Art after the postmodern endgame?
JSA
mdeli
>http://cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au/~jabbate
It's the usual garbage by people with the right connections which can
presently be seen in the modern sections of most museums.
If I want true installation art I visit a junk yard.
I'm guessing that you will go on to teaching the next generation of
failures.
...no skill no art...
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
Nik Maack
mdeli wrote:
> >http://cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au/~jabbate
>
> It's the usual garbage by people with the right connections which can
> presently be seen in the modern sections of most museums.
I hate to admit this, but I agree with Mani. This stuff is just awful.
File folders and debris mixed with charcoal sketches of office equipment.
Here's the explanation (and you know if art needs to come with an
explanation something is very wrong):
"Entitled "Spectacles of Administration" the project prefigures the
collapse of art into arts administration under the enormous weight of
its own death drive. Drawing on the early moment of Anglo-American
conceptual art for its aesthetic currency (an irony that plays against
the anti-aesthetic rhetoric of the movement's dominant practitioners),
the work represents a series of negations in which the possibility of
dialectical resolution is itself suspended. Highly realized mimetic
drawings present the skill of the artist stripped of all positivity;
their content and method of production relentlessly appropriate the
"dead hand of bureaucracy" for their aesthetic effect. These are the
spectacles of administration."
"A series of negations in which the possibility of dialectical
resolution is itself suspended"? Fuck off and die.
The art is as dull as this prose. Take, for example, this photograph,
which displays a large portion of the installation:
http://cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au/~jabbate/inno.htm
Mani jokes:
> If I want true installation art I visit a junk yard.
And I have to agree. This could be a photograph of a rather spacious
storage closet full of old junk the janitor has been meaning to throw
out, but never got around to. There's no skill, there's no colour,
there's no pleasure, there's no fun, there's no whimsy, there's no
ANYTHING that makes for compelling art. There's a complete lack of
ANYTHING to catch my interest. It's boring, thoughtless, and jumbled.
I'm left with the feeling that this was a hastily thrown together mess
that the artist mistakenly thinks is profound.
Have a look at this photo:
http://cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au/~jabbate/germany.htm
It's a book in a cardboard box, taped to a wall. It's called,
"Germany". Looking at it, I'm depressed on so many different levels.
The main reason I'm depressed is because this is something the artist
thought was worth sharing with others.
> I'm guessing that you will go on to teaching the next generation of
> failures.
Personally, I don't think this work will get a passing grade. At least,
I hope it doesn't. For the love of God, please tell me this won't get a
passing grade.
The error here is that the artist tried to attack something bland by
embracing its blandness. This is a classic error in writing -- if
you're going to write a story about a boring character, you still have
to make it an interesting read.
Nik Maack
Dan Fox wrote:
> Nik - I hate to be the one to tell you this, but this is beyond 'grades' -
> it says in his information section that this is his PhD project.
Doesn't his "thesis supervisor" or whatever you call it, have to
determine if this work merits getting a Ph.D.?
> Also, God is dead. Have a nice day.
God's not dead -- he's just wounded. Strangling the final breath out of
him may take eons.
mdeli
>
>
>Dan Fox wrote:
>> Nik - I hate to be the one to tell you this, but this is beyond 'grades' -
>> it says in his information section that this is his PhD project.
>
>Doesn't his "thesis supervisor" or whatever you call it, have to
>determine if this work merits getting a Ph.D.?
I'll bet his thesis supervisor's artwork is even worse than his.
But you got to hand it to the guy he's way ahead of Fox. At least he
can render the side of a desk.
Since you took the dangerous chance of agreeing with me. Perhaps you
can tell us what you think of Fox's masterpieces.
But be carefull or he might conclude that you are also a Kook and you
know the deep importance of that.
Nik Maack
mdeli wrote:
> Since you took the dangerous chance of agreeing with me. Perhaps you
> can tell us what you think of Fox's masterpieces.
I already posted in here a while back about that. I just flat out don't
understand his work. Lines scratched in white paint with Christian
sounding names -- the work does nothing for me. I asked Dan if he'd
care to explain what it is he's trying to do. Unless I missed his
reply, he never tried.
> But be carefull or he might conclude that you are also a Kook and you
> know the deep importance of that.
Even a broken calendar tells the right date now and then. Except maybe
for the year.
Todd Strickland
(snip)
>
> Mani jokes:
> > If I want true installation art I visit a junk yard.
>
> And I have to agree. This could be a photograph of a rather spacious
> storage closet full of old junk the janitor has been meaning to throw
> out, but never got around to. There's no skill, there's no colour,
> there's no pleasure, there's no fun, there's no whimsy, there's no
> ANYTHING that makes for compelling art. There's a complete lack of
> ANYTHING to catch my interest. It's boring, thoughtless, and jumbled.
>
> I'm left with the feeling that this was a hastily thrown together mess
> that the artist mistakenly thinks is profound.
> The error here is that the artist tried to attack something bland by
> embracing its blandness. This is a classic error in writing -- if
> you're going to write a story about a boring character, you still have
> to make it an interesting read.
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.com
Commenting on bureaucratic blandness and the nihilism which it exudes
by "representing" such blandness is a perfectly reasonable approach,
even if it doesn't make for an enjoyable experience. I don't see any
error here. After all, the artist doesn't want you coming away from
the piece feeling good about bureacracy.
The approach that you seem to advocate reminds me a bit of the
Hollywood/Spielberg style of dealing with "dark" subjects, such as the
Holocaust and war; "Let's make a movie about the Holocaust which is
not only educational, but also entertaining! We'll use an all-star
cast and a big budget to tell a story which is tragic, yet exciting
and uplifting! We won't actually make any new or insightful comments
on the Holocaust because a) we don't have any, and b) American
audiences don't go for "deep" movies. Lest we be accussed of
cashing-in on the Holocaust we'll film in black-and-white, which is
oh-so-stark (except for that little girl in the red coat; it just
wouldn't be a Spielberg movie if we didn't use something crassly
pathetic to MAKE the audience cry). Yes, we can tell a story which
must be told, and make shitloads of money and get our asses kissed by
the Academy!"
I know there are a lot of people who think Spielberg is a "great
artist." I'm not one of them.
More up my alley is Tarkovsky's "Stalker," a film which a friend once
described as "three men walking around in a field for 4 hours." The
themes of this film are likewise bleak; nuclear disaster, government
cover-up and oppression, and the ignorance, apathy, and superstition
of the Soviet people. But unlike Spielberg, the film itself is bleak,
heavy, full of ugliness and drudgery. Watching "Schindler's List" is
much more enjoyable, but therein lies the great difference between
these two filmakers; Tarkovsky is an artist, and Spielberg is a
Hollywood director. Art doesn't have to be beautiful, colorful,
exciting, or fun. It should, however, be profound.
Getting back to the installation in question, I found the photos to be
intriguing and thought-provoking, although it's too difficult to
really get an idea of the work from so few pictures. I can't really
evaluate it, or make more than a cursory interpretation from them.
But if I were nearby, I'd take the time to check it out.
Todd Strickland
Todd Strickland
> > If I want true installation art I visit a junk yard.
>
> And I have to agree. This could be a photograph of a rather spacious
> storage closet full of old junk the janitor has been meaning to throw
> out, but never got around to. There's no skill, there's no colour,
> there's no pleasure, there's no fun, there's no whimsy, there's no
> ANYTHING that makes for compelling art. There's a complete lack of
> ANYTHING to catch my interest. It's boring, thoughtless, and jumbled.
>
> I'm left with the feeling that this was a hastily thrown together mess
> that the artist mistakenly thinks is profound.
> The error here is that the artist tried to attack something bland by
> embracing its blandness. This is a classic error in writing -- if
> you're going to write a story about a boring character, you still have
> to make it an interesting read.
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.com
Commenting on bureaucratic blandness and the nihilism which it exudes
by "representing" such blandness is a perfectly reasonable approach,
even if it doesn't make for an enjoyable experience. I don't see any
error here. After all, the artist doesn't want you coming away from
the piece feeling good about bureaucracy.
The approach that you seem to advocate reminds me a bit of the
Hollywood/Spielberg style of dealing with "dark" subjects, such as the
Holocaust and war; "Let's make a movie about the Holocaust which is
not only educational, but also entertaining! We'll use an all-star
cast and a big budget to tell a story which is tragic, yet exciting
and uplifting! We won't actually make any new or insightful comments
on the Holocaust because a) we don't have any, and b) American
audiences don't go for "deep" movies. Lest we be accused of
cashing-in on the Holocaust we'll film in black-and-white, which is
oh-so-stark (except for that little girl in the red coat; it just
wouldn't be a Spielberg movie if we didn't use something crassly
pathetic to MAKE the audience cry). Yes, we can tell a story which
must be told, and make shitloads of money and get our asses kissed by
the Academy!"
I know there are a lot of people who think Spielberg is a "great
artist." I'm not one of them.
More up my alley is Tarkovsky's "Stalker," a film which a friend once
described as "three men walking around in a field for 4 hours." The
themes of this film are likewise bleak; nuclear disaster, government
cover-up and oppression, and the ignorance, apathy, and superstition
of the Soviet people. But unlike Spielberg, the film itself is bleak,
heavy, full of ugliness and drudgery. Watching "Schindler's List" is
much more enjoyable, but therein lies the great difference between
these two filmmakers; Tarkovsky is an artist, and Spielberg is a
Nik Maack
Todd Strickland wrote:
> Commenting on bureaucratic blandness and the nihilism which it exudes
> by "representing" such blandness is a perfectly reasonable approach,
> even if it doesn't make for an enjoyable experience.
"Enjoyable" might not be the right word. Intriguing, compelling,
interesting. If you're going to comment on bureaucratic blandness and
nihilism, the least you can do is have a sense of humour about it. The
topic is incredibly funny. Kafka is a perfect example. Here is a man
that caught the feel of pointless bureaucratic mazes and made it
interesting to read about.
This site:
http://cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au/~jabbate/
...talks about blandness by being bland. This is a bad strategy,
especially if you want to "discuss" or "present" a subject matter.
"You know that bland thing over there? It's BLAND."
What does this bring to the table, other than the obvious? Ideally, an
artist should bring a little more to a subject than the surface of the
thing. You say art should be PROFOUND. This ain't profound.
> The approach that you seem to advocate reminds me a bit of the
> Hollywood/Spielberg style of dealing with "dark" subjects, such as the
> Holocaust and war; "Let's make a movie about the Holocaust which is
> not only educational, but also entertaining!
I have actively avoided seeing "Schindler's List" for the very reasons
you describe. This is the OTHER extreme of what we're talking about --
taking a serious subject matter, ripping its brains out, and stuffing it
full of car crashes and tits and ass. (Although, I assume, "Schindler's
List" probably doesn't feature a lot of T and A.)
But if you've seen "Life is Beautiful", you know it's possible to make a
film about the holocaust that inspires and guts you at the same time,
without coming across as crass or sentimental.
> I know there are a lot of people who think Spielberg is a "great
> artist." I'm not one of them.
Me neither.
> Art doesn't have to be beautiful, colorful,
> exciting, or fun. It should, however, be profound.
And you find the installation in question profound? I find it so
shallow as to be mistaken for a rapidly evaporating puddle of summer
rain, but without any of the refreshing qualities.
> But if I were nearby, I'd take the time to check it out.
If I were nearby, I'd take the time to CHUCK it out.
Noumenon
>
> Doesn't his "thesis supervisor" or whatever you call it, have to
> determine if this work merits getting a Ph.D.?
Yes, it's scary.
Looks like art in Australia is worse than in USA.
Strange. I was naive to think it couldn't be much worse anywhere else, but
it is.
The same with education.
Definetely, I wouldn't advise anyone to graduate from anything - in
Australia.
-= Noumenon =-
Noumenon
> the piece feeling good about bureacracy.
What is the point to show it in such a pathetic way. Old idea, poor
representation.
He might've done with some humour, but he lacks even that.
Pathetic and tedious.
> I know there are a lot of people who think Spielberg is a "great
> artist." I'm not one of them.
Spielberg is not good at all. He made few good (commercial) movies (like
"Indiana jones")
and he should stay with that and don't peep out and try to do something he
does not even remotely qualify.
When he touches things he has vague idea of - he makes the crap that
knowledgeable people want to puke.
Yeah.... - "Great artist", my eye!
> More up my alley is Tarkovsky's "Stalker," a film which a friend once
> described as "three men walking around in a field for 4 hours."
Tarkovsky is very good. Seems that your friend did not understand a thing.
> The themes of this film are likewise bleak; nuclear disaster, government
> cover-up and oppression, and the ignorance, apathy, and superstition
> of the Soviet people.
I am sorry, Todd. NONE of these things are in the movie.
There is NO nuclear disaster, no government cover-up, ignorance wasn't a
subject,
superstition was there because it's everywhere, but Soviet people do not
even enter the picture.
This movie is about human values and, if a cynical sceptic would put it,
- more about "meaning of human life and existence".
Movie was based on book "Roadside Picnic" by famous brothers Strugatski
(they also adapted it for the movie).
Btw, somebody in Hollywood bought the rights to produce "Roadside Picnic" in
1987,
but never did anything.
> But unlike Spielberg, the film itself is bleak,
> heavy, full of ugliness and drudgery.
It is NOT bleak, at least not for a blind!
It's extremely HEAVY and GLOOMY (as most of of Tarkovky's films)
but in no way it is bleak.
It's quite spectacular for an open mind and keen eye.
Tarkovsky used to set every frame, and almost every second of movie as
PICTURE.
Everything is balanced in colour and perfect compositions, there are many
many symbols
and elements that tell more than words in dialogues.
Set-ups were very complicated and it's not very easy to catch all elements
and meaning of symbols at once.
Generally, layman and squares never get a thing out of Tarkovsky's movies,
that is why they prefer Hollywood vomit.
Movies of directors like Tarkovsky, Jodorowsky, Fellini, Greenaway (etc)
require too much
intelligence, refined taste and rather high IQ - none of it is among
deplorable assets of low-level hoi polloi.
-= Noumenon =-
Discussion
The point not defined is to whom?
A small group of followers, or a much wider audience?
Do these positive descriptions need a booklet before
they become apparent (or maybe a lecture from the artist)
, or are they expected to hit the viewer in the eye?
Are we talking about an audience who 'need ' to be educated
in the current definitions of art, or can any intelligent viewer be
let loose to form their own opinions, and come up with the same
words?
Trouble is, there is no single definition of art.
Might be worth of taking the talk of Schindler's List and asking
say - a Neo N..... and maybe a Moslem what they thought of it as
a work of art, for a proper balance of views!
I am coming to view, already seen expressed here in differing
words, that the more words art needs, the further it is away from
it's ultimate objective.
N.H
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3D0E4957...@sympatico.ca...
Moo E. Calyentay
ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp says...
>I know there are a lot of people who think Spielberg is a "great
>artist." I'm not one of them.
I'm sure Spielberg worries about whether or
not people think he's great every time he
visits his banker. And I suspect his banker
has some thoughts on Spielberg's greatness too!
mdeli
>Nik Maack <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<3D0D00D5...@sympatico.ca>...
>(snip)
>>
>> Mani jokes:
>> > If I want true installation art I visit a junk yard.
>Commenting on bureaucratic blandness and the nihilism which it exudes
>by "representing" such blandness is a perfectly reasonable approach,
>even if it doesn't make for an enjoyable experience. I don't see any
>error here.
Indeed there is no "error."
But when the comments are stupid and the artwork amounts to common
nothing as presented by someone of rank who bids you to take note, I
take note.
> Art doesn't have to be beautiful, colorful,
>exciting, or fun. It should, however, be profound.
Artspeak among other things is designed to make stupidity seem
profound.
Todd Strickland
(snip)
> Artspeak among other things is designed to make stupidity seem
> profound.
>
"Mani-speak," among other things, is designed to make the profound
seem stupid. Then, he hopes, the trite (e.g. Rockwell, Vargas,
Disney) can pass itself off as profound.
Todd Strickland
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Todd Strickland" <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:910eb03.02061...@posting.google.com...
> Disney) can pass itself off as profound.
>
this trick! Amazing.
Mind you, there is a little bit of a challenge in deciding what actually is
profound and why - an interesting question, I think.
--
The square and square square curves osculate at nothing, just like the
French.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
The work is in the classical style remote and detached from the viewer. The
use of space around the objects results in their segmentation and sense of
isolation from each other. the objects are unified by their similar geometry
coloration and tone within the corner arrangement of floor and two walls. It
derives its title as art under the definition: "if an object(s) is placed in
a recognised art gallery then it is art".
This work does not provide a new view of the human condition or anything
else for that matter.
I personally endorse the use of text to supplement and explain a work of
art. It is especially useful to people who have little acquaintance with
art. My limit on the use of text is reached when the text becomes the art.
When you explain to someone the colour system in a painting and they see in
the work of art what you are referring to : that is what I refer to as
positive use of supplementary text.
When you throw a pile of text at a work of art and the text is not meant to
describe the interaction of elements within the work but adds literal
content that is exactly what artists have been fighting to escape from -
literary content. In other words art has returned to its role of
illustrating literary content only this time you make up the story after the
art work has been produced rather than producing the art work to illustrate
the story.
That is the great joke: visual art has become the source of literary content
:
keith
mdeli <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3d0cdd06...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
mdeli
>I have read the comments to date:
>The work is in the classical style remote and detached from the viewer. The
>use of space around the objects results in their segmentation and sense of
>isolation from each other. the objects are unified by their similar geometry
>coloration and tone within the corner arrangement of floor and two walls. It
>derives its title as art under the definition: "if an object(s) is placed in
>a recognised art gallery then it is art".
Nice Artspeak Keith.
It won't compete with Artforum mag. but its more original than blowbag
Strickland.
mdeli
>Todd, I've said this before, *but* - you say it better than I can imagine
>saying it. Right on. If you weren't in Japan I'd buy you a beer.
>
>A couple of Canadians have told me that Mani has a hidden agenda. According
>to them, he wants a major Canadian museum to dedicate a wing or a building
>to him and to the unsung artists he approves of. Apparently that's the
>reason for the diatribes, the book, the website, etc. I have no idea
>whether this is true, but it is an amusing thought.
Dan needs to contemplate this sort of fantasy in his spare time; which
is most of the time. What else is there for him to do all day? Think
of how little time it takes him to crank out his furniture store
abstraction.
Poor Todd, can't write anything original. Its always fun to irritate
these twits by repeating my classic artspeak message. I'll do it more
often.
Gee Dan I thought that your irritation would evoke some of your usual
psychobabble. I miss it!
If it needs a long sermon to proclaim its art, its probably bullshit.
Todd Strickland
> Dan pedigreed Fox wrote:
>
> >Todd, I've said this before, *but* - you say it better than I can imagine
> >saying it. Right on. If you weren't in Japan I'd buy you a beer.
> >
> >A couple of Canadians have told me that Mani has a hidden agenda. According
> >to them, he wants a major Canadian museum to dedicate a wing or a building
> >to him and to the unsung artists he approves of. Apparently that's the
> >reason for the diatribes, the book, the website, etc. I have no idea
> >whether this is true, but it is an amusing thought.
Hi, Dan. Thanks. If you ever find yourself in Japan I'll buy YOU a
beer! By the way, I'm back to posting through Google, which means I'm
not seeing any of your posts. I guess I should thank Mani for passing
on the message.
That's an interesting theory about Mani. My own theory is that he's
psychologically stuck in another time period (no, not the 19th
Century, but somewhere around 1962). I imagine when he was in art
school Abstract Expressionism, Post-Painterly Abstraction, and
Minimalism were all the rage around New York, and Greenberg was at
the height of his influence. It must have seemed like abstraction
held artistic hegemony, and this must have pissed off a lot of younger
artists, including Mani. Hell, it probably would have pissed me off,
too.
So naturally, the younger generation began looking for ways to rebel
and react against this lopsided state of affairs. Some turned to
"low-brow" forms and subjects (Pop art), others went for veridically
detailed representation (Photorealism), and some gave up painting
altogether (Performance art). Mani apparently turned to Surrealism
and Magic Realism as an antidote to abstraction. He may also have
been influenced by the contemporaneous painting style of Dali, one of
Mani's heroes. At that time, Dali was turning away from his modernist
beginnings, "rediscovering" the "secret techniques" of the old
masters, such as Valesquez and Vermeer. This was the time when Dali
was painting his large, very "unmodern" religious works. Mani must
have felt that if a painter of Dali's stature was turning away from
Modernism in this fashion, it must be a legitimate "new" avenue for
serious artists. For a brief period of time, Mani must have felt like
he was on the right track; he was making the kind of art he liked AND
it seemed cutting edge.
But as the years went by, the disappointment started to sink in.
Modernism morphed into Postmodernism, and representation was indeed
back in vogue; Photorealism and waves of other representational styles
flowed into the stream of "art history." But Mani's kind of painting
was seen as retardaire, a step backward rather than forward. Dali's
self-styled "Classical" paintings were viewed not as masterworks, but
as artistic "cheese-whiz," a talented painter wasting his efforts on
grandious-yet-unimportant pictures (although Dali eventually did
redeem his late career; he, like Mani, was obsessively concerned with
his place in art history, and had the good common sense to eventually
return to serious painting). Mani had followed his hero into a
backwater of quasi-modernism, a faded simulacrum of an already bygone
style.
So now the revolution was complete. Abstraction had been dethroned as
the unquestioned king, but Mani wasn't in the palace with the victors;
in fact, it turned out that he hadn't even been in the battle. He was
still making the art that he liked and believed was important, but no
one else thought it was. Most people would eventually get over it but
not Mani, who desperately craved recognition all along. Some would
try new styles but not Mani, either because he really couldn't see
where he'd missed the boat to greatness or because he was too
anal-retentive to give in (judging from what I've seen in his
postings, I'd guess it's the latter).
Mani's mindset stays locked in the early 1960s, when Greenberg was an
art-Czar and abstraction reigned supreme, because that was the last
time that his style of art could possibly have been considered
significant, at least in a protest sort of way. He closes his eyes to
the fact that representational styles of art are mainstays of
Postmodernism, and that many representational artists have achieved
the highest levels of recognition and prestige over the last 30 years
because he needs to believe that HIS art is NOT recognized only
because of some supposed "Modern Academic Art" conspiracy against
representational styles. He ignores the fact that Greenberg's
formalist doctrine has been viewed as passe' for at least the last 20
years, and that hardly any renowned artists consider themselves
dyed-in-the-wool followers of Greenberg anymore, because he wants to
believe his art is ignored for being on the wrong side of this
imaginary dividing line; he doesn't want to face up to the possibility
that maybe his art just isn't all that profound, and that this is why
he hasn't achieved worldwide recognition.
Well, that's my theory anyway...
Todd Strickland
mdeli
>That's an interesting theory about Mani. My own theory is that he's
>psychologically stuck in another time period (no, not the 19th
>Century, but somewhere around 1962).
I guess I inspire theories for these twits.
Antiquated Srtickland is stuck around 1923 when Dada evaporated. He
thinks the three stooges of Modern Academic Art, Rothko, de Kooning
and Pollock did something new and writing Artspeak sermons about a
load of garbage by phony scholars makes it profound.
> Mani apparently turned to Surrealism
>and Magic Realism as an antidote to abstraction. He may also have
>been influenced by the contemporaneous painting style of Dali, one of
>Mani's heroes.
I'm very influenced by Dali. However, the antidote to Modern Academic
abstraction is the knowledge that for every success at that game there
are about five hundred hangers on like Fox who isn't really that much
worse and cranks out a living at it and five thousand total failures
like Marilyn along with the fact that universities are yearly cranking
out thousands of psudo-intellectual twits like you.
> At that time, Dali was turning away from his modernist
>beginnings, "rediscovering" the "secret techniques" of the old
>masters, such as Valesquez and Vermeer.
He did that in the early 1930's and pegged Modern Academic Art as the
scam that it is long before Greenberg got everyone off on the three
stooges and Picasso and company.
>Mani's mindset stays locked in the early 1960s, when Greenberg was an
>art-Czar and abstraction reigned supreme, because that was the last
>time that his style of art could possibly have been considered
>significant, at least in a protest sort of way.
The Modern Academic artwork you speak of, regardless of isms, follows
two styles, academic abstraction (wall decoration) and
no-skill-realism.
> He ignores the fact that Greenberg's
>formalist doctrine has been viewed as passe'
I don't! Most all modern academic doctrines are absurd and don't
survive, even among blow-bag academics, much beyond about five years.
> he doesn't want to face up to the possibility that maybe his art just isn't all that profound,
Never said it was. My only interest in painting is to amuse myself.
>and that this is why he hasn't achieved worldwide recognition.
I think there are some other reasons, namely; I'm not a particularly
good artist, I haven't felt any need to exhibit for the last 20 years
and I couldn't care less about what people think of my work.
On the other hand, art has been very good to me and this has allowed
me to achieve the degree of laziness and financial security that most
artzy fartzies aspire to but never reach.
>Well, that's my theory anyway...
Any other theories anybody?
If it needs a long sermon to proclaim its art its probably bullshit.
What counts is what's on the wall, not Artspeak.
JSA
theme of this forum. The argument that if art requires text to be
"understood" it must be bad makes all art bad. If the urinal did
anything it made explicit the implicit textuality of conventional art,
the supposedly commonsense idea that paint on canvas, manipulated in
such a way and placed in a gallery must automatically be art; such a
silly notion that rides on the back of a vast wave of ideology (text)
and history/tradition (text). The twentieth century has shown us that
art is radically contextual and contingent, and hence no longer able
to naively assume its status as art.
Keith claims that the work in question relies on this readymade
definition of art: "if an object(s) is placed in a recognised art
gallery then it is art". Well this is certainly the definition adopted
by the conservatives. But when the art resembles the dealers office,
doesn't this mock such a definition?
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<EkaQ8.407327$t8_....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
JSA
theme of this forum. The argument that if art requires text to be
"understood" it must be bad makes all art bad. If the urinal did
anything it made explicit the implicit textuality of conventional art,
the supposedly commonsense idea that paint on canvas, manipulated in
such a way and placed in a gallery must automatically be art; such a
silly notion that rides on the back of a vast wave of ideology (text)
and history/tradition (text). The twentieth century has shown us that
art is radically contextual and contingent, and hence no longer able
to naively assume its status as art.
Keith claims that the work in question relies on this readymade
definition of art: "if an object(s) is placed in a recognised art
gallery then it is art". Well this is certainly the definition adopted
by the conservatives. But when the art resembles the dealers office,
doesn't this mock such a definition?
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<EkaQ8.407327$t8_....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
mdeli
> The argument that if art requires text to be
>"understood" it must be bad makes all art bad.
What counts is the artwork. If its fine work and an artist claims it
requires text, its still fine work. Lots of bad art is unaccompanied
by text.
However, a bunch of crap lying on the floor is just that, whatever the
text.
As I said, If it needs a long sermon to proclaim its art, its probably
bullshit.
Note: I used the word "probably", but this is certainly the case for
most 20th century Modern Academic Art.
> If the urinal did
>anything it made explicit the implicit textuality of conventional art,
>the supposedly commonsense idea that paint on canvas, manipulated in
>such a way and placed in a gallery must automatically be art;
The urinal didn't do that.
>Keith claims that the work in question relies on this readymade
>definition of art: "if an object(s) is placed in a recognised art
>gallery then it is art".
If you want to clam that, it can be considered true for a short length
of time, as long as you recognize that when the stuff ends up in the
garbage can its also garbage.
Rajah of the Orange Groves
then your regular use of profanity?
If you can name me a single major, or for that matter minor, art
critic of any consequence, who uses profanity, I would be happy to
hear it.
You cannot be against art discourse, per se, as from reading your
posting history hear you appear interested in nothing else, but you
simply do it badly, in a very general and off-handed manner. About as
bad as your art itself.
n...@mail.com (mdeli) wrote in message news:<3d135a84...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>...
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Rajah of the Orange Groves" <michael_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aebca626.02062...@posting.google.com...
> I am curious mdeli, why you consider "artspeak" any less penetrable
> then your regular use of profanity?
>
> If you can name me a single major, or for that matter minor, art
> critic of any consequence, who uses profanity, I would be happy to
> hear it.
>
Rajah of the Orange Groves
who lacks "cultural capital" - however you might care to define that.
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message news:<af18p6$i0a$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
mdeli
architect in my opinion. Google has lots of reference. Check out the
Time magazine article.
The Casa Batllo is of particular interest for a comparison to Pollock
dribbles. The front facade has a random tile abstraction far more
interesting in any decorative sense. Of course it is integrated into a
building of real historical importance, a place for fine abstraction.
One can see it a bit at:
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/Casa_Batllo.html/cid_198044.gbi
Better images can be seen in some of the latest books on Gaudi. Anyone
interested in abstraction should check out Gaudi and also Charles
Rennie Mackintosh among others and you will see how unoriginal much
Modern Academic abstraction really is.
When I was in Barcelona in 1960 Gaudi was generally considered a
nothing. I remember a British gentlemen who took care of the Sagrada
Familia and tried to get money together to continue the building. Few
realize that the facade you see is only the side door.
Any critical forgiveness for a lack of skill and craftsmanship is due to a temporary surrender to fashion.
...no skill no art..