Art - Page 49

Modern art is like modern poetry; has no rhyme, no mastery and no passion.
Garbage in - garbage out.

InbeforeMatt

We used to call these "installations" museum dioramas. I have seen some pretty cool ones but I have never been visibly shaken or brought to the verge of tears by one. Most were self explanatory: The reptiles of the Mississippi, the struggle for Little Round Top, Parrots of the Amazon. I confess I could stare at that rock glued to the pane of glass for a thousand years and never have it dawn on me that it was some kind of Spacerock/pyramid version of God reaching out to touch Adam on the ceiling of the sistine chapel.

Do they give you a backstory on these kinds of things? Is there a helpful attendant to give you clues or do you just have to pull this stuff out of your own ass and hope that the experience doesnt leave you in a rage or emotionally desolate?

I really like that Fred Sandback piece.

Also, really like Tomory Dodge, thanks to whoever posted his work.

Is anyone familiar with this work or, better yet, this signature?

don't know what to tell you, red. there's no real manual for this stuff and the relationships i mentioned were just part of what the artist used to create a narrative for her work. they aren't necessarily intended to force a response on the viewer, although it's generally not too hard to find out more about certain works that you are curious about. if you think the only artwork worth looking at is painterly and figurative, there's nothing wrong with that, it just means that you will be more limited in what you enjoy. only thing i'd add is to be aware that most cultures have never considered the value of art to be tied to realism, and also that many of our revered old masters attained their status by being heretically dismissive of the traditional forms of their era.

went to see a Robert Heinecken show last weekend. never seen his stuff in person, and I loved it. almost all of it seems incredibly current, despite having been made 60s-90s.

Moredai, I like your selections. Never heard of Sandback but I love it. I'm a fan of most 60s/70s minimalism/conceptualism. Torres is one of my favorites, too.


I like this. But, I also got a "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks" vibe.

lol. i hadn't thought of that. nice regarding sandback, he is probably my favorite male sculptor of the past century. in person his works are incredibly fragile and moving, pretty much the opposite of all recent sculpture aside from eva hesse and louise bourgeois and a few others. see them if you can. asa nisi masa

Anyone going to the Armory Show/VOLTA/PULSE/Scope?

What do you guys find aesthetically pleasing about this, shitty question to ask, but I just don't find myself visually drawn to that. FWIW, I have enjoyed the limited exposure to modern art, so it isn't that whole thing.

i think it's a beautiful piece, but it can be hard to describe why. i find the forms, shapes, and textures appealing. aside from that, it looks like an asteroid in space and implies motion, but is set motionless inside of a fragile piece of glass. for me, there's something incredibly pleasing and whimsical about the unlikeliness of it all.

Yeah, it is hard to answer that question w/o sounding like a douchey art writer, that is why I thought it was a shitty question to ask over the net. It is also difficult to fully enjoy a something like that through a computer monitor. I find it much easier to appreciate the more geometric/proportional pieces that have been posted thus far. I didn't know if you or Matt could articulate what you enjoyed about that.

I think it would be cooler if there were a series of vertical glass plates with holes in them, suggesting that the meteorite had smashed through them. And then the meteorite could be lodged in the wall.

Shit I can't believe I just posted my million dollar idea on the internet.