or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Art - Page 96

post #1426 of 1579
Booooooo. And coming from me, on this topic, that means something.
post #1427 of 1579
Considering that the most famous contemporary American response to the show was the image below, accompanied by the text "The Rude Descending the Staircase," it's nice to at least read a well written and considered criticism. Plus it's hysterical.

698544
post #1428 of 1579
There's always something really refreshing about the unfiltered candor people outside a field can give about another field, assuming they can form an opinion that rises above the bland. It's one of the reasons I find SF's reaction to architecture far more valuable than anything architects can usually say about it.

One instantly starts to daydream about a trip to Art Basel with Newt Gingrich.
post #1429 of 1579
meh. It is just snark. I like snark, but the review is nothing more than a long version of this:

post #1430 of 1579
Maybe in its time, but from an art historical standpoint, it also reveals some interesting patriotism. It articulates the skepticism of Americans toward the "European style," the idea that Modernism was sort of imposed and doesn't fit in with our cultural values or our taste. Usually that subject starts with the European artists coming to teach here during WWII, but this represents a much earlier part of the story. Stieglitz knew all this, but felt (along with the other Europhiles who dominated the art market) that Americans were ignorant and had to learn, more than they had to emotionally connect with art.
That skepticism and mistrust of the European style has persisted by the way, you can see it in this thread.
post #1431 of 1579
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordecai View Post

Considering that the most famous contemporary American response to the show was the image below, accompanied by the text "The Rude Descending the Staircase,". . . .

698544
I like this bounce2.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by mordecai View Post

Maybe in its time, but from an art historical standpoint, it also reveals some interesting patriotism. It articulates the skepticism of Americans toward the "European style," the idea that Modernism was sort of imposed and doesn't fit in with our cultural values or our taste. Usually that subject starts with the European artists coming to teach here during WWII, but this represents a much earlier part of the story. Stieglitz knew all this, but felt (along with the other Europhiles who dominated the art market) that Americans were ignorant and had to learn, more than they had to emotionally connect with art.
That skepticism and mistrust of the European style has persisted by the way, you can see it in this thread.
Interesting.
post #1432 of 1579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loathing View Post

Gentleman I have some questions, and I'd appreciate your help:

I'd like to start collecting photography, but I know nothing about buying; I'm particularly interested in vintage photographs and photography classics; where's a good place to buy such photographs? (I'm based in London, but travel to NYC.) And is it even possible to buy classics at prices that aren't astronomical? Are there such things as post facto reprints as with say woodcut prints by Matisse?

I don't really have a budget in mind, I was simply thinking about looking around at what's available.

Thanks in advance to anyone who answers.

Although my sartorial knowledge may be limited, I worked for many years in the art world (both at the Metropolitan Museum) and a private gallery. So, this is slightly more in my wheelhouse. Post facto, as you say, is certainly available and will likely be noted as "estate prints." Obviously only those photographers notable enough to have an estate would be included. Estates are represented in a similar fashion to any living artist, often with an exclusive deal with a gallery.
Although you'll easily be able to do your own research on reputable galleries, one of the most significant is here in San Francisco: Fraenkel.

However...
The great thing about photography is its reproducibility and democratic nature. There has been a significant rise in recent years in the collecting of anonymous photography; the ephemeral and not necessarily consciously artistic works of earlier ages. Though the individual works may not be for the person looking to show off famous names to his friends, you are empowered to curate a body of work which gains value because of its collective context. I would recommend watching a recent documentary (Black, White + Gray) on Sam Wagstaff, Robert Mappelthorpe's benefactor and lover, for an image of how this can be done with excellence.
post #1433 of 1579
Went to a really enjoyable show this weekend. Haven't really seen any new Laura Owens works in almost a decade, and these are very different from what she did before. There is a 3 dimensional quality that does strange things to the eyes when you are looking at the work. Each piece involves several different techniques (brush, knife, silk screen, dye, etc...), so it is difficult to tell which elements of a painting were layered over or under one other, and there are thick sections of paint that protrude, but look indented. It looks like a kind of contemporary fauvism.


Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)




























post #1434 of 1579
So I'm pretty flippin' excited about this Jay DeFeo show at the Whitney. Anyone see it in San Francisco?

post #1435 of 1579
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordecai View Post

Went to a really enjoyable show this weekend. Haven't really seen any new Laura Owens works in almost a decade, and these are very different from what she did before. There is a 3 dimensional quality that does strange things to the eyes when you are looking at the work. Each piece involves several different techniques (brush, knife, silk screen, dye, etc...), so it is difficult to tell which elements of a painting were layered over or under one other, and there are thick sections of paint that protrude, but look indented. It looks like a kind of contemporary fauvism.


Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)





























Just saw that this is the cover of the new Artforum
post #1436 of 1579
I took a picture of this at the MOMA last year and forgot to note the artist, can someone tell me who this is?

post #1437 of 1579
Was it part of the Eyes Closed/Eyes Open show or part of the collection galleries?
post #1438 of 1579
collection galleries
post #1439 of 1579
These are large. Most come to knee

725839

725840

725841

725842

725846

725847
post #1440 of 1579
Are these all the same artist?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home