or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Art - Page 49

post #721 of 1578
Modern art is like modern poetry; has no rhyme, no mastery and no passion.
Garbage in - garbage out.
post #722 of 1578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pezzaturra View Post
Modern art is like modern poetry; has no rhyme, no mastery and no passion.
Garbage in - garbage out.
InbeforeMatt
post #723 of 1578
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordecai View Post
fwiw, some of her work is really divisive. certain people would leave the gallery visibly pissed off and others would leave on the verge of tears. when i was younger i worked a little while at MoCA and saw the same crowd response to a Rothko exhibit, and on another occasion to a Matthew Barney screening.

another one of her pieces looks like a bunch of rocks hanging from the ceiling with a mirror on the floor. but the rocks are meteorites and their distance from the floor and from each other is a scale model of those same distances for the component stars of the big dipper. the formation is only visible when you stand over the mirror and look down at it.



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?
post #724 of 1578
I really like that Fred Sandback piece.

Also, really like Tomory Dodge, thanks to whoever posted his work.
post #725 of 1578
Is anyone familiar with this work or, better yet, this signature?
post #726 of 1578
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcaimen View Post
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?

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.
post #727 of 1578
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.
post #728 of 1578
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mordecai View Post


rambo, the meteorite landed at about the same time that the pyramids were going up. the artist didn't intend any narrow interpretation of the piece, but basically the formal concept involved the idea of something rising towards space (the star alignment shafts of the Great Pyramid are specifically relevant) and something falling from space. there's more that can be said about it, but i don't want to write another paragraph right now.

she's really cute if that helps.

I like this. But, I also got a "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks" vibe.
post #729 of 1578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post
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
post #730 of 1578
Anyone going to the Armory Show/VOLTA/PULSE/Scope?
post #731 of 1578
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordecai View Post
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
one of my favorites too. there are two of those pieces. during the show, they were leaning on each side of one of the gallery walls.





Campo del Cielo I & Campo del Cielo II, 2010

meteorite, magnet, glass


72 x 24 x 8 inches each


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.
post #732 of 1578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhowie View Post
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.
post #733 of 1578
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordecai View Post
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.
post #734 of 1578
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.
post #735 of 1578
Shit I can't believe I just posted my million dollar idea on the internet.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home