Artblog.net

1.

Jack

December 31, 2005, 2:24 AM

So, generally speaking, how good is the museum?

2.

Franklin

December 31, 2005, 10:55 AM

Really quite good, in general. Cavernous, firstly. Lovely permanent collection, although a surprising amount of it was from the 20th Century. I guess I was expecting some older work. They seem to support a lot of younger talent in the collection, and they sponsor a competition for younger artists. The only drawback of this last item is that they seem to suffer from the same vogues as everywhere else. Painters felt obliged to paint on the walls behind their work, or paint on the wall period, and the show was video-heavy. One of the videos was quite good - look for Chou Yu-Cheng in the future - and there was a fascinating interactive piece by Huang Shin-Chien in which a building formed via 3D modelling in response to your silhouette. Otherwise we had photos of pretty people lying around dead exactly a la Jen Denike and lately, Ali Prosch, surrealist cartooning a la Inka Essenhigh, and some weak, weak video. This probably merits its own post. They had a huge figurative painting show of Taiwanese artists, and there were some gems in it, as well as plenty of dogs. I keep forgetting how big most major metropolitan museums are. This one was like two MAMs put side by side and stacked four high. Even the Taichung museum was huge, albeit sort of empty.

3.

jordan

December 31, 2005, 10:05 PM

Politically speaking (as all art is political, even if not intended to be so by the creator of art objects, but as it exists after and outside of the makers possession) I am witnessing from what you have stated here Franklin that youth in art, regardless of appropriation from contemporary western practices such as drawing on the walls and such are/is part of an insecure and unstable time that has collectively crept into the ' fuck everything, nothing matters' attitude that I have consistantly witnessed and read about regarding Art. This seems to have permeated into the East as well. Style, techniques, and systems are therefore irrelevant and transpersonal. Content on the other hand seems open and possible.

4.

Cat

December 31, 2005, 10:16 PM

Thank you Franklin. Blessings to all for a Happy New Year.

5.

Jack

December 31, 2005, 10:38 PM

like two MAMs put side by side and stacked four high...sort of empty

That's what I'm afraid we'll get at Museum Park (after major cost overruns, of course).

6.

oldpro

January 1, 2006, 2:08 AM

Jordan, art is international now. The ubiquity of the internet and the art magazines has caused this. It seems to be a powerful disincentive to originality, but time will tell.

I am surporsed that you repeat that tired pomo "all art is political". You can make a case for anything being anything if you want to. Art is only political to those who see everything as political. At its best art is utterly personal and private, and as unpolitical as anything can be.

7.

Jack

January 1, 2006, 2:33 AM

All art is political. All art is sexual. All art is (fill in the blank).

Yes, to anyone who makes it so, but the pronouncements of others are not my concern. For me, art is what I perceive it to be.

8.

jordan

January 1, 2006, 8:41 AM

Sorry guys I don't allways follow your internal dialogues on this blog so I have undoubtably missed your discussions on this matter. It seems pretty easy to dislike almost every thing however, so maybe in the New Year I'll try this approach.