When I was at art school, if you couldn't think of anything original and had no skills the best get out was to do a body cast and talk the bullshit. Hmm, who springs to mind??
I'm curious to see where you are going with this. The request you've made seems very non-contributing to the field. I'll direct my critiques and comment to the actual artist. I might better understand their approach and learn a little in the process. It would be great if absolutely everyone loved Limburger cheese. Most people can't stand it, yet it still holds great value and is placed on some of the best chef's menus. I can't stand it, but I can appreciate the fact that some people do. By all means though, feel free to publicly comment on a field that is supposed to be intimate to each person's experience. Maybe we can throw this on Jerry Springer next, it fits his approach perfectly.
If you have to "explain" your art then it isn't working on any level and those that hold weight to an "artist" excuses are no better than the shallow piece they are salivating over! Art always was and always will be in the eye of the beholder, to like or not like and somtimes it's just too obvious that it isn't what it is supposed to be...art!
Hey start with art is the human process of taking something to its' untmost place, however that is defined. Have you taken something to its utmost place, today? IMO, Koons, Hurst... lucky, lucky, lucky.
I'd say Jeff Koons. I see him as our generation's Warhol with his factory-like production process, but his 1988 "Michael Jackson and Bubbles" and "Made in Heaven" series did it for me. Perhaps my irritation stems from his dwelling in what seems like obvious pop culture and narcissism ("Dirty - Jeff on Top," 1991). I do like most of his work and think it relevant to modern society, but I'm not a fan of his forced tongue-in-cheek, finger-on-the-bruise character that he injects into his art. It's definitely a love-hate relationship.
Anon 3: I know I say this here a lot, but: even though the creation of art and the relationship one has with art is private, art exists within a public forum; it's viewed / discussed / debated in galleries, museums, parks, streets and alleys, on our computer screens. Experiencing and connecting with art can be and is indeed intimate, as you said, but many create art in order to spark a dialogue among its viewers. Are people not allowed to discuss art with one another and be vocal about their critiques? We all have different opinions, and I'm interested in hearing them. That said, I salute your statement that you "might better understand their approach and learn a little in the process"; on the other end of the disliking-a-work-of-art-spectrum lies the whole "I don't get it" / "I can do that" conversation that seems to surround contemporary art. The following example isn't contemporary, but a couple days ago a friend of mine was telling me how she didn't "get" / like Jackson Pollock at all. That is, until she learned about the historical context and significance of his works, and now she can sit in front of a massive Pollock at the MoMA and be simply be awed.
Anon 4: If I'm understanding you correctly, are you saying that you dislike art that needs to be explained to you (art that doesn't speak for itself)?
Anon 5: Have you? You think Koons and Hirst have? Also, could you elaborate on what you mean by "utmost place"?
Harry: I definitely had those pieces in mind when I made the tag. It's a fine line.
And thanks for commenting, Julia, Susie, Emily, and Melissa [and other anonymous people]!
I think your question fits the type. Such an example of self-promotion - much like the crap that passes as art. Raising this question does not further any meaningful discussion. It's a sad attempt on your part to find a place, to be relevant and get up on a soapbox to introduce yourself as "Here". How's that working out for you?
It's just a title. If you look at the titles of any of my past posts, you'll see that they're really just opportunities for me to not take things too seriously / use dad-joke puns.
There are a few, but perhaps some of them see something which I am not seeing. Art does have many roles and uses other than aesthetics. Please check out the Zayd Depaor Art blog, which over the coming months (God Willing) will be filled with artworks, drawings, paintings, photos and art philosophy, theory & commentary (as well as related video) Please subscribe, follow & comment, tell all your friends http://depaor-art.blogspot.com/
As an individual, Jeff Koons gives me the heebeegeebee's. But the Puppy was amazing, and the basketballs in tanks remarkable. I have a huge crush on Damien Hirst - he's soooooo naughty - and on the serious side, the butterflies were beautiful and tragic. Tracy Emin might be on my ick list. I could give a flyin' fck about who and how many she slept with.
probably Jeff Koons. Interesting article on art collector Dakis: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/finch/dakis-joannou3-5-10.asp "Either way, the art world, blind and uncurious about the way the world works, must satisfy Dakis, an Art King surrounded by eunuch courtiers."
Charles saatchi likes a lot of crap- damien hirst is awful. Going to the jeff koons exhibit a few years ago felt like I was in a super expensive department store, complete with super bitchy employees.
I must say with all due respect, anyone who sees Karen Kalimnik as anything but great does not understand what she is all about. Her best work is her drawings which depict a life that she both envies and dislikes. The language on the drawings make this clear. This is why nobody could ever attempt to copy her work and why her work is so valuable.
Dear Anonymous, Thanks for the (unfortunate) opportunity to revisit Kalimnik. I allowed that you might be right be right, so I looked, and conclude that her drawings are worse than her embarrassing paintings and installations.
I believe that an artist's 'front' story must be strong enough to get me to care about the 'back' story. Kalimnik doesn't cut it.
As a parallel thought, you suggest that an author who can't write, spell or conjugate is worth reading because their story is interesting. If I'm related to that author or artist maybe I feel that way, but otherwise I'd rather respond to content AND the ability to convey it.
When I was at art school, if you couldn't think of anything original and had no skills the best get out was to do a body cast and talk the bullshit.
ReplyDeleteHmm, who springs to mind??
I agree with your tags. Jeff Koons was the first to pop into my mind.
ReplyDeletematthew barney
ReplyDeleteI'm curious to see where you are going with this. The request you've made seems very non-contributing to the field. I'll direct my critiques and comment to the actual artist. I might better understand their approach and learn a little in the process. It would be great if absolutely everyone loved Limburger cheese. Most people can't stand it, yet it still holds great value and is placed on some of the best chef's menus. I can't stand it, but I can appreciate the fact that some people do. By all means though, feel free to publicly comment on a field that is supposed to be intimate to each person's experience. Maybe we can throw this on Jerry Springer next, it fits his approach perfectly.
ReplyDeleteRichard Serra. Always.
ReplyDeleteha, love the tags on this.
ReplyDeleteThomas Struth, can't stand him
ReplyDeleteRachel Whiteread is also a little overrated
I'm interested to see where this is going. But Damien Hurst is definitely up towards the top of my irritants list.
ReplyDeleteIf you have to "explain" your art then it isn't working on any level and those that hold weight to an "artist" excuses are no better than the shallow piece they are salivating over!
ReplyDeleteArt always was and always will be in the eye of the beholder, to like or not like and somtimes it's just too obvious that it isn't what it is supposed to be...art!
Hey start with art is the human process of taking something to its' untmost place, however that is defined. Have you taken something to its utmost place, today? IMO, Koons, Hurst... lucky, lucky, lucky.
ReplyDeleteI'd say Jeff Koons. I see him as our generation's Warhol with his factory-like production process, but his 1988 "Michael Jackson and Bubbles" and "Made in Heaven" series did it for me. Perhaps my irritation stems from his dwelling in what seems like obvious pop culture and narcissism ("Dirty - Jeff on Top," 1991). I do like most of his work and think it relevant to modern society, but I'm not a fan of his forced tongue-in-cheek, finger-on-the-bruise character that he injects into his art. It's definitely a love-hate relationship.
ReplyDeleteMichael: That's hilarious.
ReplyDeleteAnon 3: I know I say this here a lot, but: even though the creation of art and the relationship one has with art is private, art exists within a public forum; it's viewed / discussed / debated in galleries, museums, parks, streets and alleys, on our computer screens. Experiencing and connecting with art can be and is indeed intimate, as you said, but many create art in order to spark a dialogue among its viewers. Are people not allowed to discuss art with one another and be vocal about their critiques? We all have different opinions, and I'm interested in hearing them. That said, I salute your statement that you "might better understand their approach and learn a little in the process"; on the other end of the disliking-a-work-of-art-spectrum lies the whole "I don't get it" / "I can do that" conversation that seems to surround contemporary art. The following example isn't contemporary, but a couple days ago a friend of mine was telling me how she didn't "get" / like Jackson Pollock at all. That is, until she learned about the historical context and significance of his works, and now she can sit in front of a massive Pollock at the MoMA and be simply be awed.
Anon 4: If I'm understanding you correctly, are you saying that you dislike art that needs to be explained to you (art that doesn't speak for itself)?
Anon 5: Have you? You think Koons and Hirst have? Also, could you elaborate on what you mean by "utmost place"?
Harry: I definitely had those pieces in mind when I made the tag. It's a fine line.
And thanks for commenting, Julia, Susie, Emily, and Melissa [and other anonymous people]!
I think your question fits the type. Such an example of self-promotion - much like the crap that passes as art. Raising this question does not further any meaningful discussion. It's a sad attempt on your part to find a place, to be relevant and get up on a soapbox to introduce yourself as "Here". How's that working out for you?
ReplyDeleteIt's just a title. If you look at the titles of any of my past posts, you'll see that they're really just opportunities for me to not take things too seriously / use dad-joke puns.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few, but perhaps some of them see something which I am not seeing. Art does have many roles and uses other than aesthetics. Please check out the Zayd Depaor Art blog, which over the coming months (God Willing) will be filled with artworks, drawings, paintings, photos and art philosophy, theory & commentary (as well as related video) Please subscribe, follow & comment, tell all your friends http://depaor-art.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteWho are the few you're thinking of, Zayd?
ReplyDeleteAs an individual, Jeff Koons gives me the heebeegeebee's. But the Puppy was amazing, and the basketballs in tanks remarkable. I have a huge crush on Damien Hirst - he's soooooo naughty - and on the serious side, the butterflies were beautiful and tragic. Tracy Emin might be on my ick list. I could give a flyin' fck about who and how many she slept with.
ReplyDeleteHaha thanks for your comment, Sioban.
ReplyDeleteKaren Kalimnik
ReplyDeleteLuc Tuymans
I dislike artists who make mediocre art by intent.
"I dislike artists who make mediocre art by intent."
ReplyDeleteYES. That's actually a pet peeve of mine, especially with all the hipster / "ironically" bad art that seems to get more and more prevalent.
probably Jeff Koons. Interesting article on art collector Dakis: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/finch/dakis-joannou3-5-10.asp
ReplyDelete"Either way, the art world, blind and uncurious about the way the world works, must satisfy Dakis, an Art King surrounded by eunuch courtiers."
Charles saatchi likes a lot of crap- damien hirst is awful. Going to the jeff koons exhibit a few years ago felt like I was in a super expensive department store, complete with super bitchy employees.
ReplyDeleteI must say with all due respect, anyone who sees Karen Kalimnik as anything but great does not understand what she is all about. Her best work is her drawings which depict a life that she both envies and dislikes. The language on the drawings make this clear. This is why nobody could ever attempt to copy her work and why her work is so valuable.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous, Thanks for the (unfortunate) opportunity to revisit Kalimnik. I allowed that you might be right be right, so I looked, and conclude that her drawings are worse than her embarrassing paintings and installations.
ReplyDeleteI believe that an artist's 'front' story must be strong enough to get me to care about the 'back' story. Kalimnik doesn't cut it.
As a parallel thought, you suggest that an author who can't write, spell or conjugate is worth reading because their story is interesting. If I'm related to that author or artist maybe I feel that way, but otherwise I'd rather respond to content AND the ability to convey it.
well I think that it is a little difficult since I have seen a lot of crappy "artworks", but I think I would go with Jeff Koons as well
ReplyDeletedid anyone see what represented Canada in Venice last year?
ReplyDeleteSteven Shearer's work?
ReplyDeleteChris Burden; I think should of made more out of his gun shot w/ some type of dexterity.
ReplyDeleteShepard Fairey; should keep doing what he's doing but not advertising commercial products.
Zhang Xiaogang; get it but for that price?
Richard Turttle: "If it doesn't look like Art You better buy it before it does" maybe but not seeing it yet.
ccc