Previous: the quotidian considered (11)
Next: welcome wsj readers (65)
artblog.net phone home
Post #657 • November 11, 2005, 12:40 PM • 21 Comments
Artblog.net is running around the wilds of Miami (Kendall Drive to the 826 to the 836 to 95 to 195 to Wynwood) and will refer you to this article. The author is this gentleman. Sometimes, in spite of everything, I love the art world anyway.
2.
November 11, 2005, 4:13 PM
Oh well, I guess transvestite alter egos investigating cultural stereotypes with emasculated Pit Bull Terriers engaging contemporary issues like child abuse and revelling in the second class status of the chosen medium in order to explore challenging, yet witty and thought provoking themes ought to win just about anyone a Turner Prize.
I wonder if they are going to put in the room of the recent on/off light switch Turner Prize winner, so weary art goers can switch off the gallery lights if they want to.
Does anyone else think this is just damn SILLY?
John Cleese, eat your heart out.
3.
November 11, 2005, 4:45 PM
well i guess i don't find it silly, old pro, but i'm sure the others who do will be joining us shortly.
4.
November 11, 2005, 4:50 PM
Yawn, the geezer factor strikes again.
5.
November 11, 2005, 5:27 PM
I think this is silly, but in a good way. I rather like the work, not across the board, but some of them are pretty cool. He's an engaging writer too. I think it's great that the Turner comittee recognized 1) a potter 2) who draws 3) figuratively and 4) declared him superior to Jake and Dinos Chapman, which he is. The fact that he's a heterosexual transvestite is like so much pink frosting on the cake. That's why I love the art world - they're not talking about this stuff in the real estate world.
6.
November 11, 2005, 6:37 PM
OK, they are nice pots, if you forget all the bullshit.
The problem with OK pots winning big art prizes is that it displaces better art.
George, if you want to say something, say it.
7.
November 11, 2005, 6:40 PM
And do you think there is a chance in hell that these pots would even be looked at by the Turner Committee if it were not for the transvestite stuff and the "significant issues"? C'mon!
8.
November 11, 2005, 6:48 PM
Forget the damn pots and go here:
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/work?workNumber=NG1313
Be sure to click on the image for an enlarged version.
Is this great or what?
9.
November 11, 2005, 6:54 PM
P.S. Be sure to read the story behind the painting's title. That's what I call a great concept.
10.
November 11, 2005, 6:59 PM
i find it more than a little ironic old pro that you claim to judge work based purely on the visual but your critical stance (such as it is) is based on Perry being a tranny.
Perry's writing and at least one of the art pieces Franklin linked to are about how lame being cool is... something you and the rest here are constantly congratulating yourselves for being aware of. sheesh.
11.
November 11, 2005, 7:30 PM
My "critical stance" has nothing to do with his being a tranny, nor did I imply that it was. My implication was that if it were not for that fact and all the "issue" BS no one would pay attention to him. This may be a wrong observation, but it has to do with the "critical stance" of the Turner Committee and the art world, not mine.
I didn't understand the second part of your comment, or what I said had to do with being "cool".
12.
November 11, 2005, 10:35 PM
wow Jack, thats a nice painting. It is funny how the the putti in the National Gallery banner kind of fits with the painting. How dare you suggest that those pots don't compete with real art.
13.
November 12, 2005, 8:57 AM
re#11, The problem with all the "issue" BS is that they are not your "issues" and if they are not your "issues" you don't like them. Advanced art has always had its "issues", aybe your "issues" are getting moldy.
14.
November 12, 2005, 9:09 AM
Come on, George. You are just being contrary. If art depends on "issues" it is not much as art. It makes no difference whether they are "my issues". You know this as well as I do.
15.
November 12, 2005, 10:23 AM
It is not a question on whether or not If art depends on "issues" but that they in fact do exist as a means of enabling communication about the work. This has always been the case to one degree or another. The language used if different but it's the same game today as it was in 1965.
If you view it like popular music, each generation has its own beat, its own set of cultural clues, its dialog and biases. The trappings of current culture morph and progress through the decades and we become entwined in them, This is the source of 70's revival parties and the "Golden Hits from the Nineties" compilation CD's. We wake up one morning and see that the Rock and Roll has been usurped by Hip-Hop which we don't get at all. Never the less there is a generation which does
Advanced art has always been driven by "issues", points of focus which allow concentration and a direction of stance to allow entry the work. I think of "Impressionism" or "Cubism" as simple examples, both provided a set of "issues" an attitude on how one might approach the work. What you want to do is dismiss all the issues you don't understand and there is an entire generation of artists who are just as sincere, just as ambitious, and just as talented as any other artist, and who make work informed by this different set of issues, a different approach.
What you dismissively label as PoMo doesn't exist. It is only a catchall phrase used to label art which you don't like because it's Hip-Hop and you're Rock & Roll. The generation gap at work.
16.
November 12, 2005, 11:43 AM
don't think the pots would gain notoriety if not for all the drama pr. his contrived personna being part of the whole package reminds me of the author JT LeRoy and comedian eddie izzard. i'll have to study it all more when i have the time as i think the pots say more than the obvious. empty vessels. surface imagery. i am torn between interest and skepticism. and being a skeptic requires less time than true research.
18.
November 12, 2005, 12:51 PM
Oh, please George, don't be so tiresome. How can anyone "not understand" these dumb, tired old PC "issues"? What's to understand? Good grief!
And calling every way anyone ever thought about art an "issue" is Jesuitical at best. Saying Impressionist or Cubist or whatever methods were "issues" not only inflates the meaning of the word "issue" completely out of usefulness but misses the point completely, which is that the "iissues" under discussion here are non-visual, thoughts and ideas applied to art for the effect of pumping up the importance of visually listless art, which those pots certainly are. You can disagree with this, but not at the expense of redefining everything kind of thinking that ever went into art an "issue".
And PLEASE lay off the goddam generation gap crap. There was just as much bad art in rockNroll days as now. I can see art now and I could see it then. I can see it from the 14th Century too, can't you? Don't you know that good art is good art whatever the culture or time? Geez!
Of course I know you are just pulling my chain.
19.
November 12, 2005, 5:50 PM
"I will contend until I am shot that art as soon as it is brought into contact with politics inevitably sinks to the level of any ideological trash."
Vladimir Nabokov,
from Spring in Fialta
(Great short story by the way, if you haven't had the pleasure yet of reading it.)
As to comment two on the wsj page. There isn't anything quite as nice as waking up, and making a big ol' typo that makes you feel like an ass for the rest of the day. Hedge fund Mangers! Sounds like they are donors to the cities nativity scene!
20.
November 12, 2005, 8:09 PM
Don't worry about it, Guy. Gives me an opportunity to be a wiseass.
21.
November 13, 2005, 11:50 AM
the wonderful thing about fiction is that it isn't always the author's voice with which the characters are speaking. sometime's it's their own.
1.
craigfrancis
November 11, 2005, 2:03 PM
absolutely stellar work.
the boring cool people piece is just fantastic. it's this sort of technical mastery paired with a scathing critique that just makes me drool. thanks Franklin.