Art

Originally Posted by mordecai

Click to expand...

I don't disagree but keep in mind that these too had their conceptual forebears in Homer, Whistler, Harnett, etc... I think of Warhol as a skip and a hop from Duchamp. A substantial one, but still dependent on the prior work. That doesn't stop me from loving most of the artists you mentioned, nor those later artists who are a "skip and a hop" from them.

I would break my support of the five down as follows:

Picasso: Cubism's continuation of Cezanne's fractured picture plane and analytical abstraction of space; Les Demoisselles: most important breakthrough against stigmaticism of social characterizations since Manet's picnic.

Matisse: pronounced leap into figural reductivism through a confidence in emotional qualities of form and color; a forebearer to both minimalism and expressionism while not falling into theoretical contradictions between those two

Duchamp: ended the classical understanding of art as a proscriptive form of intent-based creation by the artist and introduced the understanding of art as an object of presciption which brought art to a widely accepted definition: an object of appropriation on apart of an artist, whose only requirement is to exist as an artifact of the artist's appropriation of its status as "art"

Kandinsky: Abstract composition and the phenonological characteristics of line, plane, and color among themselves as autonomous segments of the whole.

Warhol: Dissolved the heirarchy of aesthetic value in art forms through an unprecedented support of capitalism and its democratic markets for beauty, consumerism, sex, fame, media and every other prevalent aspect of contemporary society.

Originally Posted by mordecai

Click to expand...

lol fair enough. i am having this sort of day:

Is that Chris Burden?

Originally Posted by StephenHero

Click to expand...

I would break my support of the five down as follows:

Picasso: Cubism's continuation of Cezanne's fractured picture plane and analytical abstraction of space; Les Demoisselles: most important breakthrough against stigmaticism of social characterizations since Manet's picnic.

Matisse: pronounced leap into figural reductivism through a confidence in emotional qualities of form and color; a forebearer to both minimalism and expressionism while not falling into theoretical contradictions between those two

Duchamp: ended the classical understanding of art as a proscriptive form of intent-based creation by the artist and introduced the understanding of art as an object of presciption which brought art to a widely accepted definition: an object of appropriation on apart of an artist, whose only requirement is to exist as an artifact of the artist's appropriation of its status as "art"

Kandinsky: Abstract composition and the phenonological characteristics of line, plane, and color among themselves as autonomous segments of the whole.

Warhol: Dissolved the heirarchy of aesthetic value in art forms through an unprecedented support of capitalism and its democratic markets for beauty, consumerism, sex, fame, media and every other prevalent aspect of contemporary society.

I used to discuss art this way. My undergrad degree is in art history. But at my current age ... the thrill is gone. I think the downfall began when I did indeed treat some art as a comodity. I had promised myself I'd never do that.

Originally Posted by mordecai

Click to expand...

As long as we're dropping meaningless references, why not say Brueghel lite? Or Bosch lite? They liked fairies in their landscapes. I love Turner btw.
Yes, but Cole's fairies were forerunners in character to the works of another Thomas ... Kinkade.

PS I too love Turner.

Originally Posted by mordecai

Click to expand...

kind of day

Originally Posted by StephenHero

Click to expand...

Big fan as well.

I was doing a bit of spring cleaning over the weekend and going through some old files and found a gallery card, about 5x5 for a Richter exhibit at Zwirner and Wirth circa 2000. I believe it was 'Early Paintings'. Ths was the same period when I was fresh out of undergrad and interning at an auction house where I later worked for a few years. It was a pretty casual environment and I remember going to at least a gallery exhibit or two a week during my lunch break. This was one I remember going to till this day.

One of my first days when I was an intern I was in the warehouse where the consigned art and furniture was stored. I turned a corner only to see Seestuck (contre-jour) by Richter hanging on one of the walls. It is a huge painting maybe 7 x7 and I remember just staring at it whenever I got the chance. To this day it is one of my favorite paintings of his, for a number of reasons. I believe it sold for about $2.5m later that fall, this was maybe '98.

Originally Posted by StephenHero

Click to expand...

...
I agree with a lot of this, but I guess what surprised me was your preference for any conceptual or non-representational art work. I mean your qualifiers are kind of arbitrary, right? A hop back and most of your list is pointless pretentious crap (as most people on the board seem to think), or a skip forward and some of the work you make fun of is at least potentially just as profound.

Originally Posted by RSS

Click to expand...

I used to discuss art this way. My undergrad degree is in art history. But at my current age ... the thrill is gone. I think the downfall began when I did indeed treat some art as a comodity. I had promised myself I'd never do that.
Working with and owning art has definitely changed the emotional experience for me, but I wouldn't say that it's diminished my appreciation of the works that I enjoy enough to visit or to purchase. At least not more so than the general dispelling of whimsy and mystique that comes with age.

Originally Posted by pscolari

Click to expand...

Big fan as well. I was doing a bit of spring cleaning over the weekend and going through some old files and found a gallery card, about 5x5 for a Richter exhibit at Zwirner and Wirth circa 2000.
Probably the best gallery roster of its tier (no longer around I believe?), though if you count Andrea Rosen there, she's close.

What is your take on Andy Goldsworthy? Many think he's the pop version of earthworks and process art (cause its too pretty and he takes good pictures) and hate him for it just like the "I could do that" crowd says their pet beaver could do that.

He is one of the few artists that brings that mystique back to me. I love much of what he does. It's whimsical without being precious at all. It's nothing like earthworks, it's the opposite. Plus, he is devoted and meticulous in his work, masterful, and humble. Can you imagine better qualities in an artist (or any person)?

Originally Posted by mordecai

Click to expand...

He is one of the few artists that brings that mystique back to me. I love much of what he does. It's whimsical without being precious at all. It's nothing like earthworks, it's the opposite. Plus, he is devoted and meticulous in his work, masterful, and humble. Can you imagine better qualities in an artist (or any person)?

There is at least one good article discussing British and American context to explain that, I'm not trying to say he sucks (I like his work) just that he's sorta suffering from the "this band isn't obscure enough for me even though I should like it" so many criticize him unfairly for not being Smithson.

I see a Goldsworthy piece such as the one depicted in the top photo below and I understand the comparison to Earthworks. Then comes something like the one depicted in the bottom photo-- so natural and yet so starkly formal -- and the difference between Goldsworthy and Earthworks couldn't be greater for me.

Earthworks were all about macho manipulation of terrain, often on the largest scale possible. Goldsworthy's work is about slightly altering mostly impermanent parts of the terrain to illustrate something beautiful already existing there, in nature. Natural processes illustrate or often times complete his work. The difference between his work and Earthworks is as follows: vs. Or vs.

Originally Posted by mordecai

Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of this, but I guess what surprised me was your preference for any conceptual or non-representational art work. I mean your qualifiers are kind of arbitrary, right?
Yes. I don't like everybody or nobody in any given school, especially among abstract painters because texture and composition are so subjective. Likes: Reinhardt, Kline, Twombly, Motherwall, Martin, Mitchell, Newman. Dislike: Rothko, Pollock, Gorky, Still, Marden, etc. Most of the modern artists I like are technically rigorous, process-dependent, apolitical, palette-reductive and relatively mundane/subtle.

^^I see the top photo and my mind starts churning ... I love it.

I see the second photo and see a big hole.

Goldsworthy is smaller scale ... but much greater complexity.

Originally Posted by RSS

Click to expand...

I see the top photo and my mind starts churning ... I love it. I see the second photo and see a big hole. Goldsworthy is smaller scale ... but much greater complexity.
My feelings exactly. I do have a fondness for Smithson though.

Originally Posted by StephenHero

Click to expand...

Most of the modern artists I like are technically rigorous, process-dependent, apolitical, palette-reductive and relatively mundane/subtle.
My feelings almost.

I like Goldsworthy's leaves.