFO question:
The great American artist and naturalist
John James Audobon (Birthday April 26 (2 days
ago) 1785 -1851; once witnessed something
that took 3 days to pass overhead.
Name that UFO or (O's)
(Exactness counts)
[Everyone can play but only those from
the US that have not won a
Musea contest before, can win the prize.
Also, help my memory and be sure to
tell me if you have won before. Put a
bunch of XXX by the answer, and I'll know
you're inelligible.]
Good luck,
Also you can get the CD FREE at any
Landmark Theater near you if they aren't out.
www.landmarktheatres.com Be sure to
request the one with me on it
Tom Hendricks, Musea zine ed.
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com"
Musea GUARANTEES every musician, painter, writer, etc.
a REVIEW - a tough review - a fair review.
Contact me for our policy. Samples:
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com/reviews1.html
Rusty Shackleford
>art.
I read about Martin Creed and I didn't think his work was that bad.
Not all of his work is as minimal or difficult to understand as you
make it seem. I thought his piece "half the air in a room" was quite
good.
And why are you calling for an end to modern art when it seems like
your beef is with conceptual art? In the article you say you even say
you've done modern painting?
-rusty
TomHendricks474
Not all of his work is as minimal or difficult to understand as you
make it seem. I thought his piece "half the air in a room" was quite
good.
And why are you calling for an end to modern art when it seems like
your beef is with conceptual art? In the article you say you even say
you've done modern painting?
-rusty
I think modern art has become the salon art of our
day. It seems to me that when a painter has to
explain his work - it isn't communicating - its
failed. Why show it to others if it is so private
no one gets it.
Modern art has become sterile, out of touch, jejune,
and ridiculous. I think galleries , painters, and patrons are all Emperors with
no clothes.
Modern art hasn't been modern since before WW 2 for the most part (excluding
the 40's NYC school with
Europeans fleeing the 2nd war).
We've carried the artist as self involved, non
communicator, no technique , all emotion or
flare - thing too far.
It's as phony as the whale sized check Madonna handed
out. It's absurd with none of the charm or intellect or
humor of the da-da ists.
I do all kinds of art - but the best of it communicates
directly -whether its an abstract, portrait, still life,
landscape, collage, clothes design, architecture, or my own conceptual art.
I encourage you to read my review of a recent
ART in AMERICA issue for more on my website.
Nope in my opinion modern art ended on that
day 1/08/02 with that declaration.
I used conceptual art to attack the abuses of
conceptual art and the sterility and junk
modern art has mostly become.
Comment?
Rusty Shackleford
always happens in every field. I feel the same way as you about some
work, but dismissing modern art in general as a joke doesn't make any
sense!
Not all modern art needs to be explained to be appreciated. Granted,
in some cases it helps to have a good grasp of modern art history. For
example, Modrian and Pollock are easier to understand in the context
of their earlier work that is not seen as often. But there's a ton of
great work out there that anybody can understand.
Have you seen Art 21? Did you see the Whitney Biennial this year? I
don't see how you could possibly dismiss all of that work as
pointless. There's so much wonderful stuff out there.
-paul
TomHendricks474
always happens in every field. I feel the same way as you about some
work, but dismissing modern art in general as a joke doesn't make any
sense!
Th
Oh I think it does. The Impressionists had to do the
same thing. The very basis that modern art is built on is
opposing the abuses and academic mess art had become
before the Impressionists came along. And they faced the same resistance as I
see in these posts.
Same difference now.
Not all modern art needs to be explained to be appreciated. Granted,
in some cases it helps to have a good grasp of modern art history. For
example, Modrian and Pollock are easier to understand in the context
of their earlier work that is not seen as often. But there's a ton of
great work out there that anybody can understand.
TH
There are exceptions for sure - but almost all of
the best of modern art (and most of it is no good)
are technically good work based on previous art
innovations - even the best abstract painter today,
is no more than a clone of what the pioneer action painters did. Surely you
don't think they should get the same respect as those that invented the form?
Or the work of DuChamp (perhaps one of the most
intellectually innovative artists) Yet who among these
moderns can hold a candle to his work done almost a century ago?
TH
Have you read why a conceptual art moment on
1/08/02 ended the abuses of modern art?
Please read it. It's posted a few places, such as
http://literaryrevolution.com/essays/essays.tom.B.htm
Have you seen Art 21? Did you see the Whitney Biennial this year? I
don't see how you could possibly dismiss all of that work as
pointless. There's so much wonderful stuff out there.
TH
No I didn't. But -If it supports conceptual art, more clone abstraction,
bad video art, and other clones of better work (dada
did a lot of this better in the 20's) then most of it is just
derivative and a waste of time and canvas, and materials.
I'm also opposed to gallery system of art and art selling,
I'm for the idea of mass market reproducing canvas copies and having major
exhibits of the copies, for: ending the stranglehold of the rich collectors and
patrons of art,
for: dumping gov. grants for the arts and replacing them with art centers that
can be used for any purpose the community wishes to, for painting and drawing
as part of education curiculums, and many many more changes.
And if you'll be honest I think you'll find that
very little mod art communicates or has the ability to touch
the lives of anyone other than a few 'experts'.
Art should be more than a joke without a punch line.
It should have value. Modern art ended in the
1/08/02 event - perhaps the most important conceptual art moment in recent art
history, brought conceptual
art down.
- Tom
-paul
>>
Rusty Shackleford
>is no more than a clone of what the pioneer action painters did. Surely you
>don't think they should get the same respect as those that invented the form?
I agree with you, but I haven't seen that much recent abstract
painting at shows I've been to???
>Or the work of DuChamp (perhaps one of the most
>intellectually innovative artists) Yet who among these
>moderns can hold a candle to his work done almost a century ago?
When you say modern, I guess you mean current or recent. I'm not
going to try comparing recent artist to someone in century old
historical context. But I suspect that if we were around in 1910ish
instead and this dude showed up with a bicycle wheel on a stool, you
might have called for your "End To Modern Art" a lot earlier!
>Have you read why a conceptual art moment on
>1/08/02 ended the abuses of modern art?
Yes that is what I was originally responding to. So if "modern art"
should end, then what now?
>(Whitney Biennial/Art:21)
>No I didn't.
Well so far you've given one specific example of a current artist you
don't like. I'm really surpsied you haven't watched Art:21 (you can
rent them at Premier Video). And maybe making it to NYC for the
Biennial isn't feasible, but you do write an art site/zine, and that's
the big show for new and upcoming artists. A friend of mine, Cory
Arcangel even made it in this year! I'm going to submit my work next
year.
http://www.beigerecords.com/cory/21c/21c.html
It seems like you saw some stuff you didn't like and just decided
current art sucks. Doesn't sound like you're even giving it much of a
chance anymore.
There are new art forms emerging. Electronic art, net art, video game
art, interactive art. I think light/space art still has a lot of
potential for new development. New evolved forms of art related to
comics (not just Lichtenstien ripoffs). And it seems that a lot of art
lately is about the process of making the art, almost as much as it is
about the final product itself.
-rusty
TomHendricks474
>No I didn't.
Well so far you've given one specific example of a current artist you
don't like. I'm really surpsied you haven't watched Art:21 (you can
rent them at Premier Video). And maybe making it to NYC for the
Biennial isn't feasible, but you do write an art site/zine, and that's
the big show for new and upcoming artists. A friend of mine, Cory
Arcangel even made it in this year! I'm going to submit my work next
year.
TH
I think the Biennial is the big show for clone art
If I went there I would just oppose everything they're
doing as silly and inconsequential and unfair to talented
artists who have something to say.
http://www.beigerecords.com/cory/21c/21c.html
It seems like you saw some stuff you didn't like and just decided
current art sucks. Doesn't sound like you're even giving it much of a
chance anymore.
TH
After 40 years of looking at the stuff, I'm not impressed.
You shouldn't be either - specially if you have a strong
art history course.
There are new art forms emerging. Electronic art, net art, video game
art, interactive art. I think light/space art still has a lot of
potential for new development. New evolved forms of art related to
comics (not just Lichtenstien ripoffs). And it seems that a lot of art
lately is about the process of making the art, almost as much as it is
about the final product itself.
Yikes, and all that is pretty scary. Its dancing around
what is sincere , meaninful, and passionate for novelty.
Too often video is bad film and bad painting, and bad acting - too often
one feels he's being talked into art as something with
value; much like the tailors talked the emperor into wearing no clothes.
The abuses of this silly art have gotten out of hand.
What should replace it? Art that isn't jokey. Art that
has some value. Renaissance painters were treated as rock stars because they
were valued by all - not just
some inside galleries, and juries of elites.
No painting today has much ability to communicate
much of anything and really is only valued by those
that have been trained to 'get it." It seldom has
substance - and even as lite entertainment it is
too often jokes with no punchline that has been done
so much better by those originating dada, surrealism,
zen!
Art should be replaced by - not a more narrow
one-trick-pony style - where the artist does his
bit over and over, but I think art should value those
artists that:
paint, and draw, and sculpt, all the mediums and
styles, realism, impressionist, abstraction, design,
and paint landscapes, stilllifes, portraits,
and isn't afraid to illustrate books, design clothes, or
chairs, or buildings, or do collage or connect up with
not only contemporary artists, but art history and that which has gone before.
There is a snideness and shallow arrogance about it too.
There is much more on my website, so I'll let it go at that.
-rusty
Rusty Shackleford
of that in your own work, and your suggestion of where art should go
is basically back to older styles!? But you dismiss new media art
without even bothering to look at it or give it a chance?
If you really think you can debunk current art, this is not the way to
go about it. You have to study it carefully, listen carefully to what
others say about it, and write about it in a well thought out manner.
Become thoroughly educated about the most current art, and write in
specific response to critics who praise it. Glancing at something and
ranting about how it obviously sucks isn't going to convince anybody.
Nor is much of anything posted on dfw usenet. ;o)
Fact is, when I see some of these new kinds of work, it just clicks
for me. It's like a light goes on and I feel a sense of
exhilleration. Sometimes I just KNOW when I see a compelling work of
art. It's beyond logical thought and discussions of art history.
You make the assumption that if you don't get it, then nobody gets it
and they're just being herded through the galleries like cattle. But
I'm telling you, I get some of this stuff! It makes me feel
something!!
Good luck with your zine/posts/reviews, and be more positive please!
There IS good art/music/film/etc out there.
-rusty
TomHendricks474
of that in your own work, and your suggestion of where art should go
is basically back to older styles!?
TH
No its an amalgamation of all of them plus some new.
But you dismiss new media art
without even bothering to look at it or give it a chance?
TH
It is bad film for the most part, or bad painting. Or bad both. Sometimes
(rarely) it is something novel, but rarely.
If you really think you can debunk current art, this is not the way to
go about it. You have to study it carefully, listen carefully to what
others say about it, and write about it in a well thought out manner.
Been there and done that for over 10 years as editor of Musea and an artist
studying art for over 40 years.
Become thoroughly educated about the most current art, and write in
specific response to critics who praise it.
TH
I am one of those critics and I don't praise it. See my review of a recent
issue of Art in America.
I think you are opposed to critics who don't bolster up this nonsense.
Glancing at something and
ranting about how it obviously sucks isn't going to convince anybody.
TH
Not those with minds shut.
But more and more see modern art for what it is.
It now is the provincial art - safe and established.
I'm for taking chances not repeating ad naseum.
That too is what the new art is about. And it's fun too.
Being inconsequential is one thing, being over the top dull is another - Modern
art now does both.
Nor is much of anything posted on dfw usenet. ;o)
Fact is, when I see some of these new kinds of work, it just clicks
for me. It's like a light goes on and I feel a sense of
exhilleration. Sometimes I just KNOW when I see a compelling work of
art. It's beyond logical thought and discussions of art history.
TH
The good stuff is always like that. I couldn't agree more.
You make the assumption that if you don't get it, then nobody gets it
and they're just being herded through the galleries like cattle. But
I'm telling you, I get some of this stuff! It makes me feel
something!!
TH
Some in the court saw the emperor's clothes too.
Look no one supports education in the arts more than I - see the website.
But the more you know the more you see this has degenerated from great heights
100 years ago.
And one more thing about other crtitics - note in my review of Art in America,
how bad the modern art critic is. He has lost his insight and unbiasedness too.
Good luck with your zine/posts/reviews, and be more positive please!
There IS good art/music/film/etc out there.
-rusty
>>
Tom Hendricks, Musea zine ed.
TomHendricks474
There IS good art/music/film/etc out there.
-rusty >>
Thanks, and one more point.
You must remember how unfair this modern art is to real artists.
There are these fluff artists getting all the respect that is not due them, and
great artists who are not clones, that are not getting their due.
My point is not to be negative. But to be fair. And modern art critics
(I point Janet Kutner from the Dallas Morning News as being terribly unfair in
this regard) have been so unfair (very biased)
that the first art critic that doesn't buy into this (me or others like me)
may at first seem upsetting.
I assure you that I am very positive for great art - and there is much out
there - and none of it is under the modern art banner.
In the end it is about justice and fairness and accuracy. Fluff should be
treated as fluff and great art should be acknowledged IMO.
I can't but think we agree on that too.