Is most Installation Art just Still Life?
Luc Erftemeijer
Many young artists working on Installation Art distance themselves from the
'lower' genres like Still Life. They learn to intellectualize their work to
differentiate it from former art forms. But how far from previous genres is
Installation really? Don't people just put objects in a room similarly to
what artists painted in the 17th century? Take Damien Hirst's formaldehyde
animals; Sarah Lucas' 'Two fried eggs and a Kebab' or her 'Au Naturel';
Michael Landy's 'Costermonger's Stall' or Mona Hatoum's 'Deep throat'.
Compare that with Joachim Beuckelaer's 'Slaughtered Pig'; Floris van Dijck's
'Laid Table'; Jan Breughel's 'Bouquet' or Rene Magritte's 'Portrait'. Do
people just 'talk' it to a higher level, higher than it really is?
please react!
Louis
BK
I think that installation art is conceptual "Sculpture in the Round" versus the
decorative still lifes of the past, which were created for a "niche" market--the
bourgeois household.
Luc Erftemeijer wrote:
--
PEACE
BK-BORG (version 2.01)
===================================================================================
"Information is an important part of a balanced diet."
===================================================================================
http://home.earthlink.net/~bjking/
===================================================================================
ICQ # 4557591
===================================================================================
James Whitehead
<ham...@clara.co.uk> writes
>Is most Installation Art just Still Life?
>
>Many young artists working on Installation Art distance themselves from the
>'lower' genres like Still Life. They learn to intellectualize their work to
>differentiate it from former art forms. But how far from previous genres is
>Installation really? Don't people just put objects in a room similarly to
>what artists painted in the 17th century? Take Damien Hirst's formaldehyde
>animals; Sarah Lucas' 'Two fried eggs and a Kebab' or her 'Au Naturel';
>Michael Landy's 'Costermonger's Stall' or Mona Hatoum's 'Deep throat'.
>Compare that with Joachim Beuckelaer's 'Slaughtered Pig'; Floris van Dijck's
>'Laid Table'; Jan Breughel's 'Bouquet' or Rene Magritte's 'Portrait'. Do
>people just 'talk' it to a higher level, higher than it really is?
>
>
>please react!
>
>Louis
for me was a product of late 60s modernism where the actual space in
which the work was exhibited becomes an essential part of the work-
leading to the 'empty gallery' but typified by scatter pieces- Flanagan
and Carl Andre (1967) and the lead works of Serra - or perhaps
wall drawings of Le Witt. These works could not be separated from the
exhibition space- they were a logical product of minimalist sculpture-
The empty gallery marks the end of installation art- and maybe art*,
most of the artists in your list i would call ironic po-mo artists- ironic in
the sense of doing something which has been done- is over and finished.
*Therfore these days the gallery is what people go to see!
--
James Whitehead
Gerry Quinn
>Is most Installation Art just Still Life?
>
>Many young artists working on Installation Art distance themselves from the
>'lower' genres like Still Life. They learn to intellectualize their work to
>differentiate it from former art forms. But how far from previous genres is
>Installation really? Don't people just put objects in a room similarly to
>what artists painted in the 17th century? Take Damien Hirst's formaldehyde
>animals; Sarah Lucas' 'Two fried eggs and a Kebab' or her 'Au Naturel';
>Michael Landy's 'Costermonger's Stall' or Mona Hatoum's 'Deep throat'.
>Compare that with Joachim Beuckelaer's 'Slaughtered Pig'; Floris van Dijck's
>'Laid Table'; Jan Breughel's 'Bouquet' or Rene Magritte's 'Portrait'. Do
>people just 'talk' it to a higher level, higher than it really is?
>
Sounds plausible, although Still Life does have a certain component of
representational skill which is absent from the Installation. It is
also more convenient to hang, but perhaps that is my bourgeois sense of
order speaking.
One might also mark the degree to which the Conceptual Work is akin to
the Idle Doodle. Selection of a particular doodle to concentrate on
seems to be the only real difference here.
- Gerry Quinn
Luc Erftemeijer
James Whitehead wrote in message ...><ham...@clara.co.uk> writes
>>Is most Installation Art just Still Life?
>>
>>Many young artists working on Installation Art distance themselves from
the
>>'lower' genres like Still Life. They learn to intellectualize their work
to
>>differentiate it from former art forms. But how far from previous genres
is
>>Installation really? Don't people just put objects in a room similarly to
>>what artists painted in the 17th century? Take Damien Hirst's formaldehyde
>>animals; Sarah Lucas' 'Two fried eggs and a Kebab' or her 'Au Naturel';
>>Michael Landy's 'Costermonger's Stall' or Mona Hatoum's 'Deep throat'.
>>Compare that with Joachim Beuckelaer's 'Slaughtered Pig'; Floris van
Dijck's
>>'Laid Table'; Jan Breughel's 'Bouquet' or Rene Magritte's 'Portrait'. Do
>>people just 'talk' it to a higher level, higher than it really is?
>>
>>
>>
>>Louis
>I wouldn't consider many of the above installation artists- installation
art
>for me was a product of late 60s modernism where the actual space in
>which the work was exhibited becomes an essential part of the work-
>leading to the 'empty gallery' but typified by scatter pieces- Flanagan
>and Carl Andre (1967) and the lead works of Serra - or perhaps
>wall drawings of Le Witt. These works could not be separated from the
>exhibition space- they were a logical product of minimalist sculpture-
>The empty gallery marks the end of installation art- and maybe art*,
What does that mean? Are all the contemporary works post-installation
or even post-art? Of course it will be much easier to talk in 50 years time
looking back the last years of this millenium and conclude what way art
went; sorting out the non-sense and amplifying the few good works that
made a difference and advanced art. But what do people make today
that we would consider relevant in 50 years time?
>most of the artists in your list i would call ironic po-mo artists- ironic
in
>the sense of doing something which has been done- is over and finished.
But there is a lot of new stuff made these days. Of course there is a lot of
repetition or works that use ideas from others. What do you consider as new,
art of today, starting a new way of thinking or working?
>*Therfore these days the gallery is what people go to see!
Doesn't that imply that it is Installation art that people find there: the
gallery becomes
part of the art. That's one of the key features of Installation art.
Installation art creates a
'sense of space in active dialogue with things and people it contains' i.e.
the
gallery and art works become one.
Luc
Luc Erftemeijer
Gerry Quinn wrote in message ...
>>Is most Installation Art just Still Life?
>>
>>Many young artists working on Installation Art distance themselves from
the
>>'lower' genres like Still Life. They learn to intellectualize their work
to
>>differentiate it from former art forms. But how far from previous genres
is
>>Installation really? Don't people just put objects in a room similarly to
>>what artists painted in the 17th century? Take Damien Hirst's formaldehyde
>>animals; Sarah Lucas' 'Two fried eggs and a Kebab' or her 'Au Naturel';
>>Michael Landy's 'Costermonger's Stall' or Mona Hatoum's 'Deep throat'.
>>Compare that with Joachim Beuckelaer's 'Slaughtered Pig'; Floris van
Dijck's
>>'Laid Table'; Jan Breughel's 'Bouquet' or Rene Magritte's 'Portrait'. Do
>>people just 'talk' it to a higher level, higher than it really is?
>>
>
>representational skill which is absent from the Installation.
At first sight that looks obvious, because people think about Still Life as
copying
a set of objects in the corner of an atelier. But many artists of Painting
still lifes have
used drawings or even phantasy to complete their depiction (e.g. A.
Bosschaert's
Vase with flowers). That comes very close to the way a lot of Installations
are planned
and made. I think there is much more representational skill in Installation
than we like to
admit (e.g. Michael Landy's 'Costermonger's Stall' ).
>It is also more convenient to hang, but perhaps that is my bourgeois sense
of
>order speaking.
Yes, although sometimes you'd rather hang the artist.
>One might also mark the degree to which the Conceptual Work is akin to
>the Idle Doodle. Selection of a particular doodle to concentrate on
>seems to be the only real difference here.
Luc
>
James Whitehead
Erftemeijer <ham...@clara.co.uk> writes
>
>James Whitehead wrote in message ...
>>for me was a product of late 60s modernism where the actual space in
>>which the work was exhibited becomes an essential part of the work-
>>leading to the 'empty gallery' but typified by scatter pieces- Flanagan
>>and Carl Andre (1967) and the lead works of Serra - or perhaps
>>wall drawings of Le Witt. These works could not be separated from the
>>exhibition space- they were a logical product of minimalist sculpture-
>>The empty gallery marks the end of installation art- and maybe art*,
>
>What does that mean? Are all the contemporary works post-installation
>or even post-art? Of course it will be much easier to talk in 50 years time
>looking back the last years of this millenium and conclude what way art
>went; sorting out the non-sense and amplifying the few good works that
>made a difference and advanced art. But what do people make today
>that we would consider relevant in 50 years time?
>
'advanced art' advancing art was very much a modernist *avant-garde*
concern -
artists stopped painting throughout this centuary as a result of this
advancement reaching its conclusion- the blank canvas. Painting
became a craft. Installation art is now a craft- its not ART.
The perspective of 50 or 100 or a million years doesnt help much-
history is subjective, time does not give objectivity - only allows tastes
to change. If in 50 years time the world is a national socialist superstate
then most of what we call art would be condemed as degenerate
rubbish.
>>most of the artists in your list i would call ironic po-mo artists- ironic
>in
>>the sense of doing something which has been done- is over and finished.
>
>But there is a lot of new stuff made these days. Of course there is a lot of
>repetition or works that use ideas from others. What do you consider as new,
>art of today, starting a new way of thinking or working?
I haven't seen anything new-
But that misses the point of where we are now in a po-mo world
*new* was a feature of modernism-
New is now Passé - so culture has closed in on itself.
The old model of culture implies a flat landscape, now
we have either fallen over the edge - or discovered its actually round.
>
>>*Therfore these days the gallery is what people go to see!
>
>Doesn't that imply that it is Installation art that people find there: the
>gallery becomes
>part of the art. That's one of the key features of Installation art.
>Installation art creates a
>'sense of space in active dialogue with things and people it contains' i.e.
>the
>gallery and art works become one.
>
The architects have created works of art- the installations & artworks
inside them are at best irrelevant - at worst hide the architecture-
As someone said of the new British Library "but where are the books?"
>Luc
>
>
--
James Whitehead