10 comments

• Comment Link Friday, 03 February 2012 13:19 posted by Jeff Sparks

  We can easily be drawn into discourse about what is and is not art, but the logical nature of that argument is flawed because there is no definition of art that is normative; perhaps there should be, but history teaches that it is a double-edged sword. Instead, I have found it more useful to change tactics and discuss, instead, that which is aesthetic.
  
  We all hunger for something that is not, as Silverman says, "mindless repeat scenes". This is truthful and more poignant than we may realize. The biblical analogy of the "mote" comes to mind, which is to say, why do we need to even point out the irritant in another's eye (the postmodern artist's conception of art) when we are ourselves cannot see as Silverman points out, the larger irritant in our own eye that is by far more pernicious, (the easy path of the tried and true that, those mindless repeat scenes). An heavy indictment to be sure!
  
  But we can learn from this Guggenheim post. With aesthetics, we not only have a debate-capable language, but a body of understanding that serves to humble us in our work--seldom a bad thing. Put another way, aesthetics may teach us that while we might consider Cattelan's installation shocking and impetuous, a lesser "sin" than the "sin" of unoriginality, and holds our feet to the fire as representational painters (en plein air) to not settle for thoughtless repetitiveness.
• Comment Link Tuesday, 31 January 2012 13:33 posted by Nancy Silvia

  For people who purport to love "art", your appreciation is very narrow. The ability to draw and paint representational images is not the definition of art. Please widen your knowledge and appreciation for the many forms of expression practiced by dedicated and passionate artists. All of art history and world culture contains more than shallow depictions of "beauty". Open your minds!
• Comment Link Thursday, 26 January 2012 15:00 posted by PLPhillips

  Burt - Please re-read your original comment to see why we responded as we did. It was your suggestion (i.e "dead horse") about traditional skills being done with that began an attack on realist art. There is a resurgence of these skills going on - the need coming from within the art community. I at no time said that modernism should be argued away - what I am saying is that this particular road - this brand of conceptual art_ has lead to a blind alley. One attempt out of the alley is the kind of traditionalism that this magazine represents (and make no mistake -that you disparaged). That you rudely attacked them on their own turf was one reason I responded. I advocate no particular art over any other kind. It seems to me that there are many approaches to engaging the world through art.
  And no, we don't know who will be the future's classic.
  Whether this "torrent" of realism will dominate this century is neither here nor there.
  And my point as always is that this kind of art IS the NEW Academism that its proponents myopically cling to, while disdaining the same level of academism of the past.
  It's a brave old world. Enjoy.
• Comment Link Thursday, 26 January 2012 11:21 posted by Burt Silverman

  Dear Jason et al
  You miss my point Your final comment
  One may call universal concepts of beauty tiring, but I would counter that this person is just tired of beauty and reality, and has crossed over into the realm of being disillusioned by life. Or it may be plain laziness with a desire to shock for the mere vanity of gaining attention without anything positive to actually share.
  is the same old arguments being ladled on a century of Modernism.. By now it is useless to try to "argue it away" The sensibility you ascribe above to some possible adherent to modernist sensibilities will not change their belief system because you disparage it; quit the contrary. The same is trewu for the whole structure of "correctness" in Art history... Look at the ton's of books, the museum curators the Art history farm teams at major universities and the ifrastrsturcure of auction prices and invested portfolios in this stuff.. It AINT GOING AWAY. This doesn't mean I share their sensibility. i just can't go into the business of questioning others motives or feelings.. But my point was perhaps not clearly expressed..but it is this:the greater issue for me is whether the current flow , nay torrent, of "realism" as it is currently composed, will ever seriously succeed this dominant art century. will your notions of beauty and "reality" in art become the 21st century curriculum in universities and art books.. Will Janson's History of Art, the bible of art historians, now feature painters like ???? you name 'em .. I can't honestly name one !!!. not yet anyway
  Keep your energies for making batter art as you conceive it.....
• Comment Link Thursday, 26 January 2012 10:48 posted by PLPhillips

  Well said jason.
  Actually, what's becoming quickly passé is this kind of "conceptual" art. For many artists its been plain for a long time that this "mental masturbation" art leads nowhere. It's just time for the announcer to broadcast that this kind of "disco" is indeed "dead".
• Comment Link Thursday, 26 January 2012 09:06 posted by Jason Tako

  In response to Burt. With all due respect, who would really want to look at this? Where is the beauty? It looks like the remnants of a tornado being tossed into a building. Yes it may be "new" and you may call it "non-tiring" but just because something is new doesn't mean it has beauty and worth expressing. It only seems to express confusion and chaos. If I want that I'll try to figure out my tax returns on my own, not have someone else create something and then pass it off as art. Art should express universal concepts of beauty, without an explanation. If it needs an extensive explanation for one to be able to appreciate it, then it is just journalism in the wrong field. One may call universal concepts of beauty tiring, but I would counter that this person is just tired of beauty and reality, and has crossed over into the realm of being disillusioned by life. Or it may be plain laziness with a desire to shock for the mere vanity of gaining attention without anything positive to actually share.
• Comment Link Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:47 posted by Jim Draughon

  This is classic Guggenheim Museum non-art art.
• Comment Link Wednesday, 25 January 2012 18:01 posted by Grace Schlesier

  Wonderful video of one of my favorites.
  Can't wait to see the show in Pasadena this Spring.
• Comment Link Wednesday, 25 January 2012 17:07 posted by Burt Silverman

  You're beating a dead horse in regards to the criteria of traditional skills; drawing painting etc. Modernist stars have been hiring "assistants" ever since Warhol's factory and ton;s of other post modernists have followed suit Just look at Christo ( though he does draw) The "skill" set you demand belong to another world.The issue for me is this: where is serious, innovative conceptual realism, that doesn't just reinvent Academic painting and does not continue to mindless repeat scenes like the current prize winner of your magazine. Picasso once famously remarked that he never saw a good painting that was being done outdoors on the spot. That's his inherent snobbery, but also partly true ( most great landscapes were studio confections excepting perhaps contemporary Spanish artist Antonio Lopez Garcia)and leaves out the Italian Macchiaioli (Impressionists) But this is for a longer discussion elsewhere.. the Catellans of the world will keep on coming and calling forth the tried emperor analogy is pointless, The "emperor" knows very clearly that he has no clothes on and enjoys every dollar of it/ Also see Barry Schwabsky in the current Nation Magazine for the cottage industry of critical nonsense that goes with it.
• Comment Link Wednesday, 25 January 2012 15:27 posted by denise brown

  what is the exhibit made of?
  
  cutouts?