FA: MARCEL DUCHAMP Bicycle Wheel SCULPTURE
BigBlocky
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5412515578
This is a 9 inch tall working replica of Duchamp's famous readymade work
"Bicycle Wheel". It is new and in its original box.
Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968) invented "Readymades" - taking everyday objects,
possibly altering them, and presenting them as works of art. His first
readymade, "Bicycle Wheel" (1913), joins a bicycle wheel to a kitchen stool,
creating this now famous sculpture.
Arguably one of the strongest influences on modern art, Duchamp in his
typically irreverent manner both created and destroyed theoretical
constructions of what is known as art. His clever and
not-to-be-taken-too-seriously statements, jokes and jabs at the lofty
conception of art with a capital "A" helped create a new kind of art. Some
might say he opened the door to an anything goes, chaotic world where all
things can conceivably be art. He probably would have enjoyed such a
thought. To him, art was about not repeating oneself, removing artificially
constructed boundries and ridiculing pretentious ideas that only hinder what
is possible. By applying critiques that cut to the core of notions of what
does and does not constitute art, Duchamp paved the way for movements that
would come later. And his influence is still felt strongly today. In fact,
his scandalous "Urinal" was recently voted the most influential work of
modern art of all time.
Visit my eBay Store!
http://www.bigblocky.net
GaryR52
by whom, by the way? The only thing really scandalous abour Duchamp's "ready
mades" was in calling them sculpture. If he influenced anyone, it was
artists like Jeff Koons, who aped Duchamp by hanging an unmodified vacuum
cleaner on a gallery wall and calling it "Hoover." Frankly, I believe Henry
Moore had far more influence on abstract sculpture, as did Jean Arp and
Barbara Hepworth, or David Smith, for that matter. Moore, especially, had
one of the longest and most influential careers as a sculptor of anyone in
the twentieth century. Duchamp, on the other hand, is remembered principally
for his "ready mades," and little else, despite having been primarily a
painter.
Gary
"BigBlocky" <fip...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:EkvHe.21894$W%5.8664@trnddc05...
Erik A. Mattila
> Yawn. Sorry, but I hardly consider Duchamp that influential, really. Voted
> by whom, by the way? The only thing really scandalous abour Duchamp's "ready
> mades" was in calling them sculpture. If he influenced anyone, it was
> artists like Jeff Koons, who aped Duchamp by hanging an unmodified vacuum
> cleaner on a gallery wall and calling it "Hoover." Frankly, I believe Henry
> Moore had far more influence on abstract sculpture, as did Jean Arp and
> Barbara Hepworth, or David Smith, for that matter. Moore, especially, had
> one of the longest and most influential careers as a sculptor of anyone in
> the twentieth century. Duchamp, on the other hand, is remembered principally
> for his "ready mades," and little else, despite having been primarily a
> painter.
>
> Gary
Gary, just to be contentious, your mention of "remembered principally"
reminded me that I haven't come across mention of Moore, Hepworth, Smith
or Arp (all great artists, IMO) in years. On the other hand, 'Duchamp'
is almost a household word - I've seen hundreds of mentions of his name
in the past few years. Makes one wonder what "influence" is all about.
Erik
GaryR52
Arp...in years" doesn't speak well of you. All of these artists are still
frequently mentioned in current art periodicals around the world, as well as
in the numerous books still being published about their works all over the
world, and there are still exhibitions of those works in galleries and
museums around the world. You need to get out more. ;)
This is to say nothing of their influence, singly and collectively, upon
generations of sculptors down to the present day, including myself.
Having said that, one of the weakest arguments one can ever present is that
an artist (or anyone else) is somehow not worthy simply because one has
never heard of him. The fact is that, if one hasn't heard of someone, it's
little more than an indication of one's own ignorance.
As for Duchamp's influence, to be fair, he could dubiously be credited with
being the influence for today's installation and perforance artists, but
he'd have to share that credit with all of the other artists of the Dada
movement.
Gary
"Erik A. Mattila" <e...@nospamimpix.com> wrote in message
news:M82dnVBo5Y_...@adelphia.com...
Will O. Whisp
>
>Yawn. Sorry, but I hardly consider Duchamp that influential, really. Voted
>by whom, by the way?
For those who would like to actually learn why
Duchamp is considered a seminal artist:
http://www.understandingduchamp.com/
If, after thorough study of Duchamp you still
feel like demeaning his significance, then perhaps
you will be able to argue your position convincingly.
sculpt...@ethanham.com
own way, he is more seminal than Picasso. When Braque & Picasso were
developing the language of Modern art, Duchamp was developing the
language of conceptual art--a generation ahead of its time.
His readymades addressed (and for many of us resolved) the question of
what is & isn't art.
There's an amusingly nasty flame way between critic Donald Kuspit and
Francis Naumann. The reason they're so passionate about the worth of
Duchamp has less to do with him and more to do with the conceptual art
that he influenced.
http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/naumann/naumann6-15-00.asp
GaryR52
> If, after thorough study of Duchamp you still
> feel like demeaning his significance, then perhaps
> you will be able to argue your position convincingly.
Actually, I believe I did argue my position convincingly. See my follow-up
post. I have a degree in art and have studied art history, and I'm prety
sure I know what I'm talking about, having made a thorough study of all the
artists named. Also, I didn't say Duchamp was NOT influential, I simply
challenged the original poster's assertion that he is "voted" (by whom, he
didn't say) the MOST influential artist of the twentieth century. Says who?
We're talking about something highly subjective, here, in the first place
and, secondly, one would have to ask anyone making such a statement exactly
who they believe Duchamp has influenced. There are myriad artists who have
never been influenced at all by Duchamp's work, and fewer still who have
been specifically influenced by his "ready mades." I simply challenged this
poster's rather star-struck assertion that Duchamp's influence has been as
great as he seems to believe it to be. Consider, also, that the person
posting is biased by the fact that he, himself, considers himself to be
influenced by Duchamp. This colors his perceptions of the degree to which
Duchamp has been an influence. This is to say nothing of the fact that the
poster is offering cheap models of Duchamp's work on Ebay, which, in itself,
makes the poster's credibility suffer, IMHO.
Gary
GaryR52
> what is & isn't art.
Well, I think that's certainly debatable. The jury is still out on that
question, as with all the other big questions of aesthetics.
Gary
GaryR52
Gary
"Biljo White" <biljo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20050802122803.200$3...@newsreader.com...
> Guys, I think we may have been visited again by Richard The Stupid. At
> least the Will Dockery floods are gone (I reported him to his ISP).
sculpt...@ethanham.com
art? Or that it resolved the issue?
The latter is certainly debatable, which is why I qualified it (and
made it parenthetical). Still, while an individual (such as yourself)
may disagree with the Duchampian stance of "the viewer completes the
art" (and its corollary that art can be anything that is presented/read
as such), it certainly is a fairly mainstream (in contemporary art
circles) position.
GaryR52
Gary
"GerdaAnn" <gerd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:20050802131756.323$l...@newsreader.com...
> "GaryR52" <gar...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Excuse me??!
>>
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/doklands/cenkoc/
GaryR52
the eternal questions of philosophy, to which scholars have sought a
universally agreed upon answer for centuries. That was my intended meaning.
As for Duchamp's ready mades resolving it, well, obviously, that can't be
the case if the question remains unresolved, right? I know what your
conclusion is, but you don't speak for most of us and as long as their is
disagreement, there is no resolution. It's, as I said, far too subjective to
be resolved, as it is a matter of opinion.
I agree with Duchamp, however, that the viewer does "complete" the art. This
is as true of all art as it is of Duchamp's, however. Even representational
art is somewhat subject to interpretation. The viewer determines, for
example, what the meaning of Wyeth's "Christina's World" is just as surely
as the viewer determines, for himself, what the meaning of Duchamp's urinal
was. Many took "Urinal" to mean that Duchamp was saying literally anything
could be considered art and, while I'd agree that was his intent, I have to
disagree with his position. If any found object, without modification, can
be considered art, then the question "what is art?" ceases to have any
meaning or relevence. That's probably exactly Duchamp's point, but, like I
said, it's a matter of opinion.
Gary
<sculpt...@ethanham.com> wrote in message
news:1123002237.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Erik A. Mattila
> Erik, that you "haven't come across mention of Moore, Hepworth, Smith or
> Arp...in years" doesn't speak well of you. All of these artists are still
> frequently mentioned in current art periodicals around the world, as well as
> in the numerous books still being published about their works all over the
> world, and there are still exhibitions of those works in galleries and
> museums around the world. You need to get out more. ;)
Very true, I do need to get out more. And I have given-up reading art
periodicals. I think my "range" these days is pretty much the Internet,
and of course RAF. Be that as it may, I live way out in the desert in a
cultural oblivion, and I keep hearing "Duchamp, duchamp, duchamp." Even
from the Roadrunners.
> This is to say nothing of their influence, singly and collectively, upon
> generations of sculptors down to the present day, including myself.
Personally, as far as influence is concerned, I think you need to look
at Duchamps other works...other than the ready mades. An even with the
ready mades, the works are full of codes and references to obscure
ideas, such as the semi-famous "R. Mutt." It's the sort of thing that
give Duchamp scholars endless hours of fun and discovery.
>
> Having said that, one of the weakest arguments one can ever present is that
> an artist (or anyone else) is somehow not worthy simply because one has
> never heard of him. The fact is that, if one hasn't heard of someone, it's
> little more than an indication of one's own ignorance.
I would detach "worthiness" from "influence" or "popularity" concepts.
Why? Because it's an evaluative term. In other words, in any debate
about art there are claims that can be substantiated, and claims that
can't be substantiated. So in my view once you use the term "worthy" it
is a weak argument from the get go. And that's not to diss anyone's
preferences in art, mind you. I mean, if you say "Jean Arp is worthy of
my attention," how can anyone argue with you? There's nothing to bring
to the table to refute your statement (oh, I guess there is something -
like "but you wrote in 1952 that you hated Arp's work." So you would
have to respond "But I changed my mind in 1963."
>
> As for Duchamp's influence, to be fair, he could dubiously be credited with
> being the influence for today's installation and perforance artists, but
> he'd have to share that credit with all of the other artists of the Dada
> movement.
But you need to have something concrete to argue influence. The "like
begets like" inference just won't fly. Here's an example, off the top
of my head. Let's say that Andy Warhol was influenced by Duchamp, and
the argument is that Duchamp brought a urinal to the art gallery, thus
changing the meaning of the object ("detournment," as Guy Debord would
say.) And Warhol did the same thing with the image of a soup can.
"It's clear...Duchamp was a major influence of Pop Art." But your
opponent could argue "Hogwash, Warhol worked in the advertising industry
and the iconization of consummer objects was his concern. Advertising
was his influence." Both are pretextural arguments, of course. You
would have to present some evidence for your claim, like "Well, I have
here a videotape of a member of the Velvet Underground complaining about
Andy's obsession with Duchamp, and he states "Andy was unable to do
anything that he thought wouldn't be approved by Duchamp.""
But in my argument here I'm just using "influence" in the sense of
popular culture, or at least that branch or popular culture represented
here on RAF. Duchamp wins, hands down, in the "mention" arena. So at
least you can say with some authority that Duchamp is more likely to be
an "influence" on the artists who participate in RAF. It's just a
matter of counting.
Erik
sculpt...@ethanham.com
agreeing to disagree.
Of course everything about art is a matter of opinion. There is no
terra firma; art is, well, an art not a science. Whenever someone
presents their position as Truth, they're off to a bad start.
I can certainly understand not wanting to embrace the idea that art is
anything presented a such. But, unlike many of these types of
philosophical stances, I think it actually works better in practice
than in theory.
Sure, it seems like there should be some line which divides art from
non-art. But where are you going to put it? The problem with allowing
such lines, is that a very reasonable case can be made for drawing it
in a place that excludes any one of us.
Many people would say traditional (e.g., 19th century style) of art is
decoration, not art, because it lacks intentionality and/or content
beyond the aesthetic. Others would say that unless it is
beautiful/asethetic it isn't art.
As artists, I think it is in our own self-interest to accept idea that
if the creator says it is art, then it is art. Then we can bicker over
whether it is good or bad art :)
Thur
"GaryR52" <gar...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:pzOHe.9408$Zt.3594@okepread05...
> That the issue has been resolved in any way. "What is art?" is still one
> of the eternal questions of philosophy, to which scholars have sought a
> universally agreed upon answer for centuries. That was my intended
> meaning.
>
> As for Duchamp's ready mades resolving it, well, obviously, that can't be
> the case if the question remains unresolved, right? I know what your
> conclusion is, but you don't speak for most of us and as long as their is
> disagreement, there is no resolution. It's, as I said, far too subjective
> to be resolved, as it is a matter of opinion.
>
> I agree with Duchamp, however, that the viewer does "complete" the art.
> This is as true of all art as it is of Duchamp's, however. Even
> representational art is somewhat subject to interpretation. The viewer
> determines, for example, what the meaning of Wyeth's "Christina's World"
> is just as surely as the viewer determines, for himself, what the meaning
> of Duchamp's urinal was. Many took "Urinal" to mean that Duchamp was
> saying literally anything could be considered art and, while I'd agree
> that was his intent, I have to disagree with his position. If any found
> object, without modification, can be considered art, then the question
> "what is art?" ceases to have any meaning or relevence. That's probably
> exactly Duchamp's point, but, like I said, it's a matter of opinion.
>
> Gary
>
As you seem to say, this is not an original observation. Any work
of art requires such interpretation or "completion" from it's viewers.
> If any found object, without modification, can be considered art, then the
> question "what is art?" ceases to have any meaning or relevence.
It's a handy construct for those who wish to defeat any constuctive
criticism of art. It keeps the target moving, and of course allows just
not a wide range of art but all art, making the whole world of art
as worthy as the most worthless.
Fortunately, it made not a jot of difference to the world of art that
includes the past, and I predict, the future
http://www.abcgallery.com/G/goes/goes2.html
http://www.classicartrepro.com/artistsc.iml?painting=3038
versus for example:-
http://www.art-for-the-world.com/immagini/foto/rau1.JPG
--
Thur
GaryR52
> periodicals. I think my "range" these days is pretty much the Internet,
> and of course RAF. Be that as it may, I live way out in the desert in a
> cultural oblivion, and I keep hearing "Duchamp, duchamp, duchamp." Even
> from the Roadrunners.
Well, at least you're honest about it. I know some folks here would have
bristled at what I said. Talking roadrunners, eh? Been out in the sun a
while? ;)
> Personally, as far as influence is concerned, I think you need to look at
> Duchamps other works...other than the ready mades. An even with the ready
> mades, the works are full of codes and references to obscure ideas, such
> as the semi-famous "R. Mutt." It's the sort of thing that give Duchamp
> scholars endless hours of fun and discovery.
Been there, done that, many years ago. His drawing of a mustache on the Mona
Lisa and writing, in French, the loose equivalent of "she's got a hot ass"
is yet another example. But, I think Duchamp's real value to art history was
in calling the assumptions of the past into question and, where that's
concerned, he certainly was successful. But, that said, he was more of a
provocateur than an artist. Of course, that's just my opinion.
> I would detach "worthiness" from "influence" or "popularity" concepts.
> Why? Because it's an evaluative term. In other words, in any debate
> about art there are claims that can be substantiated, and claims that
> can't be substantiated. So in my view once you use the term "worthy" it
> is a weak argument from the get go. And that's not to diss anyone's
> preferences in art, mind you. I mean, if you say "Jean Arp is worthy of
> my attention," how can anyone argue with you? There's nothing to bring to
> the table to refute your statement (oh, I guess there is something - like
> "but you wrote in 1952 that you hated Arp's work." So you would have to
> respond "But I changed my mind in 1963."
Okay, then. My point wasn't specifically about the Duchamp issue, though. I
was making the general observation that one's own ignorance of someone else
doesn't in any way negate the other person's contribution. In other words,
if some yahoo says, "Duchamp? Never heard of him," they are merely
dismissing the man and his work out of their own total ignorance of him. I
found your comment about Moore, Hepworth, Arp and Smith to be approximately
the same sort of dismissal, which is why I raised the point. Remark
withdrawn, however, now that I know that's not really what you really
intended.
> But you need to have something concrete to argue influence. The "like
> begets like" inference just won't fly. Here's an example, off the top of
> my head. Let's say that Andy Warhol was influenced by Duchamp, and the
> argument is that Duchamp brought a urinal to the art gallery, thus
> changing the meaning of the object ("detournment," as Guy Debord would
> say.) And Warhol did the same thing with the image of a soup can. "It's
> clear...Duchamp was a major influence of Pop Art." But your opponent
> could argue "Hogwash, Warhol worked in the advertising industry and the
> iconization of consummer objects was his concern. Advertising was his
> influence." Both are pretextural arguments, of course. You would have to
> present some evidence for your claim, like "Well, I have here a videotape
> of a member of the Velvet Underground complaining about Andy's obsession
> with Duchamp, and he states "Andy was unable to do anything that he
> thought wouldn't be approved by Duchamp.""
Well, I was trying to be conciliatory when I raised the possibility Duchamp
served as the genesis of today's performance/installation art. Is there an
actual linkage? Probably not directly. Most of the performance/installation
artists are the product of an art education establishment that has, for some
thirty or more years, pushed some of the same notions that, in turn, came
from Dadaism; i.e., that art can be anything you want it to be. I doubt many
of these artists are really that familiar with Duchamp, or would credit his
influence upon their work. Some would, perhaps, but some would just as
likely cite more contemporary influences, such as Nam June Paik.
> But in my argument here I'm just using "influence" in the sense of popular
> culture, or at least that branch or popular culture represented here on
> RAF. Duchamp wins, hands down, in the "mention" arena. So at least you
> can say with some authority that Duchamp is more likely to be an
> "influence" on the artists who participate in RAF. It's just a matter of
> counting.
I'm not familiar with RAF. By the way, I must say I hate my generation and
the generations after mine's tendency to abbreviate everything as though
everyone understands what it's supposed to mean. The usual practice is that,
when using an abbreviation, you say what it stands for the first time it's
used. I'm fairly certain we're not talking about the Royal Air Force, but
what you DO mean is obscure to me. I take it RAF is some sort of artist's
organization, probably aligned with performance.installation art, right? I
don't get out much, myself. ;)
Gary
GaryR52
Gary
<sculpt...@ethanham.com> wrote in message
news:1123009207....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
GaryR52
>> the question "what is art?" ceases to have any meaning or relevence.
> It's a handy construct for those who wish to defeat any constuctive
> criticism of art. It keeps the target moving, and of course allows just
> not a wide range of art but all art, making the whole world of art
> as worthy as the most worthless.
> Fortunately, it made not a jot of difference to the world of art that
> includes the past, and I predict, the future
Actually, not what I was saying at all. Exactly the opposite, in fact. If
the question "what is art?" IS negated by rendering it meaningless, THEN all
discourse, pro or con, stops immediately. If you say that anything can be an
art object, then the keyboard I'm banging on right now is an art object and
the high school educated factory workers who made it for barely more than
minimum wages are all artists. This question goes hand-in-hand with the
question "who is an artist?." Sorry, but, if this sounds exclusionary, let's
not forget that if everyone is an artist, then being an artist no longer has
any significance.
I'm not saying this is the case, I'm saying that it is NOT the case, that
art DOES have legitimate criteria with which we can agree upon certain
standards of what is and what is not art. I am saying that what is
considered art is NOT completely subjective. If you tell me you've drawn a
portrait of someone and that your intent was to portray them as they really
appear, then you've set a standard by which to judge the results. If the
portrait doesn't look a thing like the subject in question, then it's fair
to say you've done a bad job of drawing. There are objective criteria by
which to judge art and by which to judge what is art. The trouble is, as
you've pointed out, who establishes the criteria and how. The whole of
modern art was a departure from the strictures of the past, not so much
because it challenged our assumptions of what art is, but because it
challenged the assumption that art is what most people had thought it to be
up that point in time. It was, effectively saying, who says ________ (fill
in the blank with any artist born before 1850)'s art is the only thing that
can be considered art? I would agree that this extends to Duchamp or anyone
else. In art, no one has the Best Way, only their own way. If that
contradicts having objective criteria about what art is, then it just shows
the state of crisis the arts are in today. We have a public that, like it or
not, usually believes that what many of us are doing (myself included) is
not "real" art. I, like you, tend to disagree. But, I still like to believe
that not just anyone is an artist and that not everything is art. There has
to be some criteria for comparison and judegement, otherwise, art ceases to
have any significance and is devalued to the point of being nothing but a
passtime.
Gary
Erik A. Mattila
>>Very true, I do need to get out more. And I have given-up reading art
>>periodicals. I think my "range" these days is pretty much the Internet,
>>and of course RAF. Be that as it may, I live way out in the desert in a
>>cultural oblivion, and I keep hearing "Duchamp, duchamp, duchamp." Even
>>from the Roadrunners.
>
>
> Well, at least you're honest about it. I know some folks here would have
> bristled at what I said. Talking roadrunners, eh? Been out in the sun a
> while? ;)
And the Mourning Doves. Sometimes they really drive me up the wall with
their constant utterances: "Give us your tired" "Give us your poor" over
and over and over.
>
>
>>Personally, as far as influence is concerned, I think you need to look at
>>Duchamps other works...other than the ready mades. An even with the ready
>>mades, the works are full of codes and references to obscure ideas, such
>>as the semi-famous "R. Mutt." It's the sort of thing that give Duchamp
>>scholars endless hours of fun and discovery.
>
>
> Been there, done that, many years ago. His drawing of a mustache on the Mona
> Lisa and writing, in French, the loose equivalent of "she's got a hot ass"
> is yet another example. But, I think Duchamp's real value to art history was
> in calling the assumptions of the past into question and, where that's
> concerned, he certainly was successful. But, that said, he was more of a
> provocateur than an artist. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Well, surrealism was essentially a political movement, so provocateurism
is quite at home.
>
>
>
>>I would detach "worthiness" from "influence" or "popularity" concepts.
>>Why? Because it's an evaluative term. In other words, in any debate
>>about art there are claims that can be substantiated, and claims that
>>can't be substantiated. So in my view once you use the term "worthy" it
>>is a weak argument from the get go. And that's not to diss anyone's
>>preferences in art, mind you. I mean, if you say "Jean Arp is worthy of
>>my attention," how can anyone argue with you? There's nothing to bring to
>>the table to refute your statement (oh, I guess there is something - like
>>"but you wrote in 1952 that you hated Arp's work." So you would have to
>>respond "But I changed my mind in 1963."
>
>
> Okay, then. My point wasn't specifically about the Duchamp issue, though. I
> was making the general observation that one's own ignorance of someone else
> doesn't in any way negate the other person's contribution. In other words,
> if some yahoo says, "Duchamp? Never heard of him," they are merely
> dismissing the man and his work out of their own total ignorance of him. I
> found your comment about Moore, Hepworth, Arp and Smith to be approximately
> the same sort of dismissal, which is why I raised the point. Remark
> withdrawn, however, now that I know that's not really what you really
> intended.
>
Funny thing is that I like quite a few obscure artists because of their
obscurity, regardless of their work. As for artists that I am
completely ignorant of (and they are legion) I don't know....by
definition. ;-)
>
>
>
>>But you need to have something concrete to argue influence. The "like
>>begets like" inference just won't fly. Here's an example, off the top of
>>my head. Let's say that Andy Warhol was influenced by Duchamp, and the
>>argument is that Duchamp brought a urinal to the art gallery, thus
>>changing the meaning of the object ("detournment," as Guy Debord would
>>say.) And Warhol did the same thing with the image of a soup can. "It's
>>clear...Duchamp was a major influence of Pop Art." But your opponent
>>could argue "Hogwash, Warhol worked in the advertising industry and the
>>iconization of consummer objects was his concern. Advertising was his
>>influence." Both are pretextural arguments, of course. You would have to
>>present some evidence for your claim, like "Well, I have here a videotape
>>of a member of the Velvet Underground complaining about Andy's obsession
>>with Duchamp, and he states "Andy was unable to do anything that he
>>thought wouldn't be approved by Duchamp.""
>
>
> Well, I was trying to be conciliatory when I raised the possibility Duchamp
> served as the genesis of today's performance/installation art. Is there an
> actual linkage? Probably not directly. Most of the performance/installation
> artists are the product of an art education establishment that has, for some
> thirty or more years, pushed some of the same notions that, in turn, came
> from Dadaism; i.e., that art can be anything you want it to be. I doubt many
> of these artists are really that familiar with Duchamp, or would credit his
> influence upon their work. Some would, perhaps, but some would just as
> likely cite more contemporary influences, such as Nam June Paik.
I took a terrific "Theory & Criticism" course by Wayne Thiebaud when I
was in art school, and he had us play a game: combine two artists and
guess what artist would result. Like "Duchamp + Warhol = Koons" or
"Giotto + Hicks = Gauguin." Great fun, and when you get right down to
it quite challenging. But of course art historians would cringe at the
idea. What's provable or even debatable? George Kubler sort of did
this in his major theoretical work "The Shape of Time" in which he
argued, more or less, that there was a developmental continuum in
landscape painting in western art. But I thought it was weak, since it
proposes that there is some sort of connection from Roman mural painting
and Diebenkorn's "Ocean Park" series. I thought the "glue" Kubler
theorized was imaginary.
>
>
>
>>But in my argument here I'm just using "influence" in the sense of popular
>>culture, or at least that branch or popular culture represented here on
>>RAF. Duchamp wins, hands down, in the "mention" arena. So at least you
>>can say with some authority that Duchamp is more likely to be an
>>"influence" on the artists who participate in RAF. It's just a matter of
>>counting.
>
>
> I'm not familiar with RAF. By the way, I must say I hate my generation and
> the generations after mine's tendency to abbreviate everything as though
> everyone understands what it's supposed to mean. The usual practice is that,
> when using an abbreviation, you say what it stands for the first time it's
> used. I'm fairly certain we're not talking about the Royal Air Force, but
> what you DO mean is obscure to me. I take it RAF is some sort of artist's
> organization, probably aligned with performance.installation art, right? I
> don't get out much, myself. ;)
>
> Gary
>
>
I'm talking about the news group "rec.art.fine" - sorry. I didn't
notice the cross postings.
GaryR52
> is quite at home.
True, though not as much so as Italian Futurism, perhaps.
> Funny thing is that I like quite a few obscure artists because of their
> obscurity, regardless of their work. As for artists that I am completely
> ignorant of (and they are legion) I don't know....by definition. ;-)
I tend to like the art, myself. If it truns out the artist is regarded as
obscure, so what? This is especially the case with my tastes in music. Most
people, in looking at my CD collection, usually remark that they've never
heard of most the artists there. The same phenomenon at work again; i.e., it
can't be good if I haven't heard of it. I'm only human and occasionally make
the same error myself, but most of the time I'm pretty good about giving an
artist a chance. I wish art dealers were that way. ;)
> I took a terrific "Theory & Criticism" course by Wayne Thiebaud when I was
> in art school, and he had us play a game: combine two artists and guess
> what artist would result. Like "Duchamp + Warhol = Koons" or "Giotto +
> Hicks = Gauguin." Great fun, and when you get right down to it quite
> challenging. But of course art historians would cringe at the idea.
> What's provable or even debatable? George Kubler sort of did this in his
> major theoretical work "The Shape of Time" in which he argued, more or
> less, that there was a developmental continuum in landscape painting in
> western art. But I thought it was weak, since it proposes that there is
> some sort of connection from Roman mural painting and Diebenkorn's "Ocean
> Park" series. I thought the "glue" Kubler theorized was imaginary.
That does sound like fun. Then there are some artists who are so much alike
that, if combined, almost cancel each other out. Moore + Hepworth =
Moore....or Hepworth. At one point, in the thirties, they were both doing
stringed figures and using "the hole." She got the stringed idea from him,
he got the hole from her...or was it the other way around? Moorworth,
Hepoore?
> I'm talking about the news group "rec.art.fine" - sorry. I didn't notice
> the cross postings.
Ah, I see. I've only recently returned to reading newsgroups, after a hiatus
of about four years.
Gary
sculpt...@ethanham.com
There's an unfortunate tendency to conflate the discussion of "what is
art" with "what is good art." I think it's worth having a distinction
between the two (though perhaps I'm just arguing a semantic point).
Being inclusive as was constitute art does NOT debase good art (or make
the distinction of the worthy & worthless impossible). Do we have to
say Danielle Steel's novels aren't books because otherwise it makes
Thomas Pynchon (or whoever you respect as an author) worthless?
Perhaps leaving behind an "is it art" discussion for an "is it good
art" is just moving forward an inch, but at least then we aren't put in
the position of declaring that someone else isn't an artist & their
work isn't art.
Henri
It might have been a gimmick, but it wasn't art..................
Oh how I long to be remembered for a urinal................ yeah right.
"GaryR52" <gar...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mOMHe.9404$Zt.8494@okepread05...
GaryR52
disntinctions as "good" or "bad" art. This was not a value judgement, but an
attempt to show there must be some standards to apply, otherwise, either
everything, without restriction, is art or nothing is. If there are no
objective criteria to establish what IS art, then there is no possibility of
anyone judging what is or isn't "good" or "bad" art, is there? If there is
no coherent definition of what constitutes art, then how can the relative
merit of any art object be assessed? If all art objects are treated as
equally valid, then there are no objective standards to be applied to art
and such things as art education and art appreciation and, indeed, the
entire concept of art, itself become meaningless.
This is not some exercise in P.C. etiquette. This nonsense about being
"inclusive" or not has no place in any intelligent discussion of art. If
everyone's opinion is right, then no one's is. If there are no standards and
everything that anyone wants to call art is allowed to be considered as art
then art itself is without meaning. It becomes an empty word signifying
nothing. If everything is allowed equal status as art, simply because the
"artist" proclaims it is art, then the entire justification for juried
exhibitions and the process by which artitsts are selected for inclusion in
galleries goes right out the window. The very value of art itself is
completely lost and rendered insignificant and meaningless by proclaiming
that anything anyone labels as "art" is equally as vaild as those works that
are of the highest caliber of craftsmanship.
Now, let me inform you that I'm a modernist and my tastes in art are very
broad, very open and very far-ranging. I am very open minded about art,
certainly more so than those who eschew anything that isn't
representational. This is NOT an attempt to say art must represent anything.
I am not in that camp. What I am saying is that there is a limit to what one
can rationally call art.
You may regard this as "old fashioned," but most artists, even those who,
like me, do non-objective or abstract art, will agree that the creation of
art involves much more than merely labeling an existing manufactured object
(manufactured by someone else, NOT by the artist) as art. ANYONE can do
that! I can take my computer to a gallery, throw it on the floor and
proclaim this to be an art object and, according to your viewpoint, that
would make it art. Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with this notion.
Art involves the act of creation and nothing is created by merely calling
something art. I have no problem with a sculptor using found objects in an
arranged composition. This has at least some degree of creativity involved.
But to take an existing object and do nothing to modify it any way does not
involve any creative act by any stretch of the imagination. If there is
anything that separates the artist from everyone else, it is the act of
creation. It is the act of either creating something that didn't exist
before or taking something existing and in some way altering it.
Now, I expect those who subscribe to the idea of conceptual art will say
that merely hanging an unmodified vacuum cleaner on a gallery wall is
"altering" the vacuum cleaner by "changing its context," but this is
pretentious nonsense and everyone knows it is. If that's an act of creating
art, then everytime I take my vacuum cleaner out of the closet I'm creating
art by changing its context. Hey, maybe if I move some dust bunnies around,
I can call that art, too.
Gary
<sculpt...@ethanham.com> wrote in message
news:1123028249.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
GaryR52
Gary
"Henri" <hank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:P5VHe.938$qv2...@fe07.lga...
Henri
am just being lazy, sorry. I know you were kind of dissing Mr. Mutt.
Hank
"GaryR52" <gar...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:G6WHe.9430$Zt.1534@okepread05...
GaryR52
having a "discussion" about the relative merits of Marcel Duchamp's legacy
to the world and its implications. ;)
Gary
"Henri" <hank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cwWHe.3144$Tt6...@fe04.lga...
Thur
Yes, values.
When an ancient Roman mosaic floor is uncovered by archeologists,
we wonder at it's refinement, and try to grasp the meaning of it's
mythological images, and wonder at the lifestyle and tatses of the owners.
When however, we uncover the same floor, and find it worn down, and
the tessiary replaced by broken bits of tile, or poorly edged stone, with
no attempt to make a colour match, this tells us another story.
When we find that the villa's roof had collapsed on the floor, later covered
by the collapsed walls, and the remains of fires lit in it's centre, we can
again consider the place the mosaic had in it's time, and afterwards.
When we look in an important museum and wonder at a magnificent bronze
statue and read that it is Roman, yet a copy of an original Greek sculpture,
then yet again, we can place that artifact in our minds, and the culture
from
which it came, and what must have been an earlier culture, perhaps the like
we cannot imagine, without the remains to view.
In all this, we can judge in a relative sense, at least, what art is, how it
relates
to the culture from which it springs, and how such cultures, and such art
can
come and go, and how certain judgements upon taste can be made.
These judgements can be built upon layer and layers of art, and yet still
be in place to judge any cultural leap into the dark which might occur.
--
Thur
GaryR52
archaeological remains any time in the future, yet, that is the way of
history, so far. What will our long-term descendants conclude from our art?
In fact, will they be able to conclude anything about us at all from our
art? Given the state of art as it exists now, I think that, if civilization
came to a crashing end at this moment, the picture future archaeologists
have of us might be that we were a civilization in chaos, with a fragmented
culture. Indeed, isn't that the way we often describe our civilization
today?
Many believe, erroneously, that the Dark Ages was the result of wave after
wave of invasions by the barabarian hordes of Europe, but this was only the
final phase in a long decline of civilization that had occurred over a span
of some three hundred years or so. In many ways, our own civilization
parallels this decline and I am hardly the first to say so. One reason for
this decline is the loss of any coherent philosophy or binding culture. The
late Ayn Rand warned of this, believing that, without a philosophy that is
integral to our society, that society would ultimately be doomed to another
Dark Age.
Personally, I don't think we're quite that far gone, yet. As for the shift
in "layers of art" and their meaning to the broader culture that you allude
to, Thur, it is evident that we are in a period of dramatic shift and flux
in which art styles come and go at a rate that would have astounded our
ancestors. The Egyptians' Armana Style lasted for some 400 years. The Romans
kept the last vestiges of the Greek's art alive for centuries after
conquering them and the "Classical" art of both the Greeks and Romans were
revered and preserved and, I might add, perverted by our own civilization
over the course of the last couple of centuries. In fact, the art styles of
ancient Greece and Rome still persist in some of our architecture, though in
the form of badly conceived mimmicry that is grossly out of scale and
adulterated with a hodge-podge of influences from three or four centuries of
architecture. Concurrent with this bastardization of classical influences
has been the rise, decline and fragmentation of Modern Art into the current
Post Modern cacophony of pluralism that we live with today.
As an artist, I try to live in my own times. I was born well within the
mid-career years of Henry Moore, my chief influence, and what I do reflects
that. I don't expect art to stand still, of course, and it certainly hasn't.
It has, in fact, accelerated in the rate of its change. I might dare call it
"disintegration," rather than change, but, admittedly, my perceptions are a
product of my times and my viewpoint.
A curious phenomenon is that artists have, historically, rediscovered the
art of the past, at various points in history, and have been influenced by
it, infusing it into current culture. The long clinging to the "Classics" is
the best example of this, but there are micro examples of it that have
occurred and, indeed, are occurring yet, within our own time. In my own
time, I have witnessed the flourishing of Modernism, its decline, and, in
recent years, its rebirth, as a new generation has discovered it and brought
back an appreciation for mid-twentieth century art and design that is
currently swinging the pendulum of taste back, away from the influence of
those who worship at the altar of Thomas Kincade. Actually, Kincade's roots
are in Impressionism, the first of the modernist movements, so, in that
sense, his work is a throwback to early modernism, before it broke off into
total abstraction.
Yet, even as there is a growing appreciation and revival of mid-twentieth
century modernism, there is a concurrent growth of interest in the legacy of
Duchamp; i.e., conceptual art, installation art and performance art, all
derivations of Dadaism. Actually, one could say that this trend is a part of
the trend back to modernism, since the original Dada movement was a part of
the broader modernist movement of the early twentieth century. In that
sense, we're all modernists, then, those who practice anything other than
the continuation of the classical figuration of the ancient Greeks and
Romans, that is. It remains to be seen as to whether the Duchampian stream
will dominate or not. I tend to think not, as there is a limit to how far
away from the classical ideals of art we can stray before being, ultimately,
pulled back again to a point somewhere along the continuum we've come from.
It could very well be, in fact, that the trend of appreciation for
mid-twentieth century art and design is a response to the rise of
conceptual, installation and performance art. It will be interesting to see
what develops in the future.
Gary
"Thur" <no-per...@z.com> wrote in message
news:Ky0Ie.8418$n97....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
sculpt...@ethanham.com
didn't have any particular claims as to your statements. My posting
above is really about how people in general think about & discuss
art... it was just prompted by what you & Thur was saying,
I'm sorry you think my opinions are nonsense & are P.C. ettiquette. I
assure you, I've spent a lot of time thinking about these things and
I'm speaking as someone who takes the issue seriously... I'm not just
spewing hippie sunlight & happiness.
A couple of things about the idea that "art is whatever the artist says
is art":
* Whether you agree with it or not, you should understand that this is
a pretty standard idea in the contemporary art world. Treating it as a
bizarro or earth-shattering idea risks coming across as a bit naive.
That's not to say one has to agree with it, just understand that it is
a pretty wide-held opinion. Compare this to the Big Bang theory...
there are certainly cosmologists who disagree with the theory, but
they'd certainly not treat it as a crank idea.
* As I said before, I think it's an idea that works better in practice
than in theory. Yes, if everything in the world was art, it makes art
meaningless. But in reality not that much stuff is being presenting as
art. I look around my room which probably has 100 objects, only three
of them are art.
* You state that is there's no objective criteria of what is art then
there is no possibility of anyone judging what is or isn't "good" or
"bad" art, is there?
Heehee... well we're already in that position, aren't we. There is no
objective criteria of what is art. And any judgement of what is good
or bad is going to be subjective as well. And, be honest here, is it
more pretentious to say "This unaltered vacuum cleaner is art" or to
say "I am the arbiter of what is art--and that is not art because I say
so"?
GaryR52
<sculpt...@ethanham.com> wrote in message
news:1123086583.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I don't see how I could have mischaracterized what you said, since I
> didn't have any particular claims as to your statements. My posting
> above is really about how people in general think about & discuss
> art... it was just prompted by what you & Thur was saying,
It was your statement below that lead me to that impression:
"Being inclusive as was constitute art does NOT debase good art (or make
the distinction of the worthy & worthless impossible). Do we have to
say Danielle Steel's novels aren't books because otherwise it makes
Thomas Pynchon (or whoever you respect as an author) worthless?"
You seemed to be suggesting that art should be all-inclusive and that anyone
claiming to be an artist or claiming that his work is art is equal to
everyone else who does so. This sort of equivalence undermines the value of
all art.
> I'm sorry you think my opinions are nonsense & are P.C. ettiquette. I
> assure you, I've spent a lot of time thinking about these things and
> I'm speaking as someone who takes the issue seriously... I'm not just
> spewing hippie sunlight & happiness.
Again, it was your statement, which I commented on above, that gives the
impression you believe it is politically incorrect to exclude supposed
artists whose work is, at best, dubious. FYI, I, for one, detest the concept
of so-called "political correctness." Years ago, it was called what it is:
conformism. Conformism is to be expected in a socialist beehive society but
it has no place in a democratic republic of free individuals.
> A couple of things about the idea that "art is whatever the artist says
> is art":
>
> * Whether you agree with it or not, you should understand that this is
> a pretty standard idea in the contemporary art world. Treating it as a
> bizarro or earth-shattering idea risks coming across as a bit naive.
> That's not to say one has to agree with it, just understand that it is
> a pretty wide-held opinion. Compare this to the Big Bang theory...
> there are certainly cosmologists who disagree with the theory, but
> they'd certainly not treat it as a crank idea.
Well, I've probably been around a while longer than you have been and I'm
very much aware of this situation. If you interpret my academic discussion
of the topic as the ranting of some philistine who doesn't know anything
about the art world, sorry, but, you don't know what you're talking about.
The mere fact that such conditions do exist does not in any way excuse their
existence, nor does it render any criticism of them invalid. The very fact
that people like you accept this situation so blithely is why it has
devolved to the point it has. As for the Big Bang, I suggest you read "The
Big Bang Never Happened," by cosmologist Eric J. Lerner, if you haven't
already. You might learn something.
> * As I said before, I think it's an idea that works better in practice
> than in theory. Yes, if everything in the world was art, it makes art
> meaningless. But in reality not that much stuff is being presenting as
> art. I look around my room which probably has 100 objects, only three
> of them are art.
We're not talking about the "stuff" in your room or mine, here. We're
talking about the stuff offered by so-called artists as so-called art. There
is a huge difference. It is this attitude that anything can be art that has
lead to the devaluing of art and the turning away from art by the public at
large. Whether we agree it's an informed opinion or not, the vast majority
of the world's population does not think an unmodified vacuum cleaner
hanging on a wall, or a snow shovel propped up in the corner, or a urinal
are objects of art.
While most folks are no fans of Henry Moore, either, there are undoubtedly
more (and among them many artists, critics, art historians, gallery owners
and art educators) who would agree that his body of work constitutes art
than would agree that unmodified manufactured goods are. To be fair, I would
be willing to entertain the possibility that Koons' unmodified Hoover is a
work of art if it had been presented in the context of a showing of
industrial design of the twentieth century, much like the relatively recent
MOMA showing of motorcycles. However, such was not the case and Koons
presented his vacuum cleaner as (1) art and (2) his own creation, which it
was certainly not. It was designed and manufactured by the people at the
Hoover company and Koons deserves no credit for its form whatsoever. All he
did was hang it on a wall and give it a pretentious title.
That brings me to my main point and that is that this entire area of
conceptual/performance/installation art is mere pretense. It calls for the
willing suspension of disbelief and tastes on the part of the viewer and a
willingness to accept whatever precepts the artist wants us to accept. Of
course, someone imbued with the narrow view that only realistic
representational works are "real art" might argue that Henry Moore's work is
a similar sham, but he'd have to agree that Moore's work required
craftsmanship and effort, whereas, most of what passes for conceptual art
is, at best, lacking in this regard.
>
> * You state that is there's no objective criteria of what is art then
> there is no possibility of anyone judging what is or isn't "good" or
> "bad" art, is there?
>
> Heehee... well we're already in that position, aren't we. There is no
> objective criteria of what is art. And any judgement of what is good
> or bad is going to be subjective as well. And, be honest here, is it
> more pretentious to say "This unaltered vacuum cleaner is art" or to
> say "I am the arbiter of what is art--and that is not art because I say
> so"?
True enough. We are at that point, or rather, we're at the point at which
society has discarded any objective standards (in almost anything, including
art). The fact remains that there ARE such objective standards and that many
of us are applying them. Pretending there are no standards to be applied
does not in any way negate their existence. As long as people with minds can
clearly distinguish for themselves what is and what isn't art and why it is
or isn't, there will be people applying objective standards. Those who
choose not to acknowledge this can stand apart from us and delude themselves
into believing that they are artists of an equal stature, but those who know
better are not being fooled.
Gary
sculpt...@ethanham.com
GaryR52
<sculpt...@ethanham.com> wrote in message
news:1123093263.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Thur
news:1123093263.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> It's amazing how horrible newsgroups are for discussion.
>
Yes they can be.
But when you enter a discussion, surely you expect to encounter
arguments contary to your own and held just as legitimately, rather
than entering a backslapping, cosy chat with like minded pals?
We have been here so many times before.
We all have our agendas, too.
We have not yet begun to pick up on spelling and grammar mistakes,
or making claims of better examination results, or hurling insults.
If you have a good argument then you will have to make your points
and suffer the feeling of not being able to communicate them well
enough.
We all encounter this.
Without such debate there would be little incentive to read these posts.
And for dessert, there could always be a chance of a 15 page intervention
from the Nilge. :-)
--
Thur
GaryR52
energy into responding to Mr. SculptureNews, only to have him cop out on me
and not even bother to reply. If I "win" an argument (not my goal, here; I
intend friendly discussion of topics that matter to me and it isn't
necessary that others agree with me - nor that I agree with them), I'd
prefer it to be because the other person has seen my point and comes to
agree with it because he's been genuinely persuaded. When the other person
does the equivalent of taking his ball and going home, it's not worth the
bother.
Gary
"Thur" <no-per...@z.com> wrote in message
news:8F8Ie.6204$9K3....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
sculpt...@ethanham.com
in the future avoiding calling other people's opinion "nonsense" and
"p.c."
I apologize for pulling out of the conversation so abruptly.
sculpt...@ethanham.com
art you do. I didn't find anything on the web, but did come across the
LifeBox house design. That's yours, right? Very cool... I like the
idea.
Jud Turner
little more tangible - the art people here are making. I was curious
as well, and found some really interesting art at what I assume is your
site: www.ethanham.com - especially the chair at the bottom of the page
- cool idea. Can't wait to see the more finished version of your site
(it said "temporary somewhere on there").
When people express long, articulate (or not) arguments on the finer
points of art theory, opinion, criticism, etc, I am always curious to
see their artistic output as well. Helps me understand where they are
coming from.
- Jud
www.judturner.com
GaryR52
Gary
<sculpt...@ethanham.com> wrote in message
news:1123099254.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
GaryR52
manufacturer for it, unfortunately, so it's just a series of nice renders,
at this point.
I am currently planning a website for my sculpture, but haven't got it ready
yet. I began doing sculpture in plaster, wax and clay back in 1982, mostly
as a hobby then and, after a lengthy hiatus, I began doing digital sculpture
in 1997, off and on. Lately, I have been doing it rather heavily, with the
idea in mind of having some of it made tangible via rapid prototyping, but
the costs of doing so preclude any possibility of that unless I can get a
paying client to foot the bill for it. So, I recently decided to use my
renders as reference for hand-made sculpture, which I've had a growing
interest in getting back to. I've decided to work primarily in carved
polyurethane foam as a core material for fiberglass or maybe Winterstone.
It's a good route to larger pieces at a fraction of the cost of doing pieces
that size (about 12" to 36") in, say, metal or stone. I have some renders
posted to the sculpture board at WetCanvas, if you want to see some of what
I have in mind doing:
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=285991
So, I take it you're not only a sculptor but a journalist/publisher? I'm not
familiar with Sculpture News. Is it an online publication, or both online
and offline?
Sorry if I was a tad obnoxious. I'm obviously rather opinionated, but not
without reason. ;)
Gary
<sculpt...@ethanham.com> wrote in message
news:1123099780.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
GaryR52
understand his anger at some of my comments, if nothing else. ;)
I actually did find the video of the film installation an intriguing idea.
It reminds me of some of Nam June Paik's installations, in a way, only with
a somewhat sinister air about it (must be because it's dark).
Gary
"Jud Turner" <j...@judturner.com> wrote in message
news:1123107734.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jud Turner
on a large scale.
I too have fantasies about owning a prototyping machine, but it's way
too much $ for now. Hopefully in a few years, there will be cheap home
versions you can buy at Harbor Freight... but even then, I'll probably
always be a hands on guy - I like the process too much.
I totally encourage you (or any artist) to do the website thing. If
you don't know how, it's really pretty easy, especially using some of
the tools out there like Dreamweaver, or freeware HTML editors. Having
a website has connected me with some customers I'd never have
encountered otherwise (and sales are commission free). It's been very
rewarding, if not always financially.
- Jud
www.judturner.com
GaryR52
Thanks, Jud. I can't wait to see them at any scale, but especially
monumental.
> I too have fantasies about owning a prototyping machine, but it's way
> too much $ for now. Hopefully in a few years, there will be cheap home
> versions you can buy at Harbor Freight... but even then, I'll probably
> always be a hands on guy - I like the process too much.
You know, I was reading an article, recently, that suggested we may
eventually see rapid prototyping services offered by Kinkos. Wouldn't it be
great to email an STL file to your neighborhood Kinkos, the go over in a
hour or four to pick up your wax investment casting pattern? Of course, it
will never happen until the printers come way down in price, comparable to
the equipment Kinkos uses now, and, of course, there must be a sufficient
demand for the service, as well.
I'm the same way, as far as being hands-on goes. I started that way and the
digital stuff has just been a recent experiment. The whole time I've been
doing digital pieces, I've been getting very excited about going back to
doing them with my own two hands in tangible media. It's like one of my
graphic design professors once said, the more high-tech things become, the
more people are attracted to the "high-touch," which is his label for
handmade art. It's true, too. I don't see the arts and crafts in any way
being diminshed by the advance of digital technology. Even photography,
which has been impacted by digital technology, is an area that still
attracts people who want to learn how to work with film and light and
chemistry (I was a photolab technician in the Air Force, myself).
> I totally encourage you (or any artist) to do the website thing. If
> you don't know how, it's really pretty easy, especially using some of
> the tools out there like Dreamweaver, or freeware HTML editors. Having
> a website has connected me with some customers I'd never have
> encountered otherwise (and sales are commission free). It's been very
> rewarding, if not always financially.
I have a B.A. in graphic design, so the page layout aspect is no problem. I
went through school immediately before my alma mater offered computer
graphics, though, so what I've learned about that has been on my own since
then. I use Dreamweaver MX and, sometimes, Web Dwarf (I like the fact you
can position elements freely, unlike the word processor formatting of
Dreamweaver), as well as Photoshop, Corel PhotoPaint, and lots of other
software. I've created several personal sites and a business site, as well,
all for my own use. I was selling my own modernist home plans for a couple
of years, or trying to, anyway. Some things don't sell well on the web. I'm
hoping art is an exception, though I know it's easier to sell 2D art than it
is to sell sculpture, or so I've heard, anyway. We shall see. I think the
main value of having a website for one's artwork is in having an online
portfolio to attract people to a gallery, show or your studio. I know a lot
of artists are set up for online sales, but I don't know how many are
actually selling anything, let alone selling enough to sustain themselves.
Gary
Andrew Werby
that allows one to realize 3d digital designs in physical materials. You can
get a CNC mill for a quite reasonable amount of money, which provides just
as rapid a way to do this as any, and more so than most. Harbor Freight
actually does sell some mills that, if you retrofit them with
computer-controlled motors, can work pretty well for this. While I'm not
sure that Kinko's will jump on board, there are already some service bureaus
that offer 3d physical output in various materials. Large-scale machines
will cost more, but it's not as expensive as people seem to think - prices
have come down a lot recently on CNC controllers, CAD/CAM software, and of
course the computers that make it all happen. Check out the links section of
my computersculpture site -as well as the site itself - for a range of
products that may give you some idea of what's possible.]
Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com
Mani Deli
>Many believe, erroneously, that the Dark Ages was the result of wave after
>wave of invasions by the barabarian hordes of Europe,
In most cases it was. Any study of history could hardly to deny it.
>but this was only the
>final phase in a long decline of civilization that had occurred over a span
>of some three hundred years or so.
It's debatable but most agree it started in the fifth century with the
fall of Rome. Indeed there were islands of exception especially in the
east.
>As an artist, I try to live in my own times.
Totally unavoidable.
> I was born well within the
>mid-career years of Henry Moore, my chief influence, and what I do reflects
>that. I don't expect art to stand still, of course, and it certainly hasn't.
>It has, in fact, accelerated in the rate of its change. I might dare call it
>"disintegration," rather than change, but, admittedly, my perceptions are a
>product of my times and my viewpoint.
so are everyone else's.
>Yet, even as there is a growing appreciation and revival of mid-twentieth
>century modernism, there is a concurrent growth of interest in the legacy of
>Duchamp; i.e., conceptual art, installation art and performance art, all
>derivations of Dadaism.
It's just a continual repeat of dada by those who have even less
ideas, skill or talent.
>It could very well be, in fact, that the trend of appreciation for
>mid-twentieth century art and design is a response to the rise of
>conceptual, installation and performance art. It will be interesting to see
>what develops in the future.
>
20th century was so called Modern Art got worse and worse. Until we
judge the Holy Fathers like Picasso, Cezanne and Matisse for the
incompetents they are, Modern Art will necessitate ever more Artspeak
and become ever more stupid.
Andrew Werby
> You've completely mischaracterized what I said. I made no such
> disntinctions as "good" or "bad" art. This was not a value judgement, but
> an attempt to show there must be some standards to apply, otherwise,
> either everything, without restriction, is art or nothing is. If there are
> no objective criteria to establish what IS art, then there is no
> possibility of anyone judging what is or isn't "good" or "bad" art, is
> there? If there is no coherent definition of what constitutes art, then
> how can the relative merit of any art object be assessed? If all art
> objects are treated as equally valid, then there are no objective
> standards to be applied to art and such things as art education and art
> appreciation and, indeed, the entire concept of art, itself become
> meaningless.
[Can't one have a subjective opinion on what constitutes good or bad art, or
what art is at all? Everybody in the world is never going to agree with us,
but does this have to be a show-stopper? If you look at art history,
different societies have had very different ideas on the subject, and came
up with different solutions. I don't think it's necessary to rank these on
some absolute and objective scale, and if you did, you wouldn't get
universal agreement on it anyway. If you do establish a working definition
of the sort of art that appeals to you, then you have a context in which to
decide what is best and worst in the genre. For instance, you can decide
that the object of a work of art is to tell a story. In that case, paintings
would probably rank lower than novels, but cinema would likely come out on
top. In this scheme, individual works fall into place according to how well
they succeeded in conveying the full depth of the narrative experience.
Alternatively, one could rank works of art by their ability to represent the
human form in greatest detail, in which case life-casters would be at the
summit, and other artforms would fit in somewhere below. Why is it necessary
to come up with an all-encompassing absolute General Theory of Art - isn't
it enough to devise a more limited relative definition that works for your
own individual purposes?
Unless you really believe that Art is some sort of Platonic ideal that
really exists in some plane beyond our immediate apprehension, you probably
can concede that it's a construct which people have created for their own
purposes. Once you're clear on what your purpose in creating the construct
is, it's relatively simple to fit things in accordingly. Duchamp is
considered important largely because he came up with a new construct, ie:
"Anything I choose to call art, is now to be considered art," leading to
explorations by later artists which extended and amplified his original
ideas. (Interestingly, in his later life, he gave up art to concentrate on
chess, another field of endeavor in which a simple set of rules leads to a
large variety of possible outcomes.) Each artist that formulates a new way
of making art is writing the rules of his/her own game - you can decide to
play it yourself and make further progress in that genre, or simply be a
spectator and rank the contestants according to how well they achieve its
stated (or unstated) goals. Possibly someone could come along and out-drip
Jackson Pollack, out-blur Claude Monet, out-square Piet Mondrian, out-stripe
Barnett Newman, or out-box Joseph Cornell, but they defined the games they
played, and tried to work out the variations that were possible within the
rules they established.
In the past, a whole society would establish a style of art, and everyone in
it would accept the basic rules implicit in that style, and work within
them. Now an individual artist can do the same thing, and everybody else in
the society can choose whether to accept it or not. In some cases, one might
decide that what A is doing is art, while one just can't accept B's work as
more than garbage - that's an individual decision, and even if the majority
disagrees, it's very difficult to dislodge someone from that position.
Unless we devolve to a totalitarian system that demands complete conformity
in aesthetic opinions on pain of death or banishment, I'm afraid the
coherent objective standard you seem to crave will continue to elude you.]
> This is not some exercise in P.C. etiquette. This nonsense about being
> "inclusive" or not has no place in any intelligent discussion of art. If
> everyone's opinion is right, then no one's is. If there are no standards
> and everything that anyone wants to call art is allowed to be considered
> as art then art itself is without meaning. It becomes an empty word
> signifying nothing.
[Well, there's two sets here, in Boolean terms. One is the set of everything
that artists have ever decided to call art and exhibit in a gallery or
museum, and then there's everything - whether anybody thinks to call it art
or not. Surely the second set is larger, and includes the first. If one
decides that the purpose of art is to increase the first set at the expense
of the second (which seems to be the thrust of much contemporary work) then
a whole lot of artists can keep busy collecting various things and putting
them on display - what's the harm? If this isn't what appeals to you, and
you have a definition of your own that is more exclusive, that's fine - but
others may have a definition that's even more exclusive than yours. Does
that mean that their definition is more meaningful?]
If everything is allowed equal status as art, simply because the
> "artist" proclaims it is art, then the entire justification for juried
> exhibitions and the process by which artitsts are selected for inclusion
> in galleries goes right out the window.
[Right - it has done just that. Since every juror these days has his or her
own idiosyncratic definition of what's art - and particularly what
constitutes good art - it would be foolish to pay money to be judged by
someone whose aesthetic proclivities differ widely from ones own. You can
be an excellent realist, but if the juror is someone who considers
representation of things to be "kitsch", you're not getting into that show -
and you likely won't be impressed by the art that is admitted. Galleries
likewise tend to be an expression of a gallerist's individual tastes - in
fact, some consider the act of choosing art to be the primary artistic act
in itself, while the individual artists are reduced to the stature of the
anonymous craftsmen who created Duchamp's urinal.]
The very value of art itself is
> completely lost and rendered insignificant and meaningless by proclaiming
> that anything anyone labels as "art" is equally as vaild as those works
> that are of the highest caliber of craftsmanship.
[Precisely. Art has little value in itself any more; it's mostly valued as a
souvenir of fame (acquired for whatever reason). Consider the difference
between a piece that's accepted as being authentic and an identical piece
considered to be fake. If you look at valuations of contemporary art, I
don't think you'll find much relationship between auction prices and any
discernable degree of craftsmanship. Buy a Basquait lately?]
>
> Now, let me inform you that I'm a modernist and my tastes in art are very
> broad, very open and very far-ranging. I am very open minded about art,
> certainly more so than those who eschew anything that isn't
> representational. This is NOT an attempt to say art must represent
> anything. I am not in that camp. What I am saying is that there is a limit
> to what one can rationally call art.
[Where do you draw the line?]
>
> You may regard this as "old fashioned," but most artists, even those who,
> like me, do non-objective or abstract art, will agree that the creation of
> art involves much more than merely labeling an existing manufactured
> object (manufactured by someone else, NOT by the artist) as art. ANYONE
> can do that! I can take my computer to a gallery, throw it on the floor
> and proclaim this to be an art object and, according to your viewpoint,
> that would make it art. Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with this
> notion.
>
> Art involves the act of creation and nothing is created by merely calling
> something art. I have no problem with a sculptor using found objects in an
> arranged composition. This has at least some degree of creativity
> involved. But to take an existing object and do nothing to modify it any
> way does not involve any creative act by any stretch of the imagination.
> If there is anything that separates the artist from everyone else, it is
> the act of creation. It is the act of either creating something that
> didn't exist before or taking something existing and in some way altering
> it.
[If you don't agree that a change of context is enough, then what's the
minimum degree of alteration that qualifies it as a work of art, in your
view? What if you paint that computer a different color? What if you collect
two computers, or a pile of them? What if you smash it? Can destruction be
equivalent to creation?]
>
> Now, I expect those who subscribe to the idea of conceptual art will say
> that merely hanging an unmodified vacuum cleaner on a gallery wall is
> "altering" the vacuum cleaner by "changing its context," but this is
> pretentious nonsense and everyone knows it is. If that's an act of
> creating art, then everytime I take my vacuum cleaner out of the closet
> I'm creating art by changing its context. Hey, maybe if I move some dust
> bunnies around, I can call that art, too.
>
> Gary
[Yes, you could. If you were passionate enough about it, you might start a
new movement (or at least improve your environment...)]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
GaryR52
> [I should point out that additive rapid prototyping isn't the only method
> that allows one to realize 3d digital designs in physical materials. You
> can get a CNC mill for a quite reasonable amount of money, which provides
> just as rapid a way to do this as any, and more so than most.
Yep, well aware of that, Andrew, however, CNC milling, even with a 5-axis
machine, can only handle so much. The types of forms I'm doing would be
outside the scope of the machine's capabilities, most of the time. Also, I
can do a better job of carving foam by hand, though not as quickly and, in
fact, that's exactly what I'm going to do, using my renders as reference.
It'll be more enjoyable that way, too. ;)
Harbor Freight
> actually does sell some mills that, if you retrofit them with
> computer-controlled motors, can work pretty well for this.
Yeah, but, even so, that's still priced way out of my budget.
While I'm not
> sure that Kinko's will jump on board, there are already some service
> bureaus that offer 3d physical output in various materials. Large-scale
> machines will cost more, but it's not as expensive as people seem to
> think - prices have come down a lot recently on CNC controllers, CAD/CAM
> software, and of course the computers that make it all happen. Check out
> the links section of my computersculpture site -as well as the site
> itself - for a range of products that may give you some idea of what's
> possible.]
Yep, I'm aware of several service bureaus. They're all pretty expensive,
though, and, as I was saying above, I'd need SLS (selective laser sintering)
for my pieces. CNC just can't handle severe undercutting and forms that have
lots of complex openings and passages in them. That's why I looked into RP
processes, instead.
Gary
Gary Waller
> "GaryR52" <gar...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:9qVHe.9423$Zt.1157@okepread05...
>
And he wrote very well. I am not the first to point out that when you
put your mind to it - which you have done in this carefully studied
response - you are a gifted writer.
If you ever want to consider a writing project - and are in need of a
sponsor/benefactor - give me a call/ping.
You managed to present a clear view from a pile of mush.
Gary Waller
Vancouver
GaryR52
> or what art is at all? Everybody in the world is never going to agree with
> us, but does this have to be a show-stopper? If you look at art history,
> different societies have had very different ideas on the subject, and came
> up with different solutions. I don't think it's necessary to rank these on
> some absolute and objective scale, and if you did, you wouldn't get
> universal agreement on it anyway. If you do establish a working definition
> of the sort of art that appeals to you, then you have a context in which
> to decide what is best and worst in the genre. For instance, you can
> decide that the object of a work of art is to tell a story. In that case,
> paintings would probably rank lower than novels, but cinema would likely
> come out on top. In this scheme, individual works fall into place
> according to how well they succeeded in conveying the full depth of the
> narrative experience. Alternatively, one could rank works of art by their
> ability to represent the human form in greatest detail, in which case
> life-casters would be at the summit, and other artforms would fit in
> somewhere below. Why is it necessary to come up with an all-encompassing
> absolute General Theory of Art - isn't it enough to devise a more limited
> relative definition that works for your own individual purposes?
Actually, Andrew, what you're advocating is pretty much what already exists,
as far as how most people in the art world look at art. The general public
probably agrees less with what either of us would call art. But, if we
wanted to come up with a way of handling this fairly, I think the way one of
my art professors looks at it might work. He said that art is too subject to
have rigid rules by which to judge it and that, as you've said, no one would
ever agree to the rules. So, the way he looks at it is that it is the
artist, himself who defines what the rules are for judging his own artwork.
The artist sets those rules (or doesn't) by telling the viewer, in some way
(this is dependent upon the artist communicating to the public through an
artist's statement, interview or some other means, of course, otherwise we
just don't know and have to speculate on his intent) why he does what he
does, what it means (if anything) and what (if anything) he wants us to get
out of it. Having done that, then we all have a definite set of criteria to
judge whether or not the artist has successfully lived up to his own stated
goals. I think that's about as fair as it gets because it is the artist who
sets the criteria. Of course, this is an ideal situation that only comes
about one in a while. Most of the time, when we view a work of art, we don't
get the artist's views on it, so we have to decide for ourselves what it's
all about and that is where our own experience comes into play, as well as
our own tastes and expectations.
> Unless you really believe that Art is some sort of Platonic ideal that
> really exists in some plane beyond our immediate apprehension, you
> probably can concede that it's a construct which people have created for
> their own purposes. Once you're clear on what your purpose in creating the
> construct is, it's relatively simple to fit things in accordingly.
Exactly! This fits what I just said above. If the artist himself determines
the criteria by which his work is to be judged, all that remains is for him
to communicate that criteria to his audience so we can know if he's
succeeded in attaining his stated goals. But, no, I don't subscribe to
Plato's notion that all we see and touch are imperfect representations of
the ideal forms he thought were the underpinnings of reality. I'm more of an
Aristotlean; i.e., we apprehend reailty via our senses (the WYSIWYG
approach).
Duchamp is
> considered important largely because he came up with a new construct, ie:
> "Anything I choose to call art, is now to be considered art," leading to
> explorations by later artists which extended and amplified his original
> ideas. (Interestingly, in his later life, he gave up art to concentrate on
> chess, another field of endeavor in which a simple set of rules leads to a
> large variety of possible outcomes.) Each artist that formulates a new way
> of making art is writing the rules of his/her own game - you can decide to
> play it yourself and make further progress in that genre, or simply be a
> spectator and rank the contestants according to how well they achieve its
> stated (or unstated) goals. Possibly someone could come along and out-drip
> Jackson Pollack, out-blur Claude Monet, out-square Piet Mondrian,
> out-stripe Barnett Newman, or out-box Joseph Cornell, but they defined the
> games they played, and tried to work out the variations that were possible
> within the rules they established.
True enough that Duchamp was the first to proclaim that art is whatever the
artist says it is and that was, and still is, a radical assumption. There is
almost a solipsism involved in that statement. It's nearly anaolgous to
saying, "all of reality is merely a projection of my own consciousness." The
artist, himself becomes the final arbiter of what is art, then. Maybe, in a
way, that's not such a bad idea, if considered in context with the expertise
of other professionals. We don't presume to know better than lawyers what
contitutes good legal practice (well, maybe some of us do), nor would we be
so bold as to presume we know more about how a doctor should work than
doctors themselves do. Yet, we, the public, tend to think we know enough
about art to say what an artist should or should do, how he should or
shouldn't do it and whether or not he's done it well. Of course, when we do
so, most of us are speaking, not from any expertise as artists, but from our
own tastes and prejudices. Looking at it that way, maybe it makes sense to
allow for the artist to be the final arbiter of what art is or isn't art.
Afterall, who would know better what art is than someone who creates art?
Sounds reasonable, but there is a problem with this and that is that it
leaves the artist free to do as he likes without having to satisfy any
criteria of what constitutes good or bad art, or what constitutes art at
all. If this is so, then any artist can immediately silence his critics by
simply saying, "This is art and it's damned good art because I say it is."
Of course, the reality is that, while he may say so, others aren't bound by
his definitions. That is why I say there are objectives standards of what
art is. Probably, most people aren't aware of what those standards are,
exactly, but most of us have some innate concept of what good art looks like
within any given genre. We might not all agree on what the standards are,
but, whether we realize it or not, we all have some idea of them.
> In the past, a whole society would establish a style of art, and everyone
> in it would accept the basic rules implicit in that style, and work within
> them. Now an individual artist can do the same thing, and everybody else
> in the society can choose whether to accept it or not. In some cases, one
> might decide that what A is doing is art, while one just can't accept B's
> work as more than garbage - that's an individual decision, and even if the
> majority disagrees, it's very difficult to dislodge someone from that
> position. Unless we devolve to a totalitarian system that demands complete
> conformity in aesthetic opinions on pain of death or banishment, I'm
> afraid the coherent objective standard you seem to crave will continue to
> elude you.]
True. The ancient Egyptians actually codified their art styles and any
artist who deviated from the accepted style of the period was punished. No
wonder their Armana style flourished unchanged for 400 years!
Yes! Your statement that an individual artist can define his own style and
that it is up to the rest of us to accept or reject it as we see fit is
exactly what I was just saying. The artist make his own rules and it is for
us, the viewer, to determine whether or not the rules are valid and, if so,
whether or not the artist has adhered to his own rules. If we agree to
accept that this is the most democratic way to decide what is art, then I
think this is as good as it gets. As long as the public is free to disagree,
no harm done. I have decided that the non-objective forms I do are just as
valid as any other artist's work, but there are millions who would probably
disagree and they are free to do so. Those who agree with me are my
audience.
> [Well, there's two sets here, in Boolean terms. One is the set of
> everything that artists have ever decided to call art and exhibit in a
> gallery or museum, and then there's everything - whether anybody thinks to
> call it art or not. Surely the second set is larger, and includes the
> first. If one decides that the purpose of art is to increase the first set
> at the expense of the second (which seems to be the thrust of much
> contemporary work) then a whole lot of artists can keep busy collecting
> various things and putting them on display - what's the harm? If this
> isn't what appeals to you, and you have a definition of your own that is
> more exclusive, that's fine - but others may have a definition that's even
> more exclusive than yours. Does that mean that their definition is more
> meaningful?]
Given the scenario we've been working with, so far; i.e., the artist sets
his own standards and the public may agree or disagree as they fit, it
becomes impossible for either to say that their definition is more
meaningful. The artist's definition is more meaningful to himself and those
who share his viewpoint, but, as far as his detractors are concerned, their
own definition is supreme. So, the situation remains one of subjectivity,
with the definition of art being whatever one accepts it to be. In that
intellectual climate, art has no one meaning and has, in fact, a plurality
of meanings. But, is this not the way art has always been? If we look at
every culture in every period of history and examine the similarities and
the differences between their art styles and what their art meant to each
culture, we find that there is a plethora of definitions of art at any one
time, worldwide. While the Egyptians may have all agreed (agreement being
enforced by law and custom) on what art was and what constituted good art,
this agreement did not extend beyond their own civilization and, in fact,
other civilizations at the same time had very different ideas of what art
should be. So, in re-examining this issue, maybe it is accurate to say that
there never really has been one set standard of what constitutes art. As
civilization became more homogenous, the accepted standards became more
universal and more homogenous until, at the end of the 19th century, they
were so homogenous that some artists rebelled against them. These artists,
including Monet, Degas, Braque and Picasso sought to define, for themselves,
what constitutes art and Duchamp later codified this with his statement that
art is whatever the artist says it is. At that point, a whole range of new
standards emerged and has been evolving ever since. It's neither good nor
bad, it simply is.
> [Right - it has done just that. Since every juror these days has his or
> her own idiosyncratic definition of what's art - and particularly what
> constitutes good art - it would be foolish to pay money to be judged by
> someone whose aesthetic proclivities differ widely from ones own. You can
> be an excellent realist, but if the juror is someone who considers
> representation of things to be "kitsch", you're not getting into that
> show - and you likely won't be impressed by the art that is admitted.
> Galleries likewise tend to be an expression of a gallerist's individual
> tastes - in fact, some consider the act of choosing art to be the primary
> artistic act in itself, while the individual artists are reduced to the
> stature of the anonymous craftsmen who created Duchamp's urinal.]
True again. This accounts for the growth in artist-run galleries in recent
decades. Of course, even there, an outsider trying to break into a an art
co-op faces the same prejudices he'd face in getting into any other gallery,
as the tastes of the artists already exhibiting determines whether he gets
in or not. I suppose the only way around this is the individual artist's own
gallery, where he exhibits his own works and no one else's. There is a
mouthpainting artist named Gregg Burns in Oklahoma City who does this, and
of course, we all know about the banal Thomas Kinkade and his chain of
Kincade galleries. Another development, really nothing new, is the artist
selling primarily out of his own studio. This seems to be on the rise, as
well and with good reason, given the sheer numbers of artists all trying to
make a living from their art and so few venues to do it from.
> [Precisely. Art has little value in itself any more; it's mostly valued as
> a souvenir of fame (acquired for whatever reason). Consider the
> difference between a piece that's accepted as being authentic and an
> identical piece considered to be fake. If you look at valuations of
> contemporary art, I don't think you'll find much relationship between
> auction prices and any discernable degree of craftsmanship. Buy a Basquait
> lately?]
Unfortunately so. But then, hasn't it always been that way? Today, the
collectors of the top names are principally people who have the money to buy
their works. The bulk of the public just doesn't buy original art. This
situation has always existed, though, throughout history. In the
Renaissance, it was only the church, the rulers and nobility and the wealthy
merchants who bought and commissioned art. In ancient times, artists worked
for the king or the preisthood, building monuments to rulers or creating
gargoyles to scare the masses and keep them in line. Then, the purposes of
art were those of church and state. This was so for centuries, until the
Renaissance, when the idea that the artist could be free to pursue his own
interests came into being. Even then, those who lived by their art were
still dependent upon the Medicis and other wealthy patrons for their
survival.
Basquait, Haring and the rest of the "graffiti" artists of the early
eighties were a flash in the pan created by Holly Solomon. She bought
artist's canvases for them and told them to have at it, then sold the
results for astounding prices. Today, both Haring and Basquiat are dead and
their paintings are worth even more at auction, naturally. A perfect example
of a gallery owner (Soloman) creating a new art market overnight.
> [Where do you draw the line?]
I, personally, draw the line at works that are not at least in some way
created by the artist's own hand. Koons' hanging of an unmodified vacuum
cleaner on a wall is a case in point. Duchamp's earlier attempts at the same
aside, I, personally, just don't see how this is in any way art. But, that's
only my definition. I am the one saying that art is anything made by the
artist's own hand and my saying so is just as valid as Duchamp saying art is
whatever he says it is. Of course, Koons can also define art on his own
terms, as Duchamp did, and his definition is just as valid as mine if we all
accept that it's the artists who determine what art is. At least, though,
the defining of art is now in the hands of those who make it. Of course, the
public and the critics are equally free to set their own standards, but,
what do they know, eh? ;)
> [If you don't agree that a change of context is enough, then what's the
> minimum degree of alteration that qualifies it as a work of art, in your
> view? What if you paint that computer a different color? What if you
> collect two computers, or a pile of them? What if you smash it? Can
> destruction be equivalent to creation?]
That's a tough one to define. In my view (again, just mine, not anyone
else's), I can accept an assemblage of found objects, but, I'm less
impressed if those objects are not in some way modified by the artist; i.e.,
at least slap some paint on something, or break something up.
Deconstructions I like. Anything that shows some concious effort was made to
do something more than throw some objects together to impress a big gallery
and make some big bucks from. So much of what passes for installation art
these days is very pretentious, in my opinion.
> [Yes, you could. If you were passionate enough about it, you might start a
> new movement (or at least improve your environment...)]
Nah, not my style. I'd want to at least sculpt some forms resembling dust
bunnies....maybe in steel wool. ;)
Have a good one, Andy.
Gary
GaryR52
> In most cases it was. Any study of history could hardly to deny it.
That's only the final phase of the decline known as the "Dark Ages."
Civilization had been crumbling for centuries, due to corruption, inflation
of the Roman denarius, the overexpansion of the empire, decadence, and so
on. Any study of history will show you this, too.
> It's debatable but most agree it started in the fifth century with the
> fall of Rome. Indeed there were islands of exception especially in the
> east.
Rome wasn't built in a day, nor did it fall in one, either. The fifth
century was when the barbarian invasions began, but, as I said, Rome had
been in a state of decline for centuries by then and that's why it was easy
prey.
>>As an artist, I try to live in my own times.
>
> Totally unavoidable.
Well, you would think so, but, witness the large numbers of artists still
painting and sculpting as though it's 1880....or 1580, for that matter. This
is what I'm talking about; i.e., my art, like myself, reflects the times I
live in, or at least, the portion of it that I personally identify with
most. Many artists don't have any concept of relating their art to their own
world and, instead, produce what they think people will like and buy. Ebay
is clogged with their stuff.
>> I was born well within the
>>mid-career years of Henry Moore, my chief influence, and what I do
>>reflects
>>that. I don't expect art to stand still, of course, and it certainly
>>hasn't.
>>It has, in fact, accelerated in the rate of its change. I might dare call
>>it
>>"disintegration," rather than change, but, admittedly, my perceptions are
>>a
>>product of my times and my viewpoint.
>
> so are everyone else's.
Well, yes. Everyone perceives the world in the context of the period in
which they've lived. But, I'm talking about the artistic expression of these
perceptions. As I said above, so many artists are aping the past because
tradition sells.
> It's just a continual repeat of dada by those who have even less
> ideas, skill or talent.
Agreed.
> 20th century was so called Modern Art got worse and worse. Until we
> judge the Holy Fathers like Picasso, Cezanne and Matisse for the
> incompetents they are, Modern Art will necessitate ever more Artspeak
> and become ever more stupid.
Agreed that it's gotten worse over the course of a century. When you open
the door to allowing the artist to decide what is art, then every artist
will have his own ideas as to what art is. The inevitable result is the
further fragmentation of art, until it loses all meaning and substance.
I don't think Picasso, Cezanne or Matisse were "incompetents." Their early
works show their skill and their departure from their earlier styles was a
conscious decision to break with the art establishment of their times. But I
would agree that opening the door to let the artist to decide what is art
has left that door wide open to any fakers, charlatans and artworld conmen
who want to manipulate the art establishment to their advantage and many
have done so.
Gary
Thur
> Agreed.
> Well, yes. Everyone perceives the world in the context of the period in
> which they've lived.
For me that's a bit simplistic.
The "context of the period" might be so different for each individual.
It reads to me that there is no past which might influence, but if you
consider art as a whole, then it just cannot be that the only influence
is the period we live in.
In the West, we are all knowledgeable about other periods of art, other
styles, other cultures, etc. to varying degrees. In this way we cannot
avoid reflecting that influence.
Our culture is not reborn with every birth of a human. It is a stream
in which all of us swim, even if some try to escape by denying it.
Individual creativity is founded on it.
--
Thur
Bert
>
>> [I should point out that additive rapid prototyping isn't the only method
>> that allows one to realize 3d digital designs in physical materials. You
>> can get a CNC mill for a quite reasonable amount of money, which provides
>> just as rapid a way to do this as any, and more so than most.
>
>Yep, well aware of that, Andrew, however, CNC milling, even with a 5-axis
>machine, can only handle so much. The types of forms I'm doing would be
>outside the scope of the machine's capabilities, most of the time. Also, I
>can do a better job of carving foam by hand, though not as quickly and, in
>fact, that's exactly what I'm going to do, using my renders as reference.
>It'll be more enjoyable that way, too. ;)
The additive approach need not be limited to expensive processes such
as laser sintering and stereo lithography. These processes essentially
build up the prototype layer by layer. You can do the same thing with
simpler tools, albeit with thicker layers. By taking parallel slices
of your 3d digital design, you can create a pattern for each layer,
the thickness of which would be equivalent to that of a sheet of stock
material. Each layer could be cut out according to the pattern using
the techniques and equipment of your choosing, and then assembled and
bonded. (Registration marks or holes would make assembly easier.) The
assembled piece could then be sanded or carved to eliminate the
stepped surface. Of course, with a suitable CNC mill and CAD/CAM
software, the edge contours could be defined as part of the pattern,
thus eliminating (or at least minimizing) the need for post-assembly
surface work.
Granted, this approach may not offer the same form of satisfaction as
carving directly from a solid block. However, if fidelity to the
digital model is important, this may be an easier and quicker way to
get there.
Bert
GaryR52
> as laser sintering and stereo lithography. These processes essentially
> build up the prototype layer by layer. You can do the same thing with
> simpler tools, albeit with thicker layers. By taking parallel slices
> of your 3d digital design, you can create a pattern for each layer,
> the thickness of which would be equivalent to that of a sheet of stock
> material. Each layer could be cut out according to the pattern using
> the techniques and equipment of your choosing, and then assembled and
> bonded. (Registration marks or holes would make assembly easier.) The
> assembled piece could then be sanded or carved to eliminate the
> stepped surface. Of course, with a suitable CNC mill and CAD/CAM
> software, the edge contours could be defined as part of the pattern,
> thus eliminating (or at least minimizing) the need for post-assembly
> surface work.
True, there is that method, also, Bert, but it's not an additive process,
it's a subtractive one, as it still relies on CNC milling. Actually, it's a
mix of the two; you build up the form in blocks or sheets, but then you
carve the resulting mass to shape.
In any case, though, the process is still way too expensive for my budget.
The use of any service bureau or any of these processes is just not
affordable enough for my use at this time. However, I can use the same
process of assembling blocks or sheets of foam cut to the rough size of each
section of contour, assemble them and then carve by hand. It's more
laborious, yes, but that doesn't matter to me, as I am not charging for my
labor or time, per se. My profit from each piece will come from the markup
of my total costs and will include compensation for my labor and then some.
Of course, doing this by hand is less acurate, as I would be measuring the
digital model on my computer and jotting down the measures of each "slice"
of foam needed to build up the form for carving and then, eyeballing the
actual carving from printed renders of the model. I really don't care that
it won't be spot-on acurate, though, as I have already decided to use my
renders in this way, anyway, just like you'd use a pencil sketch to do a new
sculpture from in any medium. I think the direct carve method, done with my
own two hands, imparts more value to the piece than using a CNC milling
machine and, it's, as I said, a lot more enjoyable to me to do it that way.
As far as acuracy is concerned, it doesn't matter at all, since I'm doing
non-objective sculpture, not cherubs or cowboys. ;)
Gary
GaryR52
> The "context of the period" might be so different for each individual.
> It reads to me that there is no past which might influence, but if you
> consider art as a whole, then it just cannot be that the only influence
> is the period we live in.
> In the West, we are all knowledgeable about other periods of art, other
> styles, other cultures, etc. to varying degrees. In this way we cannot
> avoid reflecting that influence.
> Our culture is not reborn with every birth of a human. It is a stream
> in which all of us swim, even if some try to escape by denying it.
> Individual creativity is founded on it.
Granted, I'm generalizing, to be sure, and, yes, each of us has a different
reference period from which to draw. I don't know what your age is, but if
you're as young as I think you may be, then your period of reference is from
sometime during my adulthood, so our points of reference are going to be
much different. I was born in 1952, so, by the time I was old enough to be
influenced by art at all, it was the modernist period I was first influenced
by. My tastes were set during that period and, though others who lived the
same years I have may have gravitated toward realism, I gravitated toward
abstraction and non-objective form because that's more interesting to me. Of
course, this is not to say that I haven't been influenced at all by earlier
periods, or later ones, just that my own personal "zeitgeist" is grounded in
what was going on between, say, 1957 and 1970 more so than any other period.
Of course, I'm not saying that an artist is influenced only by what was
produced during his own lifetime. We are all influenced, to varying extents,
by the art of other periods and cultures and it is just as likely an artist
born later than I was will fixate on Japanese art of the 19th century as it
is he'll become a performance artist. I was speaking mostly for my own
experience, though, not for all artists.
I do believe that even though a young artist living today has the entire
range of art history to be influenced by, just as I have, it is more likely
that an artist's influences are usually somewhat nearer to his own time. One
of my observations of youth is that most young people (and this was true of
me when I was younger, also) tend to view things in terms of their currency
and immediacy, hence, we hear expressions such as, "oh, that's sooooo thirty
seconds ago." The compulsion to be up to date, cutting edge, or even ahead
of the curve drives the young in everything they do and this was true in my
youth, also. Thus, the tendency is to avoid the influences of the past and
this, in fact, is what propelled me toward modernism, in the first place. I
had no interest in copying the styles of earlier periods. For me, art has
always been about the new, the different and personal expression and the art
styles prior to modernism just don't afford any opportunity for that, in my
opinion. If you want to sculpt in the style of Rodin, you'll always be a
slave to 19th century sculpture. But, if you accept the freedom modernism
gave to artists; i.e., the freedom to explore, innovate and "do your own
thing," then you're not tethered to any preconceived ideas or styles and
have the full range of modernism to explore. I just happened to gravitate
toward non-objective organic form because that's what always attracted me
most. Someone born later than me is more apt to be attracted to post modern
influences, but, again, this is just a generalization.
Gary
Bert
>> The additive approach need not be limited to expensive processes such
>> as laser sintering and stereo lithography. These processes essentially
>> build up the prototype layer by layer. You can do the same thing with
>> simpler tools, albeit with thicker layers. By taking parallel slices
>> of your 3d digital design, you can create a pattern for each layer,
>> the thickness of which would be equivalent to that of a sheet of stock
>> material. Each layer could be cut out according to the pattern using
>> the techniques and equipment of your choosing, and then assembled and
>> bonded. (Registration marks or holes would make assembly easier.) The
>> assembled piece could then be sanded or carved to eliminate the
>> stepped surface. Of course, with a suitable CNC mill and CAD/CAM
>> software, the edge contours could be defined as part of the pattern,
>> thus eliminating (or at least minimizing) the need for post-assembly
>> surface work.
>
>True, there is that method, also, Bert, but it's not an additive process,
>it's a subtractive one, as it still relies on CNC milling. Actually, it's a
>mix of the two; you build up the form in blocks or sheets, but then you
>carve the resulting mass to shape.
After I hit the send key it occurred to me that this is actually a
hybrid process rather than a additive process. But your description is
the opposite of what I had in mind -- the carving (the vast majority
anyway) is done on the individual layers (subtractive process), then
they are assembled (additive process). I'm thinking in terms of layers
that are thin enough so that minimal additional contouring would be
required after assembly.
>In any case, though, the process is still way too expensive for my budget.
>The use of any service bureau or any of these processes is just not
>affordable enough for my use at this time.
There is no reason this process should be expensive. Assuming you
already have a CAD package that can generate cross-section views, the
only expense you would face (aside from time and material) would be
printing the patterns for the individual layers, which could be done
on ordinary paper. From there, you simply transfer the patterns to
your sheet stock and start cutting out the layers, which you could do
by hand. No need to "cut to the rough size"; you can cut out the
precise pattern (with an allowance where needed for any edge contour
between the top and bottom of each layer).
>However, I can use the same
>process of assembling blocks or sheets of foam cut to the rough size of each
>section of contour, assemble them and then carve by hand. It's more
>laborious, yes, but that doesn't matter to me, as I am not charging for my
>labor or time, per se. My profit from each piece will come from the markup
>of my total costs and will include compensation for my labor and then some.
>
>Of course, doing this by hand is less acurate, as I would be measuring the
>digital model on my computer and jotting down the measures of each "slice"
>of foam needed to build up the form for carving and then, eyeballing the
>actual carving from printed renders of the model. I really don't care that
>it won't be spot-on acurate, though, as I have already decided to use my
>renders in this way, anyway, just like you'd use a pencil sketch to do a new
>sculpture from in any medium. I think the direct carve method, done with my
>own two hands, imparts more value to the piece than using a CNC milling
>machine and, it's, as I said, a lot more enjoyable to me to do it that way.
>As far as acuracy is concerned, it doesn't matter at all, since I'm doing
>non-objective sculpture, not cherubs or cowboys. ;)
Don't get hung up on CNC machining. As I noted, the layered approach
does not necessitate the use of CNC, or even non-CNC, machines; it can
be done quite effectively with simple hand tools, especially if
working in a soft medium like foam, wax, or clay. Of course, if you
enjoy the carving process itself, that may be the overriding factor in
your choice of process.
Bert
GaryR52
> hybrid process rather than a additive process. But your description is
> the opposite of what I had in mind -- the carving (the vast majority
> anyway) is done on the individual layers (subtractive process), then
> they are assembled (additive process). I'm thinking in terms of layers
> that are thin enough so that minimal additional contouring would be
> required after assembly.
I thought you were referring to the common practice of laminating the layers
together to form a rough shape that is then carved to a more refined shape
all at once. Reading your last sentence, I think we're really talking about
the same thing because I know of no other variation on this.
> There is no reason this process should be expensive. Assuming you
> already have a CAD package that can generate cross-section views, the
> only expense you would face (aside from time and material) would be
> printing the patterns for the individual layers, which could be done
> on ordinary paper. From there, you simply transfer the patterns to
> your sheet stock and start cutting out the layers, which you could do
> by hand. No need to "cut to the rough size"; you can cut out the
> precise pattern (with an allowance where needed for any edge contour
> between the top and bottom of each layer).
Well, that would work. I have a program called SketchUp, which can import my
model and then section it and either print the sections or export them as
image files that can be printed. That would be a good route to take and
would allow me to more acurately dulpicate by hand what I've created on my
computer. Unfortunately, that's a lot more laborious than I thought, since
my model has so many compound curves it would have to be sectioned very
finely all the way up in order to get the full shape. That would require
maybe as many as hundred or more individual sections. Probably more than
that, in fact, as there are such subtle curves I'd be missing something if I
made my next cut even an inch above or below the previous one. I think I'll
just stick with carving by hand from my renders. It doesn't matter if I
produce an exact dulpication of the digital model or not, in fact, I'll
probably deviate from the reference as I see fit, now and then, anyway. The
digital model is only a concept sketch.
> Don't get hung up on CNC machining. As I noted, the layered approach
> does not necessitate the use of CNC, or even non-CNC, machines; it can
> be done quite effectively with simple hand tools, especially if
> working in a soft medium like foam, wax, or clay. Of course, if you
> enjoy the carving process itself, that may be the overriding factor in
> your choice of process.
Right, Bert. That's what I'm saying; i.e., I'm not going to use CNC at all,
just carve by hand. Where the foam is concerned, though, I don't necessarily
need to start from a block or laminated blocks, either. There is a sculptor
I know of, Don Frost (http://www3.sympatico.ca/g.foy/) who does forms very
similar to mine in foam and fiberglass and he told me he starts by using a
pourable polyuerthane foam kit, which he pours into a plastic trash bag and
allows the foam to fill the bag. This produces a more free form shape to
start carving from and is certainly cheaper than buying factory produced
blocks of foam. It's a suitable method for pieces up to about 36" or so, all
dependent upon the volume of the bag and the amount of foam used, of course.
I've decided to give his method a try, myself. For anything larger,
laminating blocks together might be more practical.
Gary
Jon Cattan
I've visited various links reccommended by Andrew Werby about CAD and CNC,
and I'm ashamed to admit my computer illiteracy as I'm utterly bamboozled by
the
technical data about the various files used by these applications.
It's taken me three years to become competent with Photoshop. I don't know
how long
it would take me to learn what I can do now 'by hand'. (Although I will
probably have
a go at it sometime, as I am not a Luddite and I am interested as I will no
doubt learn a
lot from it.)
I carve wood and stone, and I've done a lot of foam carving both Polystyrene
and
Polyurethane. Wood and foam have often involved me in making quite accurate
extended drawings with front, side, and sometimes top elevations which gives
me
a greater understanding of some of the more complicated shapes I have to
make, but
also gives me an accurate idea of the amount of material I need to order.(
which is
important when using expensive timber or polyurethane) The time taken to do
this
often pays dividends as it saves time later on, when faced with carving
'decisions'.
Sometimes for very large work I've found it useful to make scale models or
maquettes
using material scaled down from the dimension of the materials I intend to
order. I can
then pull the model apart and convert the layers or components into usable
templates.(0r
take measurements from drawings)
These techniques are a matter of construction and, when carving, reduction.
The ribbon
type shapes made by Don Frost would be difficult to plan with the way I have
described
above (but may be easier if you can bend your head around CAD!!), which is
most
likely why he carves 'from the block' as we used to say, and is definitely
reduction.
I've found casting Polyurethane from two components a bit tricky. You have
to mix the
components both thoroughly and quickly before it's poured into the mould.
I've often
done it wrong and ended up with large air bubbles and it's hard to judge
density.
However foam is very forgiving as it is easily repaired by splicing in
offcuts and reworking.
I enjoy carving from the block very much, especially when using random
shaped pieces
of stone which hardly cost anything. The stone often dictates it's eventual
shape and
image, a lot of stone carvers call this 'talking to stones'. I think Gary is
right in his decision not to be entirely 'hand tied' to a pre-planned, maybe
anal, carving dictat.
I only do this for commissioned work. My greatest pleasures arise from
carving the
block or any lump of interesting material.
Jon
Jon Cattan
Jon Cattan
GaryR52
> and I'm ashamed to admit my computer illiteracy as I'm utterly bamboozled
> by the
> technical data about the various files used by these applications.
> It's taken me three years to become competent with Photoshop. I don't know
> how long
> it would take me to learn what I can do now 'by hand'. (Although I will
> probably have
> a go at it sometime, as I am not a Luddite and I am interested as I will
> no doubt learn a
> lot from it.)
Glad to hear from a foam carver, Jon. The more I hear from others who have
been there, the more I'm convinced this is the medium for me. If you can
master Photoshop, CAD isn't that difficult, really. It helps if you have a
background in drafting before coming to CAD, as I had (11 years of board
drafting prior to learning Autocad in 1989), but there are plenty of people
who have learned CAD without it, as well.There is a big difference, though,
between 2D drafting in CAD and 3D modeling, especially solids modeling, but,
if you've worked with any 3D modeling software, that's no problem, either.
Among the several tools I use is Cosmic Blobs (http://www.cosmicblobs.com/),
a very simple 3D modeler for kids. While it's rather limited in some
respects (notably importing and exporting formats), it has some very
powerful modeling tools that behind some very deceptively easy to use
controls. It suits the non-objective organic shapes I create perfectly.
> I carve wood and stone, and I've done a lot of foam carving both
> Polystyrene and
> Polyurethane. Wood and foam have often involved me in making quite
> accurate
> extended drawings with front, side, and sometimes top elevations which
> gives me
> a greater understanding of some of the more complicated shapes I have to
> make, but
> also gives me an accurate idea of the amount of material I need to
> order.( which is
> important when using expensive timber or polyurethane) The time taken to
> do this
> often pays dividends as it saves time later on, when faced with carving
> 'decisions'.
I can certainly see that if you're doing anything representational, or if
you're doing commercial work. For my purposes, it isn't really necessary.
The only time I'll ever need any drawing aids is when I'm doing a piece
based on one of my computer-generated sculptures. The rest of the time, I'd
be doing freeform carving without any set pattern in mind. Working with a
medium to large sized blob of poured polyurethane, the size will be
determined by the amount of material I have. There isn't any set dimensions
it has to be. The result can be enlarged later, if need be. By the way, I'm
attracted to trying a product called Expand It
(http://www.pinkhouse.com/expanding.enlarging.expandit) for doing
enlargements. It removes part of the usual expensive process done by a
foundry, in that, you cast a copy of the pattern using the Expand It
material as the casting material and then you immerse it water and leave it
there for a number of days. It absorbs water and grows up to 160% in size.
The resulting enlargement can then be used as a pattern for bronze casting.
> Sometimes for very large work I've found it useful to make scale models or
> maquettes
> using material scaled down from the dimension of the materials I intend to
> order. I can
> then pull the model apart and convert the layers or components into usable
> templates.(0r
> take measurements from drawings)
> These techniques are a matter of construction and, when carving,
> reduction. The ribbon
> type shapes made by Don Frost would be difficult to plan with the way I
> have described
> above (but may be easier if you can bend your head around CAD!!), which is
> most
> likely why he carves 'from the block' as we used to say, and is definitely
> reduction.
True, Jon. Frost uses the same "improvisational" carving technique that I
have used in carving plaster blocks. There isn't any planning involved. You
just start carving and the form evolves as you go. Not the technique you'd
want to use for realism, of course. ;)
> I've found casting Polyurethane from two components a bit tricky. You have
> to mix the
> components both thoroughly and quickly before it's poured into the mould.
> I've often
> done it wrong and ended up with large air bubbles and it's hard to judge
> density.
> However foam is very forgiving as it is easily repaired by splicing in
> offcuts and reworking.
This is something I've been wondering about; i.e., how quickly I have to
work with the two components to get the foam ready to pour into the bag (or
whatever other mold I may use; cardboard boxes lend themselves well for cast
blocks. That's what I've use to cast plaster blocks with). I think pouring
into a box would be easier than a trash bag. You'd have to stand the bag up
and support it with the end open, somehow). As for the density, if you know
the approximate volume of foam a pour kit will produce, you can use a
container that is sized appropriately for that volume. If the container is
smaller, the density might be a little greater, while, if it's too big, the
density may be less. At least, that's my theory, anyway. I won't know until
I've tried it.
>
> I enjoy carving from the block very much, especially when using random
> shaped pieces
> of stone which hardly cost anything. The stone often dictates it's
> eventual shape and
> image, a lot of stone carvers call this 'talking to stones'. I think Gary
> is right in his decision not to be entirely 'hand tied' to a pre-planned,
> maybe anal, carving dictat.
> I only do this for commissioned work. My greatest pleasures arise from
> carving the
> block or any lump of interesting material.
Are you doing non-objective pieces, Jon? I've always enjoyed carving from a
block of material, also, and when you're using a cheap material, such as
plaster, there isn't any anxiety about making mistakes and ruining it that
you'd have with, say, a block of marble or granite.
Gary
Dan S
industrial-made, and as paris is very slow to replace anything, there should
be a bunch out there in pissoirs. Never found a one.
So was it a prototype that never went into production?
----------
In article <EkvHe.21894$W%5.8664@trnddc05>, "BigBlocky" <fip...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
>
> MARCEL DUCHAMP Bicycle Wheel SCULPTURE
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5412515578
>
> This is a 9 inch tall working replica of Duchamp's famous readymade work
> "Bicycle Wheel". It is new and in its original box.
>
> Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968) invented "Readymades" - taking everyday objects,
> possibly altering them, and presenting them as works of art. His first
> readymade, "Bicycle Wheel" (1913), joins a bicycle wheel to a kitchen stool,
> creating this now famous sculpture.
>
> Arguably one of the strongest influences on modern art, Duchamp in his
> typically irreverent manner both created and destroyed theoretical
> constructions of what is known as art. His clever and
> not-to-be-taken-too-seriously statements, jokes and jabs at the lofty
> conception of art with a capital "A" helped create a new kind of art. Some
> might say he opened the door to an anything goes, chaotic world where all
> things can conceivably be art. He probably would have enjoyed such a
> thought. To him, art was about not repeating oneself, removing artificially
> constructed boundries and ridiculing pretentious ideas that only hinder what
> is possible. By applying critiques that cut to the core of notions of what
> does and does not constitute art, Duchamp paved the way for movements that
> would come later. And his influence is still felt strongly today. In fact,
> his scandalous "Urinal" was recently voted the most influential work of
> modern art of all time.
>
> Visit my eBay Store!
> http://www.bigblocky.net
>
>
Will Dockery
>
> Excuse me??!
> Gary
>
> "Biljo White" <biljo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:20050802122803.200$3...@newsreader.com...
>
> > Guys, I think we may have been visited again by Richard The Stupid. At
> > least the Will Dockery floods are gone (I reported him to his ISP.
It wasn't me, probably another identity theft / forgery.
> > "GaryR52" <gar...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> > His readymades addressed (and for many of us resolved) the question of
> >> > what is & isn't art.
> >>
> >> Well, I think that's certainly debatable. The jury is still out on that
> >> question, as with all the other big questions of aesthetics.
...