Carl Andre - Minimalism
Steven Kingsley
I am in the process of doing a brief study of Carl Andres work. His
radical view of Art leaves me slightly baffled as to his motives. From
what I can gather his work has no concept or context other than the
materials that he uses. The inert materials are mostly placed on the
surface plane and lets gravity keep them in place. He configures them
sometimes by following a simple mathamatical logic but puts no effort to
create a work that might suggest any other than what the materials
project. I am trying to find reason in this or maybe there is none to be
found. He mentions that his work is a "Pedestal for the rest of the
world" - is he saying this beacuse his work offers no meaning and that
looking at the world in relection of his work might create a pedetsal
inwhich to view it? IF anyone has studyied his work or could offer any
opinions about his work then it would be gladly welcomed.
regards
Steven
Charles Eicher
In article <Dyps5...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, king...@cix.compulink.co.uk
("Steven Kingsley") wrote:
> I am in the process of doing a brief study of Carl Andres work. His
> radical view of Art leaves me slightly baffled as to his motives. From
> what I can gather his work has no concept or context other than the
> materials that he uses.
You're kidding, right? This is a joke? Andre's works are ONLY about
concept, gee, why do you think they call him a 'conceptual artist'..?
Materials are virtually irrelevant.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Margery Cohen
> surface plane and lets gravity keep them in place. He configures them
Isn't he the artist who killed his wife by throwing her out his studio
window?
--
Steven Kingsley
> You're kidding, right? This is a joke? Andre's works are ONLY about
> concept, gee, why do you think they call him a 'conceptual artist'..?
> Materials are virtually irrelevant.
Nope, this might be what "they" call him but to quote from Kennneth
Baker's book on minimalism and by Andres claims himself " To understand
the challenge in Andre poses, we have to take seriously his claim that
his work has never been conceptual in any way"
To quote from the same book "Andres work has always striven to eliminate
from his objects anything that serve as an obvious criterion of arthood.
Yet it is his very willingness to propse what seem to preeminently inert
things as works of art that attests to Andre's seriousness"
In a recent exhibtion at the Tate gallery he mentions in an interview
"Scultpture you might say, is matter mattering. We compliment a painter
when we call her a colourist. My vocation is to be a matterist. I would
like to achieve a servering of matter from depiction as Turner began the
severing of colour from depiction. In my work there is only the theatre
of the properties of matter."
Steven
Steven Kingsley
Subsequently, I can now see value in his work. Maybe I have tried to look
at this in the wrong way, by trying to anaylis it and understand it. I
don't think Andre wanted people to understand it, just pay attention
which then creates mystery to the viewer.
regards
Steven
Charles Eicher
In article <Dyr1J...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, king...@cix.compulink.co.uk
("Steven Kingsley") wrote:
> In a recent exhibtion at the Tate gallery he mentions in an interview
>
> "Scultpture you might say, is matter mattering. We compliment a painter
> when we call her a colourist. My vocation is to be a matterist. I would
> like to achieve a servering of matter from depiction as Turner began the
> severing of colour from depiction. In my work there is only the theatre
> of the properties of matter."
Yeah, I think I see the problem here. I think you're confusing 'matter'
with 'materials'.. Matter's single unique property is that it occupies
space. Material issues are more concerned with what is filling the space
(i.e. wood, metal, etc). The properties he's concerned with are volume,
gravity, shape, etc, not some sculptural concern with the use of materials.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Mdeli
king...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Steven Kingsley") wrote:
>In a recent exhibtion at the Tate gallery he mentions in an interview
>"Scultpture you might say, is matter mattering. We compliment a painter
>when we call her a colourist. My vocation is to be a matterist. I would
>like to achieve a servering of matter from depiction as Turner began the
>severing of colour from depiction. In my work there is only the theatre
>of the properties of matter."
If an artist is capable he doesn't have to spout this
sort of bullshit.
MAni DeLi
...no skill no art
Joqual
In article <margeryD...@netcom.com>, mar...@netcom.com says...
>Isn't he the artist who killed his wife by throwing her out his studio
>window?
Would that then make him a minimal performing artist ?
Or was he just trying to see what sort of impression he could make ?
Jo'l.
Charles Eicher
In article <margeryD...@netcom.com>, mar...@netcom.com (Margery
Cohen) wrote:
> > surface plane and lets gravity keep them in place. He configures them
>
>
> Isn't he the artist who killed his wife by throwing her out his studio
> window?
> --
Um.. I do have to protest that characterization.. I don't want to open a
whole can of worms, but...
Yes, Carl Andre was married to the late Anna Mendieta (who I knew, since I
went to art school with her).. Carl was never charged in connection with
the death of Anna. Carl said that Anna jumped from their apartment window
during an argument, and I know Anna was just crazy enough to do something
like that. Ultimately, nothing can be proven either way.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Steven Kingsley
>
> If an artist is capable he doesn't have to spout this
> sort of bullshit.
>
> MAni DeLi
> ...no skill no art
>
In your opinion.
Charles Eicher
In article <3257E9...@accent.net>, peter james kashur
<pka...@accent.net> wrote:
> The problem lies in the great number art directors, curators, critics
> and art teachers who subscribe to the incestuous cliques which
> perpetuate the bullshit of talkers such as Andre.
Ah, the voice of the philistine.. Always active..
Don't forget that Ideas can be the subject of Art. Please try to develop
your use of ideas, your own criticism seems entirely lacking in ideas.
Perhaps you are merely incapable of understanding the concepts behind an
artist like Andre.
> ...The curator at the
> Tate for one. (Someone should examine their credentials) The reality is
> that establishing qualitative parameters would put a whole lot of
> phonies out of work.
Surprising that you should mention that.. The Tate actually does require
curators to take examinations. "The Art Newspaper" recently published a set
of exam questions given to select their new curator of British painting.
You are cordially invited to take the exam for yourself. Please post your
completed answers to rec.arts.fine
History of British Painting since 1800
Answer six questions in two hours.
1. Write a short account of the Pre-Raphaelite movement.
2. What do you understand by the terms "Didactic" and "Genre" painting?
3. Turner was elected a Royal Academician in 1820. Give an account of some
of his principal works from this date to his death. Who was Turner's early
rival in water-colour painting?
4. What influence do you think Ruskin had on the painting of the 19th century?
5. Compare the works of G.F. Watts and Leighton, and describe three
important pictures by each artist.
6. What do you consider Whistler's influence to be on modern art?
7. Give examples of Millais' art in three different periods.
8. With what modern fresco painting are you familiar? Give a brief account
of the method of painting.
9. Give an account of the work of three living well-known landscape painters.
10. Write a short account of the Modern Impressionist movement.
11. Give a description of the style of painting of any three of the
following artists: John Varley, Ladseer, Constable, Alma Tadema, Charles
Fuse, J.S. Sargent, W. Orpen, F. Brangwyn.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
W.S. Parker
Steven Kingsley wrote:
>
> I am in the process of doing a brief study of Carl Andres work. His
> radical view of Art leaves me slightly baffled as to his motives.
Though it was many years ago I read this book devoted exclusively to a
dialog between CA and Hollis Frampton which they did in their earliest
years in NYC. I think it was published by Univ of Nova Scotia. Anyway
that was the best thing I remember reading his early ideas. The rest is
a blur.
I hope you find/found this reference
peter james kashur
The problem lies in the great number art directors, curators, critics
and art teachers who subscribe to the incestuous cliques which
kashur peter james
In article <ceicher-ya0230800...@news.inav.net>,
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
> In article <3257E9...@accent.net>, peter james kashur
> <pka...@accent.net> wrote:
>
> > The problem lies in the great number art directors, curators, critics
> > and art teachers who subscribe to the incestuous cliques which
> > perpetuate the bullshit of talkers such as Andre.
>
> Ah, the voice of the philistine.. Always active..
> Don't forget that Ideas can be the subject of Art. Please try to develop
> your use of ideas, your own criticism seems entirely lacking in ideas.
> Perhaps you are merely incapable of understanding the concepts behind an
> artist like Andre.
>
> > ...The curator at the
> > Tate for one. (Someone should examine their credentials) The reality is
> > that establishing qualitative parameters would put a whole lot of
> > phonies out of work.
>
Ah, a quiz!!
They left out the relevant question; Is a person who arranges bricks a
brick-layer or an artist?? If being duped into believing that 'artist' is
the correct response would make me less a philistine, then I gladly remain
a philistine.
Personally, I'm surprised that a person who could successfully navigate
through the above questions, could still be fooled by Andre.
p.s. Ruskin had no influence, a brilliant example of the relevance of
critics in the history of anything. Ruskin is merely a Turner footnote,
and of course John Ruskin - defendent, damages awarded to the plaintive.
pjk
Charles Eicher
In article <pkashur-0710...@annex1-toronto-ppp-221.accent.net>,
Sorry, the quiz does not permit answering questions with questions.
However, if the quiz did include questions about Carl Andre, it wouldn't be
asking for your PERSONAL opinions about his work. It would ask about the
influence Andre had on other sculptors, and the intentions and designs that
underly his work. The fact remains, whatever YOU think about his work, his
sculptures have influenced other artists, and many other artists have dealt
with the same issues he raised. THAT is what makes him an artist and not a
bricklayer.
> Personally, I'm surprised that a person who could successfully navigate
> through the above questions, could still be fooled by Andre.
According to the article, the fellow scored 190 out of a possible 200.
> p.s. Ruskin had no influence, a brilliant example of the relevance of
> critics in the history of anything. Ruskin is merely a Turner footnote,
> and of course John Ruskin - defendent, damages awarded to the plaintive.
I'll allow you one point for merely identifying Ruskin correctly, and no
points for the description of his influence. That puts you at about .4% of
the Tate curator's score.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Bruce Attah
> In article <pkashur-0710...@annex1-toronto-ppp-221.accent.net>,
> pka...@mail.accent.net (kashur peter james) wrote:
>
> > > Answer six questions in two hours.
> > >
[none-too-taxing questions snipped]
>
> > Personally, I'm surprised that a person who could successfully navigate
> > through the above questions, could still be fooled by Andre.
>
> According to the article, the fellow scored 190 out of a possible 200.
What Charles Eicher neglects to say is that the Curator of British Art is
not responsible for the Modern collection, so however well a candidate
does on this test, it does not mean that a fool will not be employed to
manage the Modern collection. In a sense, then, this whole thing about an
exam is a non-sequitur.
>
> > p.s. Ruskin had no influence, a brilliant example of the relevance of
> > critics in the history of anything. Ruskin is merely a Turner footnote,
> > and of course John Ruskin - defendent, damages awarded to the plaintive.
>
> I'll allow you one point for merely identifying Ruskin correctly, and no
> points for the description of his influence. That puts you at about .4% of
> the Tate curator's score.
DID Ruskin have any significant influence on painting? He might have had
very considerable influence on art criticism (for a while), but that is an
entirely different matter. Certainly, the art world changed around him in
ways that he would not have approved. Even artists he championed went on
to do things he didn't like, so was he really influencing them in any
substantial way, or was he merely a footnote, as Kashur Peter James says?
Were his champions _following_ his creed or _defining_ it, or were they
even merely _coincidentally_ producing work that he liked? Perhaps it
could be argued that Ruskin did have influence through the foundation of
the Ruskin school of art in Oxford. Yet, even there, one wonders. A
chief aim of the school was to advance the ideal of good drawing, but good
drawing has been in steady decline since the day the it opened its doors
to students.
Charles Eicher assigns points to an assertion with which he disagrees on
the basis of his disagreement, but he forgets that exams like this are not
about agreement and disagreement on matters of opinion (or they
_shouldn't_ be), but about the depth of understanding of issues, and the
ability to articulate that understanding.
Bruce Attah.
Bruce Attah
So, we've got people who firmly believe that Carl Andre is a
conceptualist, despite that he has himself stated in no uncertain terms
that he is not one, and despite that nothing short of magic could ever
draw a concept from Andre's mute blocks.
Does this not perfectly illustrate the way many art viewers today have
been trained to read meaning _into_ a (purported) work of art, rather than
read the meanings that are actually present in the work? At the end of a
successful indoctrination into modernist thinking, a victim can stand in
front of ANYTHING, and, upon hearing that it was put there by an artist,
find sufficient 'meaning' in it to fill several pages of
heavily-referenced verbiage.
Somehow, we have to end this madness.
Somehow, too, we have to acknowledge that Carl Andre's sculpture
represents the faded, dessicated skeleton of an abortive cross between
nineteenth-century Aestheticism and a puritanical aversion to ornament,
and dismiss it with the pitying contempt it deserves.
peter james kashur
My mistake, Ruskin did have an influence; didn't he burn several Turner
sketch books!!
But we avoid the issue. Was Carl Andre (I can't be bothered to find the
accent) an artist or a brick layer?
pjk
W.S. Parker
Bruce Attah wrote:
>
> So, we've got people who firmly believe that Carl Andre is a
> conceptualist, despite that he has himself stated in no uncertain terms
> that he is not one, and despite that nothing short of magic could ever
> draw a concept from Andre's mute blocks.
Just for fun, will you give me a reference where CA said that in no
uncertainterms, where did he say that? I'm testing you. As part of this
test please go back and reference these "people who firmly believe CA
was a conceptualist" who are they, did you make that ascription up? If
only they had read the reference you are about to provide (as part of
the test).
> Does this not perfectly illustrate the way many art viewers today have
> been trained to read meaning _into_ a (purported) work of art, rather than
> read the meanings that are actually present in the work?
Sounds clear but it isn't that cut and dry. So to answer your question,
like I need to, it isn't a perfect illustration as it may not even be a
good illustration. I don't have alot of practice with many art viewers,
where can I get some?
The age old problem of balance between analysis and synthesis in
aesthetics. Still no answers yet so just alot of opinion and taste
involved.
At the end of a
> successful indoctrination into modernist thinking, a victim can stand in
> front of ANYTHING, and, upon hearing that it was put there by an artist,
> find sufficient 'meaning' in it to fill several pages of
> heavily-referenced verbiage.
Oh, how dreadful, now where are these victims and how has their verbiage
been so troubling you. Why do you have such compassion for them? Oh, I
get it you have an unresolved intrapsychic conflict you are
externalizing. Most people let the Indoctrinated Modernist Thinkers have
there lives and go on as merrily as possible. But I don't. I have to ask
you who really are you talking about and why do they so upset you, no I
don't.
>
> Somehow, we have to end this madness.
you said it, I'm right behind you.
> Somehow, too, we have to acknowledge that Carl Andre's sculpture
> represents the faded, dessicated skeleton of an abortive cross between
> nineteenth-century Aestheticism and a puritanical aversion to ornament,
> and dismiss it with the pitying contempt it deserves.
Evidence of indoctrination: outrageous negative generalizations.
You sound like a little A****** here. Again, I wonder why?
Oh yes, any concepts on how we can dismiss with the pitying contempt the
madness?
Bruce Attah
> Bruce Attah wrote:
> >
> > So, we've got people who firmly believe that Carl Andre is a
> > conceptualist, despite that he has himself stated in no uncertain terms
> > that he is not one, and despite that nothing short of magic could ever
> > draw a concept from Andre's mute blocks.
>
>
> Just for fun, will you give me a reference where CA said that in no
> uncertainterms, where did he say that? I'm testing you. As part of this
> test please go back and reference these "people who firmly believe CA
> was a conceptualist" who are they, did you make that ascription up? If
> only they had read the reference you are about to provide (as part of
> the test).
I hardly need to do either of these things, as earlier posts in this
thread provide examples both of statements from Andre and expressions of
the belief that Andre is a conceptual artist. But let me refer you to the
works themselves. Their muteness has a certain eloquence in this regard.
>
I don't have alot of practice with many art viewers,
> where can I get some?
At the gallery, down the pub, at the local art school, in art magazines
and art-related features in newspapers, on this newsgroup, to name a few
places.
> At the end of a
> > successful indoctrination into modernist thinking, a victim can stand in
> > front of ANYTHING, and, upon hearing that it was put there by an artist,
> > find sufficient 'meaning' in it to fill several pages of
> > heavily-referenced verbiage.
>
> Oh, how dreadful, now where are these victims and how has their verbiage
> been so troubling you.
If you ever read Art Monthly, or any of those horrendous publications with
names like "Parakeet", you wouldn't need to ask.
Why do you have such compassion for them? Oh, I
> get it you have an unresolved intrapsychic conflict you are
> externalizing. Most people let the Indoctrinated Modernist Thinkers have
> there lives and go on as merrily as possible. But I don't. I have to ask
> you who really are you talking about and why do they so upset you, no I
> don't.
If you have to be mad to care about something, then that is a sort of
insanity I am happy to plead. The reason I do not like the current
prevalence of perverse uncriticality is that it spoils my fun: I know that
eight or nine times out of ten, when I go to an exhibition of new art,
everything on show will be crap.
> > Somehow, too, we have to acknowledge that Carl Andre's sculpture
> > represents the faded, dessicated skeleton of an abortive cross between
> > nineteenth-century Aestheticism and a puritanical aversion to ornament,
> > and dismiss it with the pitying contempt it deserves.
>
> Evidence of indoctrination: outrageous negative generalizations.
The paragraph above is no more outrageous, nor any more a generalization
than Adrian Searle's recent attack on Alberto Giacometti that went under
the headline "Alberto the Thief". It is absurd to call my ACCURATE
characterization of Carl Andre's art, above, a generalization, given that
his art is hardly widely various in the forms it takes.
>
> You sound like a little A****** here. Again, I wonder why?
I don't usually use words like A***** to describe my fellow netizens, but
since you bring up the topic, you have sounded like a tw*t in every post
you've put in this group so far.
Bruce Attah.
peter james kashur
I do not have the 'opportunity' of exposure to many modernist
apologists neither in the galleries at which I exhibit, (and they
don't), nor among the real artists with whom I have the pleasure to
associate.
Does all their defense of modernist hyperbole inevitably revert to
personal insults.
pjk
peter james kashur
A lot of words are being expended discussing something which "can be
expressed in no other way' than the way Carl Andre did.
Keeping with Andres desire to 'call things by their right names', Andre
is expressing a random arrangemnet of bricks; no culture, no concept, no
meaning, no philsophy, no mysticism, no spiritualism, by Andre's own
definition.
The premier practitioners of expressing bricks in such a manner, would
obviously be construction workers who randomly pile their allotment of
bricks daily and without "the overburden" of cultural intellect or the
pretense of making a pile of bricks something other than a pile of
bricks.
If Andre succeeded in expressing his non-concept goal, the result should
have been an entirely new modernist movement, Nothingalism.
Afterall, a brick is a brick by Andre's definition, (except when a brick
is a university art student....as in 'thick as') and nothing is not
something. (except in an university art course) .....come to think of it
Andre did succeed!!!
It must be terrifically dejecting for all the drones of the modernist
messiahs to contemplate the possibility that they were being duped all
the while.
A thanksgiving greeting to all Canadian university art
students....y'all watch your tailfeathers this weekend.
pjk
p.s. don't bogie that joint!!
W.S. Parker
Mdeli wrote:
>
> king...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Steven Kingsley") wrote:
>
> >In a recent exhibtion at the Tate gallery he mentions in an interview
>
> >"Scultpture you might say, is matter mattering. We compliment a painter
> >when we call her a colourist. My vocation is to be a matterist. I would
> >like to achieve a servering of matter from depiction as Turner began the
> >severing of colour from depiction. In my work there is only the theatre
> >of the properties of matter."
>
> sort of bullshit.
>
> MAni DeLi
> ...no skill no art
For the sake of illumination:
Okay, now what about this is not making sense to you? I start to lose
the metaphor he is constructing when he gets to Turner.
So I have two questions to which need a response:
Does metaphorical thinking, in this example lead to b*******?
Or, is the reference to Turner where it gets incomprehensible
(b********y) for you? I don't understand the reference to Turner so I am
lost. Why does it break down here for you? I am assuming it is this
reference which creates the bull problem?
Sure easy glance, "matter mattering" would be easy to shoot down as
bull, but gramatically speaking it is correct, in what other was is it
possibly meaningful? In the context of the other statements is this one
more tenative or is it a recurring notion? Does it suit his aim well in
trying to point us in the right direction? Or is he purposefully trying
to b******* us?
Prove it, it is too easy to discount something in a sweeping
generalizing way. Better to study what you don't understand.
I assume one would do well to find yourself interested in what you don't
understand.
Steven Kingsley
I wont list the whole message, but well said w...@olympus.net in message
24780. I dislike the attitudes of some of my collegues at UNI who seem to
dismiss things as rubbish becasue they can't find anything positive to
say, they are only harming themselve's, IMO. Its a paradox for Bruce
though, as his reactions have given to Andres work exactly what has
made it so well known over the years, to quote from Kenneth Bakers book
Minimilism-
"Andres work has always drawn power from people's reluctance to accept it
as art"
Rgds
Steven
Bruce Attah
In article <325E0F...@olympus.net>, w...@olympus.net wrote:
> Maybe Duchamp will come along and show you the merit of the little
> elcheapo realist/impressionist style painting on the wall behind you in
> the old coffee shop.
I have no difficulty in assessing the merit (or lack of merit) of an
'elcheapo realist/impressionist style painting'. So Duchamp can keep his
opinions to himself, thank you.
Still, the comment I have quoted above contains a mystery that I would
like solved: When individuals like myself contest the claims made on
behalf of dada, minimalism, abstract expressionism and such like to be
worthwhile or valid modes of art-making, we choose to focus our attack on
the very objects which are considered the masterpieces of each respective
genre. The apologists of these approaches, though, choose not the
masterpieces of those approaches that I would be willing to defend, but
the cheapest, most unadventurous, most inconsequential workaday examples
of such genres as their targets for attack. What sense does that make?
If an opponent of minimalism says "Carl Andre is crap," it is not
meaningful to counter with "Bob Ross is crap," because Bob Ross did not
try to create masterpieces and no-one is making the claim on his behalf
that his paintings _are_ masterpieces. The argument contains such a
blatant case of setting up a straw man that one wonders whether the people
who make this sort of argument have any grasp of logic whatsoever.
Next time I say something along the lines of "Carl Andre is crap", I'd
like to hear someone on the other side of the debate say "No, he's not,
but Michelangelo is _really_ crap". Somehow, that never seems to happen.
> I don't blame anyone for being frustrated, there is alot of stuff out
> there and difficult to contextualize it all.
I don't really have any difficulty in that regard. Quantity is not the
same thing as complexity.
> I have two sides when I
> look at something. I may not get why the stuff is on the walls at all. I
> may be anoyed by it for a few minutes again. And yet I don't lie when I
> meet the artist I am supportive and encouraging, what the hell do my
> opinions have to do with someone else trying to better themselves in
> whatever way they can, especially in the arts!!
Your opinions have the following relevance: (1) If the object on the wall
offers you no aesthetic satisfaction, then you have to wonder who the
artist's intended audience is; are you part of that audience? If so, why
has the artist failed to reach you? Somewhere there is a gap that needs
to be bridged. Is it on your side or the artist's side of the chasm? Or
do you both need to do some work? If you meet the artist and fail to
relate your difficulties, you are doing the artist a disservice, allowing
them to continue floundering in the ignorant belief that they are
successful in their aims. (2) The assumption that the artist is doing
something as honest and worthy as "trying to better themselves" is
unwarranted. Art students learn cynicism early. Cynicism, in the form of
aesthetic relativism is actually _taught_ in art school. So the artist
might simply be trying to grab your attention with a gimmick or con you
into believing that their work contains mysteries, when they know it does
not. (3) Even if they are "trying to better themselves", what they are
doing is not necessarily good art. Trying to better oneself is no more
good art than it is good science or good cookery or good basketball. Art
is more than being a nice person and having worthy ideals.
> I am no advocate of
> willfull ignorance so I try to suggest things, In a totally unassuming
> way (though I may be doing alot of assuming) that will be engaging to
> that artist. I have no right in this god-given world to unload on
> someone because I can't relate in a positive way as opposeed to neutral
> way to their art personally. That doesn't follow. Keep your negative
> feelings to yourself. No one listens to them anyway; they are your own
> cross to bear. They are the result of an inner conflict you have. (I am
> using "you" here generically).
People _do_ listen to "negative feelings". The artists may well be
resistant, but audiences listen, if anything, even more attentively to
negative feelings than they do to positive one. That is how it was
possible to virtually obliterate painters like Gerome, Bouguereau,
Meissonier and others from the historical record of nineteenth century
French art. "Negative feelings" are also the means by which fashion
changes and formerly desirable objects become embarrassing kitsch. A lot
of that process is a result of some groups consciously trying to exclude
others, and is essentially arbitrary, rather than rooted in aesthetic
principles. _That_ sort of negative criticism is, if believe,
objectionable. But I also feel that one has a duty to express "negative
feelings" if one believes that those feelings are well-founded, which is
to say rooted in a set of principles which _reliably_ distinguish good art
from bad. I know there are people who believe that such principles cannot
possibly exist, but I am not one of them.
> > > > Somehow, too, we have to acknowledge that Carl Andre's sculpture
> > > > represents the faded, dessicated skeleton of an abortive cross between
> > > > nineteenth-century Aestheticism and a puritanical aversion to ornament,
> > > > and dismiss it with the pitying contempt it deserves.
>
> ...To say that terrible string of odious
> buzzwords you said will turn people off, make them think you are an *,
> it certainly won'tstimulate them to be fair about whatelse you may say.
When an artist exhibits work publicly, there is an agreement in effect
that is unwritten, but known by everyone: the artist has a duty to _try_
to present good art, the public has a duty to _acknowledge_ the goodness
of the art, if the work is actually good. If the work is exceptionally
good, the public is pleased to offer the artist fulsome praise of the
heartiest kind. If the work falls far short of the claims made on its
behalf, the public is quite within its rights to lambast the artist with
exactly as much sharpness as reflects the public's disappointment.
This has been so since ancient times, when Pliny praised and condemned
painters in far more extreme terms than I have used here. Artists know
that they may be the recipient of barbs. The willingness of the audience
to criticise honestly, openly and fairly (which means not glossing over
faults just as much as it means not omitting to praise what is good) is an
essential part of the process that enables good art to be made. One of
the reasons why so much contemporary art is crap is that a cosy art world
has formed within which people are extremely unwilling to offend one
another, so lower and lower standards come to seem acceptable.
Bruce Attah.
W.S. Parker
Bruce Attah wrote:
>
>
> If you have to be mad to care about something, then that is a sort of
> insanity I am happy to plead. The reason I do not like the current
> prevalence of perverse uncriticality is that it spoils my fun: I know that
> eight or nine times out of ten, when I go to an exhibition of new art,
> everything on show will be crap.
So what? You had a nice day, you got out of the apt, on to the streets
of the big city. you have alittle coffee with a friend.
Maybe Duchamp will come along and show you the merit of the little
elcheapo realist/impressionist style painting on the wall behind you in
the old coffee shop.
If I were in a prison of 90% crap I would hope I had a little painting
like that to look at.
I don't blame anyone for being frustrated, there is alot of stuff out
there and difficult to contextualize it all. I have two sides when I
look at something. I may not get why the stuff is on the walls at all. I
may be anoyed by it for a few minutes again. And yet I don't lie when I
meet the artist I am supportive and encouraging, what the hell do my
opinions have to do with someone else trying to better themselves in
whatever way they can, especially in the arts!!. I am no advocate of
willfull ignorance so I try to suggest things, In a totally unassuming
way (though I may be doing alot of assuming) that will be engaging to
that artist. I have no right in this god-given world to unload on
someone because I can't relate in a positive way as opposeed to neutral
way to their art personally. That doesn't follow. Keep your negative
feelings to yourself. No one listens to them anyway; they are your own
cross to bear. They are the result of an inner conflict you have. (I am
using "you" here generically).
>
> > > Somehow, too, we have to acknowledge that Carl Andre's sculpture
> > > represents the faded, dessicated skeleton of an abortive cross between
> > > nineteenth-century Aestheticism and a puritanical aversion to ornament,
> > > and dismiss it with the pitying contempt it deserves.
> >
> > Evidence of indoctrination: outrageous negative generalizations.
>
> The paragraph above is no more outrageous, nor any more a generalization
> than Adrian Searle's recent attack on Alberto Giacometti that went under
> the headline "Alberto the Thief".
Two wrongs..right?.
It is absurd to call my ACCURATE
> characterization of Carl Andre's art, above, a generalization, given that
> his art is hardly widely various in the forms it takes.
>
I don't buy that. There's variety in sand! If you are looking for
variety. His work, though you may not like it at all, possesses an
internal coherence and evolution though in depth not in scope. Variety
is scope here. Something like that...
> >> > > Somehow, too, we have to acknowledge that Carl Andre's sculpture
> > > represents the faded, dessicated skeleton of an abortive cross between
> > > nineteenth-century Aestheticism and a puritanical aversion to ornament,
> > > and dismiss it with the pitying contempt it deserves.
> >
> > Evidence of indoctrination: outrageous negative generalizations.
>
> > You sound like a little A****** here. Again, I wonder why?
I'm sorry, but I wanted to create an effect; do you know what I mean?
I don't think you *are* one (who am I to judge), but you should be
careful about your image. To say that terrible string of odious
Bruce Attah
In article <Dz4Ir...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, king...@cix.compulink.co.uk
("Steven Kingsley") wrote:
> I wont list the whole message, but well said w...@olympus.net in message
> 24780. I dislike the attitudes of some of my collegues at UNI who seem to
> dismiss things as rubbish becasue they can't find anything positive to
> say, they are only harming themselve's, IMO.
This is an amusing attitude you take, because it raises the question "is
it _ever_ appropriate to call something rubbish?"
Imagine that you are in your neighbour's house, sipping tea, eating
angel cakes and chatting about the weather. (Is this your vision of hell?
So be it, then; we are only imagining this circumstance for the sake of an
argument.) Now imagine that your neighbour suddenly decides that you need
a coffee table, so he pops out to the kitchen and returns holding a big,
wet, lumpy, smelly plastic bag, and puts this near where you are sitting.
"Put your cup and saucer there, that'll do," He says.
You are a little nonplussed at this proposal.
"Err, no thanks," you reply, "I think my knee will do just fine."
Your neighbour takes on an offended tone. "What's wrong with it? It's
a coffee table, isn't it?"
"No, it's a bag of rubbish! It's not stable, it's not flat, and it stinks!"
"Not all coffee tables are flat, some perfectly nice coffee tables
wobble a bit, and coffee tables are certainly not odourless by
_definition_, so your objections show that your conception of what can be
a coffee table are too narrow. I am _challenging_ your narrow
preconceptions, can you not be grateful for that?"
"But I do not want to be challenged; I just need somewhere to rest my saucer."
"Do you mean you have nothing positive to say about this? Can you not
adopt a more open-minded attitude? Surely you can see that, in the
context I have provided for it, this object fulfills the minimal
requirements of coffee-table-ness? Why are you still rejecting it? I
hope you realise that by taking such a negative, judgemental attitude, you
are harming yourself?"
At this point, you realise that your neighbour is quite mad, and, as
politely as possible, you take your leave.
Your imaginary neighbour's behaviour is precisely analogous to the
behaviour of a dadaist or minimalist who insists on claiming that
something is art when it is obviously not.
> Its a paradox for Bruce
> though, as his reactions have given to Andres work exactly what has
> made it so well known over the years, to quote from Kenneth Bakers book
> Minimilism-
>
>
> "Andres work has always drawn power from people's reluctance to accept it
> as art"
>
> Rgds
>
> Steven
It is the position of the minimalist or dadaist that is paradoxical, not
that of the person who rejects these modes of would-be art-making.
Minimalists and dadaist share two difficulties when they claim to
understand the meaning of 'art'.
First, accepting their offerings as art depends on a circularity: on the
one hand, these objects are art only because they are 'placed in an art
context', and on the other hand, the 'art context' is such a thing only
because it has art at its centre. This means that the claim is no more or
less than an article of faith and talk about art in the dada/postdada
pradigm is really talk about art institutions.
The second problem is that, in order to persuade doubters of the merit of
their own work, they are compelled to devise a system of pseudoaesthetic
values that flies in the face of all prior aesthetics. So, to make
minimalist or dada objects into art objects, it becomes necessary to make
all objects that commonsense would indicate were real art objects into
non-art. In other words, for dada and minimalism to receive legitimacy as
art, all other would-be art must be illegitimate.
Apologists for dadaism and minimalism can frequently be heard requesting
that spectators be open-minded, yet dadaism and minimalism are the most
exclusionary systems of 'aesthetics' that have ever been devised.
Bruce Attah.
Charles Eicher
> Sure easy glance, "matter mattering" would be easy to shoot down as
> bull, but gramatically speaking it is correct, in what other was is it
> possibly meaningful? In the context of the other statements is this one
> more tenative or is it a recurring notion? Does it suit his aim well in
> trying to point us in the right direction? Or is he purposefully trying
> to b******* us?
You're misconstruing the word 'Matter'..
He doesn't mean, "Matter mattering (making a difference, being crucial, etc)"..
he means "Matter doing what it is that Matter does, i.e. the physical
properties of matter"..
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
W.S. Parker
I see that; matter displaying its essential qualities by a certain
considered emphasis on its form. Though I did not read the actual
source, that was the first take I took, in the context of his work..
Thank you for pointing it out to me.
BTW my "purposefully trying to..."comment is rhetorical, part of
efforts to weaken the effect of an earlier overly skeptical assertion.
W.S. Parker
Bruce Attah wrote:
>
> In article <Dz4Ir...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, king...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> ("Steven Kingsley") wrote:
>
> > I wont list the whole message, but well said w...@olympus.net in message
> > 24780. I dislike the attitudes of some of my collegues at UNI who seem to
> > dismiss things as rubbish becasue they can't find anything positive to
> > say, they are only harming themselve's, IMO.
>
> This is an amusing attitude you take, because it raises the question "is
> it _ever_ appropriate to call something rubbish?"
Is it ever appropriate to be rude? Inconsiderate?
Call it garbage, Yes but ONLY when you literally bring a bag of garbage
into the conversation!
> Imagine that you are in your neighbour's house, SEE PREVIOUS POSTING........................................................
>
> Your imaginary neighbour's behaviour is precisely analogous to the
> behaviour of a dadaist or minimalist who insists on claiming that
> something is art when it is obviously not.
Fisrt of all you bring up an important point do you want art to
CHALLENGE, your assumptions, or do you want those assumptions reassured?
Most of the time I want the challenge, at tea with a neighbor I don't
want challenges like the one you describe though I would be into the
surreality of neighborliness, I mean I would be forever impressed if
something like that happened to me!! So, that's a weakness in your
argument!
But more seriously< dada was based upon outrage, that's why it ran its
course so quickly, you can't be outraged for along time especially after
the war ends. DADA was about challenging assumptions and THAT is
essentially the basis for art.
So you have your assumptions challenged. Now what about reassured? I
don't think that's the worthwhile job of art to reassure you but
mimimalism comes closest to that, its most pure form,
The other aspect is calmative, strangely, the minimalists trying to
achieve a preverbal meditative response to art. But who would say that a
serene, openness to the act of perception (my memory of one otf the
things minimalisms basic tenents) generated by an object designed for
that purpose would not be an aesthetic object? C'mon!!
So minimalism, ultimately does not reassure, though it can appear
serene,.like meditation with a twist, because you are still in the end
faced with the vexing question of where this art comes from and how it
works. No doubt it is an aesthetic experience.
>
> It is the position of the minimalist or dadaist that is paradoxical, not
> that of the person who rejects these modes of would-be art-making.
reject away!!
> Minimalists and dadaist share two difficulties when they claim to
> understand the meaning of 'art'.
They share very little at all. but...
>
> First, accepting their offerings as art depends on a circularity: on the
> one hand, these objects are art only because they are 'placed in an art
> context',
true about dada somewhat.
not true about the totality of minimalism.
and on the other hand, the 'art context' is such a thing only
> because it has art at its centre. This means that the claim is no more or
> less than an article of faith and talk about art in the dada/postdada
> pradigm is really talk about art institutions.
The circle can't be drawn because the statements going into making it
are not exact!
Dada is very much about institutions!! Not only art institutions! Not
only insane asylums.
Let me separate minilamism and dada here in what you say:
>
> The second problem is that, in order to persuade doubters of the merit of
> their own work,
DADAISTS are compelled to devise a system of pseudoaesthetic
> values that flies in the face of all prior aesthetics.
So, to make
> DADA objects into art objects, it becomes necessary to make
> all objects that commonsense would indicate were real art objects into
> non-art.
In other words, for DADA to receive legitimacy as
> art, all other would-be art must be illegitimate.
>
> Apologists for DADAISM can frequently be heard requesting
> that spectators be open-minded, yet DADA are the most
> exclusionary system of 'aesthetics' that have ever been devised.
>
Now that I have removed the references to minimalism, kept everything
else the same this makes a greadt deal of sense.
I wonder what happens when you eliminate the dada and just keep the
references to minimalism...
>So, to make
> minimalist objects into art objects, it becomes necessary to make
> all objects that commonsense would indicate were real art objects into
> non-art.
totally impossibly false
>In other words,minimalism to receive legitimacy as
> art, all other would-be art must be illegitimate.
again, not near a tenant of Minimalism
>
> Apologists for minimalism can frequently be heard requesting
> that spectators be open-minded, yet minimalism is the most
> exclusionary system of 'aesthetics' that have ever been devised.
>
Yes It is quite austere, purposefully designed to achieve one of its
major goals the separation of the act of perception from all else.
But, if you are talknig about all the dialog it has generated, in all
the magazines and stuff, you have to be careful, you have to be a good
editor. Certainly can't throw the whole thing out the window? If you do
that wouldn't the next thing be to expect other people to throw it all
out too...better to go off on your own.
Charles Eicher
In article
<Bruce.Attah-11...@support-saturn.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
> Your neighbour takes on an offended tone. "What's wrong with it? It's
> a coffee table, isn't it?"
>
> "No, it's a bag of rubbish! It's not stable, it's not flat, and it stinks!"
Um, you missed the point.
In this 'gedankenexperiment', you were forced to define your concept of
'coffeetable-ness'.. Or, to force the analogy, a 'non-art' object might
clarify our conceptions of art better than an art object might.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Mdeli
king...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Steven Kingsley") wrote:
>I wont list the whole message, but well said w...@olympus.net in message
>24780. I dislike the attitudes of some of my collegues at UNI who seem to
>dismiss things as rubbish becasue they can't find anything positive to
>say, they are only harming themselve's, IMO. Its a paradox for Bruce
>though, as his reactions have given to Andres work exactly what has
>made it so well known over the years, to quote from Kenneth Bakers book
>Minimilism-
>
>"Andres work has always drawn power from people's reluctance to accept it
>as art"
This is a typical Dadist ploy.
If you reject a peice of crap which an artist claims
is art, that alone supposidly demonstrates its power.
Just think of all the great starving Modern Academic
failures out there whose only problem is that their
work is rejected as art.
I advise all students to remember that for every
"artist" whose piece of crap was chosen to inhabit the
halls of our holiest museums, there are thousands of
artists outside in the cold wondering why their crap
didn't make it into the inner sanctum.
The reason is that they don't understand that sucess in
Modern Academic Art depends winning the MAA lottery.
Your work is of no importance.
Mani DeLi
---no skill no art
Mdeli
(Bruce Attah) wrote:
>> Your neighbor takes on an offended tone. "What's wrong with it? It's
>> a coffee table, isn't it?"
>>
>> "No, it's a bag of rubbish! It's not stable, it's not flat, and it stinks!"
(Charles Eicher) wrote:
>Um, you missed the point.
"Um," is a very important word in modern art. Watch the
TV interview with our greatest abstract expressionists
and count the "ums" and don’t forget the "ahhs" and
"errs." Its part of the language of Modern Art. Use
these terms often.
>In this 'gedankenexperiment', you were forced to define your concept of
>'coffeetable-ness'.. Or, to force the analogy, a 'non-art' object might
>clarify our conceptions of art better than an art object might.
This is new. The incompetent charlatan no longer need
pass his crap off as just an experiment, now it can
also be a 'gedankenexperiment'." Um, I guess I’ll have
to go back to art school and learn the latest
transcendental implications of what’s going on.
Its so nice to know that now a piece of modern "heisse
Scheisse" can clarify our conceptions of art. All who
see this sort of work can now feel more or less
"clarified."
Long live 'gedankenexperimentalism?
Mani DeLi
...no gedankenexperiments and your out of touch.
(Bruce take note)
Mdeli
"W.S. Parker" wrote:
>Is it ever appropriate to be rude? Inconsiderate?
If some charlatan tries pass off garbage as art I call
it garbage. Many things require a bit of rudeness.
>Call it garbage, Yes but ONLY when you literally bring a bag of garbage
>into the conversation!
Do you also teach morals?
>…But more seriously dada was based upon outrage, that's why it ran its
>course so quickly, you can't be outraged for along time especially after
>the war ends. DADA was about challenging assumptions and THAT is
>essentially the basis for art.
Dada never ran its course. Most of Modern Academic Art
is ersatz Dada. Dada was new in 1917. It produced new
crap then and it produces old crap now.
>So you have your assumptions challenged. Now what about reassured? I
>don't think that's the worthwhile job of art to reassure you but
>minimalism comes closest to that, its most pure form,
>The other aspect is calmative, strangely, the minimalists trying to
>achieve a preverbal meditative response to art. But who would say that a
>serene, openness to the act of perception (my memory of one otf the
>things minimalisms basic tenents) generated by an object designed for
>that purpose would not be an aesthetic object? C'mon!!
>So minimalism, ultimately does not reassure, though it can appear
>serene,.like meditation with a twist, because you are still in the end
>faced with the vexing question of where this art comes from and how it
>works. No doubt it is an aesthetic experience.
No Doubt---nice Artspeak. Or is it PoMo?
>Dada is very much about institutions!! Not only art institutions! Not
>only insane asylums.
---Not only your writing
>I wonder what happens when you eliminate the dada and just keep the
>references to minimalism...
You then have a subject for a seminar during which a
bunch of vane academics can have a coffee klatch.
>> Apologists for minimalism can frequently be heard requesting
>> that spectators be open-minded, yet minimalism is the most
>> exclusionary system of 'aesthetics' that have ever been devised.
>>
>Yes It is quite austere, purposefully designed to achieve one of its
>major goals the separation of the act of perception from all else.
"...the separation of the act of perception from all
else," Really?
>But, if you are talknig about all the dialog it has generated, in all
>the magazines and stuff, you have to be careful, you have to be a good
>editor. Certainly can't throw the whole thing out the window? If you do
>that wouldn't the next thing be to expect other people to throw it all
>out too...better to go off on your own.
What nonsense.
Mani DeLi
…no skill no art
W.S. Parker
Mdeli wrote:
>
> What nonsense.
>
> Mani DeLi
> …no skill no art
Your comments can only come out of your own willful ignorance.
I'm sorry but: You're fired.
We are no longer responding to anything you write.
Andrew Werby
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>> > > > Somehow, too, we have to acknowledge that Carl Andre's sculpture
>> > > > represents the faded, dessicated skeleton of an abortive cross between
>> > > > nineteenth-century Aestheticism and a puritanical aversion to ornament,
>> > > > and dismiss it with the pitying contempt it deserves.
>
>When an artist exhibits work publicly, there is an agreement in effect
>that is unwritten, but known by everyone: the artist has a duty to _try_
>to present good art, the public has a duty to _acknowledge_ the goodness
>of the art, if the work is actually good. If the work is exceptionally
>good, the public is pleased to offer the artist fulsome praise of the
>heartiest kind.
[Would it were so. What is the mechanism by which this is supposed to occur?]
If the work falls far short of the claims made on its
>behalf, the public is quite within its rights to lambast the artist with
>exactly as much sharpness as reflects the public's disappointment.
[This is the dynamic by which Andre's dry bricklaying became elevated to the
pinnacles of the art world. By making work so resolutely unappealing in every
way, he managed to create a controversy in an area where it has become difficult
to merit so much as a raised eyebrow. When members of the public became aroused
enough to voice "disappointment", insiders mobilized in his defense. The battle
was waged on intellectual rather than esthetic grounds, so the result was
preordained. When it was pointed out that the work exhibited no craftsmanship
whatever, his defenders replied that art does not reside in craftsmanship, but in
ideas. When its lack of esthetic appeal was condemned, the response was that
art is not supposed to be decorative, but it is supposed to make one think. And
certainly it represented the sort of blank screen on which many contemporary
critics prefer to project their theories, uncontradicted by any emanations from
the work itself.
Although many artists had gone some way down this road, Andre went one step
further, and thus became a hero to those who subscribe to the linear concept of
art history in which the jettisoning of all the elements commonly thought of as
comprising the worth of a work of art is considered purification. First literal
representation was cast out, then representation of any kind, then harmonious
composition, then craftsmanship, then emotional content, until the last residual
appeal to the senses seemed the only thing left to be discarded. Andre's work
stood for a while as a landmark, until Conceptual art left him behind by
rejecting the physical object altogether. Since Art managed this difficult feat
of consuming itself utterly and leaving nothing behind, however, this particular
progression may be considered to have come to an end, although some self-styled
artists maintain they go yet further by doing absolutely nothing whatever.]
Andrew Werby - United Artworks
Charles Mcgregor
In message <53raai$q...@lanshark.lanminds.com>
Andrew Werby <dre...@lanminds.com> writes:
> Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
> >> > > > Somehow, too, we have to acknowledge that Carl Andre's sculpture
> >> > > > represents the faded, dessicated skeleton of an abortive
cross between
> >> > > > nineteenth-century Aestheticism and a puritanical aversion
to ornament,
> >> > > > and dismiss it with the pitying contempt it deserves.
> >
> >When an artist exhibits work publicly, there is an agreement in effect
> >that is unwritten, but known by everyone: the artist has a duty to _try_
> >to present good art, the public has a duty to _acknowledge_ the goodness
> >of the art, if the work is actually good. If the work is exceptionally
> >good, the public is pleased to offer the artist fulsome praise of the
> >heartiest kind.
> [Would it were so. What is the mechanism by which this is supposed to occur?]
> If the work falls far short of the claims made on its
> >behalf, the public is quite within its rights to lambast the artist with
> >exactly as much sharpness as reflects the public's disappointment.
> [This is the dynamic by which Andre's dry bricklaying became elevated to the
This is what makes modern art the laughing stock it has become.
After millenia of general popularity, the 20th C has seen the
alienation of art from the general public. Why? Because a bunch of
talentless, pretentious, pratts saw it as a way of conning even more
talentless art investors out of their money.
Normal people think most of the modern stuff is a joke, and that not
even the purveyors of the genres believe what they say themselves. I
was willing to give them the smallest of benefits of doubt until
Muriel Gray's TV Program here in Scotland exposed the sham for what it is.
--
Chic McGregor - Semiconductor Development Engineer / //
chi...@zetnet.co.uk ////
///
///
Steven Kingsley
Okay imagine this.
You wake up to the sound of traffic. From your shop door way you crawl
out from beneath your cardboard blankets that have done there best to
shelter you from the weather. Just then your nieghbour pulls a half eaten
hamburger out of a public bin to share with you plus two cups of tea.
The tea was purchased by someone who took pity on you. Your friend says
I'll get us a coffee table and rushes into Harrods and returns with a
carved 6ft oak coffee table for your cup. You say why did you go to all
this trouble a bag of rubbish would have been more suitable.
I see what you are trying to get at but if I or you lived on the streets
like many then maybe this is more like reality than you try to suggest.
Today a beggar might use a bag of rubbish to rest something on which
would be better suited for his requirements than some great lump of
carved oak. In his world its the finest coffee table there is, an
abundant supply with no need to buy polish and impress the nieghbours.
If he was to lug a big table around would'nt you think a bag of rubbish
would suit him better as you see him all bent and tired from this burden.
Or maybe some might think, oh well he's not "made it" yet but he's trying
his best, he'll need a bed next, then a house, then a coffee maker etc
etc.
This case would get me thinking and this is what Andre is trying to do,
maybe we could take a look at society for the answers and not judge him
either way as society suggest you should.
In some parts of Africa they smear cow shit on there roofs to keep out
the rain. Because someone can't undertand how shit could not be anything
other than shit, does this not make it a roof covering?
I'm not that knowledgeable of Art, but did'nt critics say when he was
alive Cezzane's painting was crap and he was mad, although today it has a
different standing. Is'nt this true today for many past
artists/genius's? Who knows you might eat your words yet.
Rgds
Steven
G*rd*n
Charles Mcgregor <chi...@zetnet.co.uk>:
| ...
| After millenia of general popularity, the 20th C has seen the
| alienation of art from the general public. Why? Because a bunch of
| talentless, pretentious, pratts saw it as a way of conning even more
| talentless art investors out of their money.
|
| Normal people think most of the modern stuff is a joke, and that not
| even the purveyors of the genres believe what they say themselves. I
| was willing to give them the smallest of benefits of doubt until
| Muriel Gray's TV Program here in Scotland exposed the sham for what it is.
It's hard to explain, then, why museums charging $7 a head
and displaying 20th-century art are jammed every weekend --
and this includes the work of artists like Beuys as well as
such accessibles as Ernst, O'Keeffe, Picasso, and Hopper.
That's here in New York City, anyway. Maybe we're unique,
but I doubt it.
I suppose the theory on this is that they're all stupid, and
you're the smart one?
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Darren Reynolds
In article <199610141...@zetnet.co.uk>,
Charles Mcgregor <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>This is what makes modern art the laughing stock it has become.
>After millenia of general popularity, the 20th C has seen the
>alienation of art from the general public.
When was this general popularity? Oh, do you mean when it preached
Christianity to the masses. If so, then art was a different concept. What
do you think would pull the general public into the galleries? Pamela
Anderson with 'em out for't lads?
Why? Because a bunch of
>talentless, pretentious, pratts saw it as a way of conning even more
>talentless art investors out of their money.
Talentless art investors?! You don't say.
>
>Normal people think most of the modern stuff is a joke, and that not
>even the purveyors of the genres believe what they say themselves.
Thanks for putting us all right. What's 'normal'? Who are you to tell
anyone that they don't believe what they say? And crap use of 'genres'.
I
>was willing to give them the smallest of benefits of doubt until
>Muriel Gray's TV Program here in Scotland exposed the sham for what it is.
>
Oh so good old Muriel has sorted the 'is contemporary art a sham' question
out. On the one hand you have mountains of text written by intelligent,
knowledgable people about all aspects of 20th century art, and on the other
you have a program by Muriel Gray that went out in Scotland. Whatever
revelations were uncovered by this program you can't apply a blanket
statement to 20th Century art.
Darren
Bruce Attah
> In article
> <Bruce.Attah-11...@support-saturn.isltd.insignia.com>,
> Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>
> > Your neighbour takes on an offended tone. "What's wrong with it? It's
> > a coffee table, isn't it?"
> >
> > "No, it's a bag of rubbish! It's not stable, it's not flat, and it
stinks!"
>
> Um, you missed the point.
>
> In this 'gedankenexperiment', you were forced to define your concept of
> 'coffeetable-ness'.. Or, to force the analogy, a 'non-art' object might
> clarify our conceptions of art better than an art object might.
I've not missed the point at all. A non-art object may or may not refine
my concept of 'art', but that is beside the point, as what I am looking
for is not merely refinement of my concept of art, but the pleasure that
comes from being an witness to _good_ art.
Such stuff _also_ refines one's concept of what art can be, but it does so
in a positively rewarding way.
Furthermore, the non-art object presented as art is redundant, since a
thought-experiment clarifies the point that the object would illustrate.
A mere _description_ of the presentation of such an object as art is
sufficient to the purpose. The object need never be made.
Bruce Attah.
Bruce Attah
In article <325F6C...@olympus.net>, w...@olympus.net wrote:
> ...do you want art to
> CHALLENGE, your assumptions, or do you want those assumptions reassured?
The thrust of my little story was to make apparent the pointlessness of
this activity which postdadaist feel is so crucial. The want to
"challenge our assumptions about what art is". What they do not realise
is that this is not interesting or useful or pertinent, and is merely a
distraction from the activity of making and enjoying good art.
We already KNOW that there are lots of things that are not obviously art
that could yet be called art if we choose to tolerate them as such. We
already KNOW that any old object can be the starting point for amusing
philosophical ruminations. Telling us these obvious facts, TIME AND TIME
AGAIN, by presenting us with such objects does not make good art, and nor
does it amount to a challenge, since it only tells us what we already
know. The person doing the telling merely begins to look stupid: why
can't you tell us something _interesting_ for a change? is the question
the listener wants to ask.
> Most of the time I want the challenge, at tea with a neighbor I don't
> want challenges like the one you describe though I would be into the
> surreality of neighborliness, I mean I would be forever impressed if
> something like that happened to me!! So, that's a weakness in your
> argument!
Hardly. If the neighbour is doing it as a joke, you can both chuckle at
it, and then a _useful_ coffee table can be provided, but if the neighbour
sincerely is trying to challenge the guest's "preconceptions" about the
nature of coffee tables, sure you'd have something to talk about, but the
social interaction would not have been a successful one. If someone
presents you with disgusting swill at a restaurant as part of an attempt
to challenge your preconceptions of what constitutes food, you will
certainly have been given a topic for conversation, but that is not the
same thing as a good meal.
The analogy is that if you are presented with rubbish as art, and this
triggers of some sort of discussion as to what is or is not art, that does
not make the rubbish into good art.
> The other aspect is calmative, strangely, the minimalists trying to
> achieve a preverbal meditative response to art. But who would say that a
> serene, openness to the act of perception (my memory of one otf the
> things minimalisms basic tenents) generated by an object designed for
> that purpose would not be an aesthetic object? C'mon!!
I don't claim that there is nothing whatsoever to minimalism. What I do
claim is that what minimalism offers is _paltry_ compared to what real art
offers. You cannot allow the artistic impulse to be overwhelmed by the
puritanical and expect something good to come of it.
As for "trying to achieve a preverbal meditative response to art", the aim
is silly. The preverbal state is a state of infancy. Visual art is never
PRE-verbal, though it may be NON-verbal. To try to be PRE-verbal is,
frankly, stupid. Let us just say that here, the minimalists are using the
wrong word, and really their aim is to produce NON-verbal art. In that
case, their means rather than their goals are silly. There is no need to
abandon form, ornament and image in order to avoid the verbal. Pictures
operate non-verbally just as much as white cubes and metallic cylinders.
> So minimalism, ultimately does not reassure, though it can appear
> serene,.like meditation with a twist, because you are still in the end
> faced with the vexing question of where this art comes from and how it
> works. No doubt it is an aesthetic experience.
But a _trivial_ one.
You separate my comments about dada and minimalism, because you believe
that some of the things I say about both apply only to one or the other.
I am not convinced you are right. Here's what you separated-out for
minimalism:
> >So, to make
> > minimalist objects into art objects, it becomes necessary to make
> > all objects that commonsense would indicate were real art objects into
> > non-art.
>
>
> totally impossibly false
Minimalism turns its back on the impulse toward _stimulation_ in art. It
does not merely choose not to stimulate, but denies the desirability of
such stimulation, therefore denying the validity of approaches to art that
use stimulation for aesthetic effect. Almost all pre-minimalist art falls
under this heading, and minimalism accuses all this art of redundancy.
So, not totally impossibly false, but rather totally true.
>
> >In other words,minimalism to receive legitimacy as
> > art, all other would-be art must be illegitimate.
>
> again, not near a tenant of Minimalism
Perhaps not a stated tenet of minimalism, but certainly an implication.
> But, if you are talknig about all the dialog it has generated, in all
> the magazines and stuff, you have to be careful, you have to be a good
> editor. Certainly can't throw the whole thing out the window? If you do
> that wouldn't the next thing be to expect other people to throw it all
> out too...better to go off on your own.
Que?
W.S. Parker
Bruce Attah wrote:
>
>
>
> I've not missed the point at all. A non-art object may or may not refine
> my concept of 'art', but that is beside the point, as what I am looking
> for is not merely refinement of my concept of art, but the pleasure that
> comes from being an witness to _good_ art.
This irks me because **you** are so limited in your thinking, how you
could be satisfied in this era by only those classical forms of art is
incomprehensible. This is especially disheartening if you are a young
person.
So, I and everyone else, thousands of people with even finer minds, are
being fooled, we pollute our enjoyment of "good Art" by considering bad
art, thanks for your trained effort but you fail to convince any of us.
It will always be you against the world. Gets kinda lonely you'll see.
Good luck on your crusade, you must be very lonely, if not, I guarantee
you *will* be. You have a few cohorts you find here, the only place you
can't get shouted off the stage, and discounted as an educated fool by
all. There will always be another newcomer to this nsgrp to be disturbed
by your limited view. Then you will get to do the same thing all over
again. You can again reiterate your limited arguments in your
pontificatory style.
So, you are a connoisseur of art, which where I come from is dangerously
close to pompous ass.
W.S. Parker
Bruce Attah wrote:
>
> In article <325F6C...@olympus.net>, w...@olympus.net wrote:
>
> > ...do you want art to
> > CHALLENGE, your assumptions, or do you want those assumptions reassured?
...of course you want your assumptions reassured!
This irks me because **you** are so limited in your thinking, how you
could be satisfied in this era by only those classical forms of art, the
art you deign "Good" is incomprehensible. You must be doing it for
attention! I hope you are just a young person.
So, I and everyone else, thousands of people with even finer minds, are
being fooled, we pollute our enjoyment of "Good Art" by considering bad
art, thanks for your trained effort but you fail to convince any of us.
It will always be you against the world. Gets kinda lonely you'll see.
You guys exist as a by-product of the internet.You have a few cohorts
you find here, the only place you can't get shouted off the stage, and
discounted as an "educated" fool by all.
There will always be another newcomer to this nsgrp to be disturbed by
your limited view. New people who come along and are alerted by your
all-encompassing claims and self-limited point of view.
Genuinely loving art and loathing willful ignorance, they jump in and
try to persuade you to see your own limitations, as expressed in your
super-critical appraisals. They hope for mutual undertstanding; whatever
comes out of a *fair exchange* of views.
So with their response to your overarching claims made, you can again
reiterate your limited arguments, in your pontificatory style. You
start up again with your crap, and what do you get?
I've learned something important from dealing with you guys, but nothing
of it has to do with art! It was great while it lasted, why don't you go
onto the next hapless internaut.
You claim to be a connoisseur of art, which, where I come from is
JKearman
In article <Dz4Ir...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, king...@cix.compulink.co.uk
("Steven Kingsley") writes:
>Its a paradox for Bruce
>though, as his reactions have given to Andres work exactly what has
>made it so well known over the years, to quote from Kenneth Bakers book
>Minimilism-
>
>
>"Andres work has always drawn power from people's reluctance to accept it
>as art"
>
>
Oh, this is good! This is very good! This sounds like CultSpeak, even more
thtan ArtSpeak. In other words, the more I protest that the emperor has no
clothes, the more clothes he wears, right?
You know, it is just possible that Andre _is_ a fraud and that you, along
with a lot of other people, have been taken in.
Jim Kearman
Andrew Werby
Charles Mcgregor <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> [This is the dynamic by which Andre's dry bricklaying became elevated to the
>> pinnacles of the art world. By making work so resolutely
>unappealing in every
>> way, he managed to create a controversy in an area where it has
>become difficult
>> to merit so much as a raised eyebrow. When members of the public
>became aroused
>> enough to voice "disappointment", insiders mobilized in his
>defense. The battle
>> was waged on intellectual rather than esthetic grounds, so the result was
>> preordained. (clipped)
>
>This is what makes modern art the laughing stock it has become.
>After millenia of general popularity, the 20th C has seen the
>alienation of art from the general public. Why? Because a bunch of
>talentless, pretentious, pratts saw it as a way of conning even more
>talentless art investors out of their money.
>
>Normal people think most of the modern stuff is a joke, and that not
>even the purveyors of the genres believe what they say themselves. I
>was willing to give them the smallest of benefits of doubt until
>Muriel Gray's TV Program here in Scotland exposed the sham for what it is.
> Chic McGregor - Semiconductor Development Engineer / //
> chi...@zetnet.co.uk ////
>
[I'm afraid some people have got an unintended message from my remarks on this subject.
I do not subscribe to the cheap-shot theory which maintains that modern art is a fraud
designed to part the gullible from their money. (After all, it is mostly the artists
themselves that are impoverished.) As an artist, I cherish the freedom that we have
attained at such a great price, to define art for ourselves. The advent of abstract art
has made it possible to see the world in a new way, which is an extremely valuable gift
to mankind.
There is a lot of modern art that is truly beautiful, but unfortunately it is not the
work that attracts a lot of attention. Without a shared set of standards to measure
beauty against, it is difficult to talk about art in a meaningful way. Thus the
discourse of art criticism tends to center around the purposefully controversial work
that polarizes people into warring camps who either hate it for its qualities of
ugliness, obscenity, sloppiness, or banality, and those who feel compelled to defend it,
if only to make an intellectual point and preserve these options for future artists. In
the fracas, the question of whether the art functions in esthetic terms, which is really
the hard part, is lost.
Since name-recognition became the major prerequisite for art sales, whatever the
quality of the art itself, modern artists can hardly be blamed for trying to stir up
whatever controversy they can in hopes of breaking through the wall of indifference that
prevents them from being able to make a living. I would prefer, however, if the debate
were framed in different terms, focussing somewhat less on the intellectual questions
raised and more on the sensual nature of the art itself.
Mdeli
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>It's hard to explain, then, why museums charging $7 a head
>and displaying 20th-century art are jammed every weekend --
>and this includes the work of artists like Beuys as well as
>such accessibles as Ernst, O'Keeffe, Picasso, and Hopper.
Its not that hard. Not everyting in the MOMA is bad.
They have had great shows of Parrish, Disney etc.and
interesting industral design along with their amusing
pretentions, They have Dali, Blume and Tschelechev.
Many come for the social attraction. When I hung out
there they had great coffee and interesting people to
look at and talk to. It was a good lead for parties and
a nice pick up place. My score at the MOMA was only
outdone at Max's Kansas City.
Ive seen jammed Miss America contests and I can't
explain that.
>That's here in New York City, anyway. Maybe we're unique,
>but I doubt it.
>I suppose the theory on this is that they're all stupid, and
>you're the smart one?
Whose theory says that all these people are stupid?
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Bruce Attah
In article <53ucv3$q...@panix2.panix.com>, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> Charles Mcgregor <chi...@zetnet.co.uk>:
> | ...
> | Normal people think most of the modern stuff is a joke...
>
> It's hard to explain, then, why museums charging $7 a head
> and displaying 20th-century art are jammed every weekend --
> and this includes the work of artists like Beuys as well as
> such accessibles as Ernst, O'Keeffe, Picasso, and Hopper.
> That's here in New York City, anyway. Maybe we're unique,
> but I doubt it.
>
> I suppose the theory on this is that they're all stupid, and
> you're the smart one?
> --
> }"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Despite what you say, Gordon, the museum art of the past three or four
decades is far, far less popular than that of earlier periods, and that of
the early twentieth century in its turn, is less popular than that of the
nineteenth (and I don't mean only Impressionism). Numbers attending an
exhibition of Impressionist art will typically be a hundred times larger
than numbers attending a show of art by a well-known "contemporary"
artist. Of museum art since 1950, only figurative painting and graphics
have widespread popular support, as can be deduced from such indicators as
crowd sizes and book and postcard sales.
I do not think that the greater popularity of old art is a result of
popular conservatism. In other arts besides what we call visual art, the
trend is that people like what is recent more than what is old.
You might want to argue that people take a few decades to get used to
stuff, and minimalist art, conceptualist art and so on will eventually be
just as popular as Surrealist and Impressionist art are now. I doubt
that, partly because the lesson of history is that popular audiences
generally accept a new tendency in art quite quickly, if they accept it at
all. The public accepted Pop art before the critics did (when it was new,
Pop was vehemently opposed by a lot of critics). Surrealism was accepted
fairly quickly by museum goers, while many critics still had their
reservations. Yet resistance to (or skepticism about) minimalism is still
strong after more than thirty years.
I don't think that the popularity of any art is proof that it is good, or
that its unpopularity proves it is bad, but I _do_ think that there is a
correlation. Good art _tends_ to be popular, and bad art _tends_ to be
less so. I think that if any particular art is both good and unpopular,
an obvious reason will explain the problem.
Bruce Attah.
G*rd*n
Charles Mcgregor <chi...@zetnet.co.uk>:
| > | ...
| > | Normal people think most of the modern stuff is a joke...
(G*rd*n) wrote:
| > It's hard to explain, then, why museums charging $7 a head
| > and displaying 20th-century art are jammed every weekend --
| > and this includes the work of artists like Beuys as well as
| > such accessibles as Ernst, O'Keeffe, Picasso, and Hopper.
| > That's here in New York City, anyway. Maybe we're unique,
| > but I doubt it.
| >
| > I suppose the theory on this is that they're all stupid, and
| > you're the smart one?
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah):
| Despite what you say, Gordon, the museum art of the past three or four
| decades is far, far less popular than that of earlier periods, and that of
| the early twentieth century in its turn, is less popular than that of the
| nineteenth (and I don't mean only Impressionism). Numbers attending an
| exhibition of Impressionist art will typically be a hundred times larger
| than numbers attending a show of art by a well-known "contemporary"
| artist. Of museum art since 1950, only figurative painting and graphics
| have widespread popular support, as can be deduced from such indicators as
| crowd sizes and book and postcard sales. ...
I was merely responding to what's quoted above. Maybe he
was referring to Modern-with-a-capital-M; I took the small
_m_ to mean "contemporary." I don't know what the museums
were like before I started visiting them around 1956 or
'57, but I do know that there are now so many people at
exhibitions of 20th-century stuff that I've regretfully
given up going to them. With some exceptions, of course; I
was gratified a few years ago by the repellency of Francis
Bacon at MoMA.
I think (as I said in another article) that ab-ex has found
its home in the mall and the fingernail boutique. It's
popular now that it's retreated from the grand pretensions
of other days.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{ www.etaoin.com }"{
Charles Mcgregor
In message <540goh$d...@lanshark.lanminds.com>
Andrew Werby <dre...@lanminds.com> writes:
> Charles Mcgregor <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
I agree with you, no-one can blame anyone for what they have to do to
make a living i.e. the artist, and I agree that many artists
recognise what needs to be done to make that living.
Neither am I against artistic freedom *in any way* so long as it is a
genuinely held artistic urge on the part of the artist to express
himself in the way he does.
However it is my belief that the 'fad factors' are not being set by
the artists, but by the critics and the gullible patrons, and that
artistic freedom is actually being curtailed to a *greater* extent
than ever before, by them having to work within narrow margins of
current acceptability. This results in intellectual back-bending
almost to the point of self hypnosis by many artists.
It started with impressionism where patrons purchased the artists
quick paint sketchs of a scenes which were done merely as memory
joggers for the main works that were to be painted later. This was
considered to be 'cleverer' than the purely representational work and
was probably a philistinian reaction to the camera. No-one looks a
gift horse in the mouth, so if that's what the punters wanted, that's
what they got.
What Muriel Gray did was to invent a young Scottish artist who was
all the rage in Germany, exhibitions everywhere, large sums paid for
his works, etc. His 'works' consisted of slabs of rotting meat hung
on hooks. She did a documentary of the 'artists' works and showed it
to and interviewed several luminaries in the British art scene. An
unknown actor was used.
She knew that:-
a) They would not admit that they had never heard of him.
b) That they would 'see' the worth of his art and wax lyrically about it.
This is what happened.
Phase two, after the documentary had been shown, was to reveal that
it was all a hoax which left these characters looking very silly indeed.
What if her career did suffer because of it? she struck a blow for
artistic sanity and exposed the pratts for what they are.
People unreasonably expect artists to be ethical warriors to be
uncompromisingly honest, to tell the parasites to go fuck themselves,
but we are living in an increasingly materialistic age, there is so
much you can do with money now compared to a hundred years ago. Kids
want computers and designer label sneakers, holidays abroad, cars
etc. The difference between having money and not is greater, in real
terms, than ever.
For this reason, the appeal for honesty needs to be levelled at those
who describe what the invisible clothes look like.
Not the tailors.
--
Chic McGregor - Semiconductor Development Engineer / //
chi...@zetnet.co.uk ////
///
///
Kajojacobs
In article <540goh$d...@lanshark.lanminds.com>, Andrew Werby
<dre...@lanminds.com> writes:
(...) As an artist, I cherish the freedom that >we have attained at such a
great price, to define art for ourselves. The advent of abstract art has
made it possible to see the world in a new way, which is an extremely
valuable gift to mankind.
>
>(...) the discourse of art criticism tends to center around the
purposefully
>controversial work that polarizes people into warring camps who either
hate it for its qualities of ugliness, obscenity, sloppiness, or banality,
and those who feel compelled to defend it, if only to make an intellectual
point and preserve these options for future artists. In the fracas, the
question of whether the art functions in esthetic terms, which is really
the hard part, is lost.
>(...) I would prefer, however, if the debate were framed in different
terms, focussing somewhat less on the intellectual questions raised and
more on the sensual nature of the art itself.>>>
===========================
The motion is seconded. How refreshing it would be to speak of art on a
level that doesn't require verbal weapons and the choosing of sides.
Well said, Andrew.
Patiently -
~Karen Jacobs~
G*rd*n
(G*rd*n) wrote:
| >It's hard to explain, then, why museums charging $7 a head
| >and displaying 20th-century art are jammed every weekend --
| >and this includes the work of artists like Beuys as well as
| >such accessibles as Ernst, O'Keeffe, Picasso, and Hopper.
hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli):
| Its not that hard. Not everyting in the MOMA is bad.
| ...
Well, our buddy said that all the modern stuff was bad. At
MoMA, that leaves -- what? There are a couple of Van Goghs,
I guess.
Big Doggie
In article
<Bruce.Attah-07...@support-saturn.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>
> Somehow, too, we have to acknowledge that Carl Andre's sculpture
> represents the faded, dessicated skeleton of an abortive cross between
> nineteenth-century Aestheticism and a puritanical aversion to ornament,
> and dismiss it with the pitying contempt it deserves.
******************
I always enjoy reading open-minded, foward thinking artists. Raise the
window and let some light and fresh air in.