Myers, T., 2011. Painting: Documents of Contemporary Art. 1st ed. London, Great Britain: Whitechapel Gallery Ventures Limited.
This is essential reading for my course and a neatly sized comfortable book to hold, its also coated in red wine due to an accident with my husband not putting down his plate and trying to move an unstable side table one handed, upon which was his filled glass. Its a small point, but I do like books.
Starts and ends with a quote from Eugene Delacroix from 15th May 1824, “What moves men of genius, or rather what inspires their work, is not new ideas, but their obsession with the idea that what has already been said is still not enough.” This is the motivating factor in the coming together of writings in this book, even after the announcement of the death of painting, the start of photography and the integration to the art portfolio of installations, modern technology and the moving image.
Douglas Crimp – The End of Painting (1981)
Crimp’s explanation of an article by Barbara Rose criticising an artist for having their work displayed in a museum, when they themselves had been critical of art in museums. Crimp “Rubin explains that museums are essentially compromise institutions invented by bourgeois democracies designed to reconcile the large public with art conceived within the compass of elite private patronage.”
Pretty damning in itself, although I don’t hold with all of Rose’s argument “[painting] is the product exclusively of the individual imagination rather than a mirror of the ephemeral world of objective reality.” Painting is mostly the end product and to give all the meaning to a choice in medium when it is possibly a repetition of a photo or a series of photos, possibly after a series of sketches and notes working out possibilities is giving paining too much credit. However, the fact that painting is still important, whether it is because of Rose’s input or a natural cycle of change is good.
Whether art should aim to be hung in galleries due to the societal views of those creating the collection seen, based on only the time in which the decisions to hang are made and the history leading up to that point is another question, and overall, its a bit of a big one…
Photography hasn’t killed off art, its made it more accessible to all and helps within its creation, it has changed the type of art that the public responds too, but its only a part of an ever changing process rather than its death-nell.
Giles Deleuze – The Painting before Painting (1981)
About Francis Bacons use of photography, whether he liked or loathed it, explains that he used it a lot but that he felt that as sight is a series of photos that they don’t allow for ambiguity which is where painting takes over. I’d go with this, a photo is a complete view however, as an artist to include all the elements of a photo without cropping in, and blurring, to adding only the aspects I find important to convey my image I haven’t used it to its full potential as my aide memoire. I am happy to create fiction from fact, partially because I am aware that the end product is my view of the world and events.
Thomas Lawson – Last Exit: Painting (1981)
This is a review of art in the late 70’s early 80’s that is waiting for the next movement of painting, its critical of post modernism and the artists creating pictures to become known rather than to make good art, complaining that their images historical roots do not justify the mismatch of styles that render them meaningless.
Its also critical of specific artists along the lines of a change in their (Salle) style heralding their exit from the world stage.
So what’s next?
Rene Ricard – the Radiant Child (1981)
signing grafitti, necessary because grafitti became “institutionalised” in the 70’s so the need to be individual within it leads to moniker. The act of signing as a cry for recognition.
The canvas is a limiting factor that shows ametuers, where as painitng the side of a train is impractical to those wishing to make money from graffitti art and become professional.
Judy Rifka, has a recogniseable style that acts as her signiture, all an artists work should lead to a point where their work heralds them and makes their name memorable, Andy Warhols style was linked to him and lives on after his death.
However, there are artists who get to have more than one definable style of their own, Richter has several, I’d like to not be trapped into one medium and be free to play with art whether my message is serious or not.
Peter Halley – Notes on the Paintings (1982)
This could be an uber short description of a gallery visit, where his overall feeling of the visit was a series of confinements, recognised in the geometric objects spotted in more than one picture.
He could be describing the gallery, likening it to institutionalised elements of our lives – apartment blocks, education, work etc.
Norman Bryson – The Invisible Body (1983)
This appears to be reminding us not to forget the effort in making art. As much as it delves into the hows and whys of looking at art, its seductive capabilities, it deals with them as a point removed from the creation of the art. leads to the musculature memory and skill of the image coming out over the gaze drawing in the meaning of the image.
Art & Language – Victorine: Libretto for an Opera (1984)
About bringing art to life, a play in which the main character a detective is in conversation with Manet and Courbet about murders. He cannot distinguish between the actual murders and the painted figures, this does not work the other way however, he does not think of the real as a painting.
So, the allegory is in art as opening a real meaning/message in the viewer, in this story a close minded man. who does not believe this is possible.
“You don’t fool me. No one can paint ideas:
No work of art has ever pictured thought.”
I believe art can give you a look into someone else’s view of the world, I’m not convinced you can actually hide it as you paint if you are given the opportunity to paint what you want over pre-prescribed commissions. I think this view will automatically be clouded by the time you are in so is a given truth of a specific point as well as person. It is also not an absolute because we all show what we want to show at the same time as that which we show unconsciously.
Hal Foster – Signs taken for Wonders (1986)
Abstract art at the time taken apart because it couldn’t be the pure abstract art of old. Because it appropriated that art it lost the abstract in everything but name only and the act of the painting became the sign. Because for the most part they are not good enough, they cannot become the next level of abstract because they are not hyper realistic enough in the sense of simulacrum. or because they are actually good pictures, they are fooling people without adding anything to the genre.
So is this art being created because it is the next step in the cycle of art?
Essentially the commercial expectation is destroying the meaning of abstract art
Is this saying that it has now all been done before so because of that art has lost meaning or lost its way? Art is kind of dependant on a market to steer it, but the pictures should have a voice, its up to the artist to create all their ideas, even if they have no audience over just the ones that pay for a roof and food, otherwise there would be no forward motion.
Gerhard Richter – In Conversation with Benjamin H.D. Buchloh (1986)
I like the start of this, Richter has to defend using a big paint brush just because its a tool and he doesn’t mean anything specificly by it and Buchloh tries to make out it has some hidden meaning, then goes all verbose aboult the use of big marks and Richter doesn’t seem too happy about the empty message Buchloh is giving his big pictures.
Buchloh is desperately trying to pin more messages onto Richter’s work than Richter is allowing him too. Gerhard ends this by stating that his paintings are about bringing “together disparate and mutually contradictory elements , alive and viable, in the greatest possible freedom. No paradises…”
He is showing what exists, in his abstract work as well, without adding to it to make it its most beautiful self.
Thats an honst approach, but there are still elements to any image he makes that have more or less emphasis than in real life.
Lee Ufan – Robots and Painters (1987)
Writes of the invention of robots that will one day paint better than humans.
How the message/content is decided first then an emotional link by the artist to the content, this whole content, artist producing picture acts as a machine till its done. (fair enough, a machine only does what its told, in this instance the machine is creating a picture, its not necessarily allowing for the happy mistakes that make good pictures great though).
So whilst a robot cannot understand all the messages that go into creating a picture they also cannot predict the next art movement or the future? (a bit uncertain on this bit)
So while art creation is narcissistic, only artists can understand the moments of life that make great art.
Barry Schwabsky – Dreaming America (1989)
Likens the process of creating Aboriginal art to the pictures by Marilyn Minter. starts by linking all pointillist work, then decrees aboriginal art as a passing curiosity.
Finally gets around to stating that the author of aboriginal art is not necessarily the person who puts down all the dots, its the person who plots its journey and understands where the piece is going, much like Minter who after the original idea and preparation, is not necissarily the person who put down the dots that made up her work at the time.
It kind of loses itself at this point, there the similarities end. Minters work heraled from Pop art, Aboriginal artwork stems from a point so far removed on a continent far away and from a different time with a different cultural history…
Jim Shaw – Thrift Store Paintings (1990)
This is a list of paintings from thrift stores, some of the list has attributed ownership which means they have been bought.
The descriptions don’t dress them up to sound good and the owners collect on an obvious theme.
Is this a list of themes not to create pictures of? or is it a challenge to make them into pictures that sell?
Is it less art because its ended up in thrift?
It hasn’t ended up in a skip so someone has valued it and decided it is worth more than 0
is the list art?
Shirley Kaneda – Painting and its Others: In the Realm of the Feminine (1991)
The difficulty with deciding if something is feminine or masculine comes from the historical point we derive our view upon.
This chapter is not about women being treated fairly in art, it asks that a picture be feminine without needing to know the sex or gender of the artist. this is a fair point, right up to deciding between a Newman or a Rothko than the masculine is the un emotional logical response while the feminine is the opposite. I resent that. I don’t get emotional about it, I argue that its wrong and based on the thought that the female is an illogical emotional response over a nuanced look at more views than just the one correct masculine.
We are incomplete because we lack power. I’ll accept that, we lack the conviction that we can handle power, we are not backed up enough to believe we can and will succeed.
Taafe is a feminine painter because he deals with pattern and Heilmann deals with geometry which is masculine.
Why are we deciding that these are based in one camp or the other? I don’t get why Kaneda is deciding whether the content of a picture over its use of human form is decipherable as male or female. If we reach a point where we are brought up equal it won’t matter what we create.
Given this was written 27 years ago, I would hope that we have moved passed a point of deciding if a line is masculine or feminine. Only if a picture works. I realise the system is still geared to a patriarchy and that women still do not fair as well in the market, Also that as a subject it comes up, I’ve got a string in my inbox from OCA discussion group about masculine or feminine styles in photography.
I guess my work is feminine, because I tend to go complimentary in my pictures, I don’t do raw images (Like Freud, Saville et al) I would need to paint more than I do to worry less and get a model that isn’t one of my children (I’d have to have more materials too, I am aware of my financial obligations this year and its keeping me from buying supplies at quite the rate I need too). I’ve started a sketchbook of portraits up and my goal is to keep going back into the images adding layers so the work is more finished, and see if in that process the pictures become less processed, which would take them away from the feminine I think.
Meyer Raphael Rubinstein – The Painting Undone (1991)
Support/surface artists. A collective from France who exhibited together (mostly 60′-70’s) They chose there focus partially around American art themes of the time and only complained about the prominence of American art after an American artist won a grand prize at a European biennial. This is a condensed history around the who’s and whys of the group, with a theory made from the French philosophers of the time, and the background ideas taken from the US, the premise to take art back to the basics of the canvas unsupported and start from the imagery rather than the support.
That seems to be all this chapter is.
Vija Clemins and Chuck Close in Conversation (1992)
About how Clemins feels her work affects viewers? this is her feelings surrounding the lack of distance she gets from her work, sucked into it till its so closed up she worries that it is inaccessible. Close argues that it is very personal because she feels so close to it and Clemins responds that maybe its just closed rather than by closing it up it is somehow more open to interpretation.
Elizabeth Hess – Spiritual America: Sue Taps a Vein of Female Anger (1992)
Essentially a look at an exhibition by Sue Williams with a mix of paintings and sculpture, the theme is looking at sentences and events that surround women and portraying them in there worst possible element or in the opposite extreme to draw more attention to them. This was an exhibition shouting about in-equality of life and as such was a call to arms for women. Looking at brutality in relationships, rape, birth and using loaded sentences to justify the action she showed, gave the show a specific focus about the relationships (be they long or short term) between men and women.
The writing also referenced a parralel exhibition by Richard Prince that showed the Marlborough man also as a parody, but without the vitriol. as a step before or removed from Williams work.
I suppose the question is does it work? It asks questions, it provides answers, but I don’t think Williams exhibition would actually reach her target audience, I don’t believe that the person who acts the way she depicts would go to her exhibition. To have an effect, she would have to drip pieces into shows with other questions. Its not that she’s using a sledgehammer to open a walnut, I just don’t think she would have any walnuts to hit.
Micheal Corris and Richard Nickas – Punishment and decoration: Art in an Age of Millitant Superficiality (1993)
A conversation about describing art with really long words…
linking the figure to the ground, (showing its weight and position?)
Discusses degradation of the canvas by the artist with tools, torturing the paint and then brings in Warhol who believed “that there is no difference between what the picture says and how the picture says it.” which isn’t true, there are many ways to get across a message through art, be it through messages containing love hate anger or humour (or more than one as in Williams work in the last chapter, using humour and violence) it can mean looking at the extreme opposite to draw attention to the question you want.
Marlene Dumas – Woman and Painting (1993)
Dumas explaining how she justifies to herself her choice to paint. even though she is a woman who has faith, blond hair, pagan views and a career choice that isn’t clean.
And it pays for her roof and food and she isn’t ashamed of any of it.
Good for her.
Mira Schor – Course Proposal (1993)
How art is written about because it fits into what the writer want to write about, how exhibitions are curated on a pre-decided theme, how artists are looked at by critics who don’t like paint.
Fashion and being at the right place at the right time counts a lot for take home pay in the art world, I understand this, either you catch onto the latest zeitgeist and you can discuss it coherently or you lose out even if you paint well. I’m still learning to paint, still don’t have a preferred medium, I am way behind the drag-curve.
Writes of learning painting through touching paintings like braille, because it would help understand the process of creation (a Rembrandt self portrait is the example to touch) so you could get a firmer grasp of painting, photos of Mondrian’s work don’t give an understanding of the brushstrokes visible in the real.
This is about accepting ability with paint does not necessarily lead to success? Because the people with the money and the language skills are the ones in charge of the market, no matter how we would like it to be different.
Adrian Searle – Unbound (1994)
Looking at an exhibition touted as a return to painting and noting that the experience of the art is also an experience of the situation we see it in, curated by a gallery. noting that works look different when hung in these spaces, as Gary Hume put it after having drips and splodges in his work pointed out to him “Don’t worry about them. Once they get to the gallery, they will look like nuances.”
If your only purpose is to have your work in galleries, this is the approach to have, my personal desire is to have my work hanging in peoples houses, which means closer scrutiny, however the paradox is my challenge to accept the mistakes I make over perfect pictures because I’m not sure I see the point in painting photorealistic over owning a photo of whatever…
Piece ends with painting not being dead, it is not a religion.
Philip Taaffe – In Conversation with Oleg Grabar (1994)
About how we as artists want our viewers to access our art, Taaffe admits that part of the response is about the technique he uses to create his art, however, he also wants the viewer to have a different response depending on the distance they are from it.
Also that Matisse and Rouault had different expectations from their viewers, Rouault didn’t produce his work with an expectation anyone would view it it was a “prayer” and Matisse wanted you to feel comfortable and relaxed looking at his, it was always for observation.
I want people to look at my pictures, Some I make because they bug me till they are made, some are an instant ‘this will make a good picture’ feeling, I can’t say I am always comfortable with everyone looking at my work, partially it depends who is looking and how much of myself the picture reveals. And as earlier written, I’m not making raw pictures yet so my expectations of views are of a positive emotion in response. It isn’t wrong to make art that elicits a positive response.
John Currin – In Conversation with Keith Seward (1995)
Discussion over the impetus of his work, he denies that its ironic, that it can be seen as cliche, but he doesn’t mind that over the cliche of using weird objects to paint with. Would rather be an honest painter.
I’m amusing myself with portrait practise while I read books this month, this is my 3rd Chris (after Hemsworth and Evans), the irony of looking at feminist questions while drawing and painting male cinematic fluff is not lost on me. I’d like to fill the book with portraits and it would be kind of amusing if they where all Chris’, which would be cliche but a worthwhile exercise in portraiture. I think I’m with Currin on this one.
His assertian that there are no American painters, only illistrators, whilst stating that Europe has painters is wrong, all painting is illustrative, its a followed through finished thought in comparison to the initial sketches, but it has a trail to an idea or an emotion the artist is trying to portray, which is the definition of illustration isn’t it?
Julian Schnabel – Basquiat (1996)
Part of a script from a film on Basquiat, this is about the creative relationship with Andy Warhol and their collaboration in art. Basquiat questioning whether he is still a validated artist ie, the art establishment thinks he is old hat, even though he has stopped taking drugs. However, Andy assures him he is still relevant by agreeing with his painting choice on their shared canvas.
Do we need validation to be practising artists? can we be relevant without an audience? I can’t see a point where I won’t return to art, its my creative release, everyone does, writing, drawing, photography, making music.
Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe – Cabbages, Raspberries and Video’s thin brightness (1996)
You remember back when tvs where big enough for the cat and her mates to sleep on? Before HD? Before 4K? Before OLED tvs with a miriad of jewel bright colours, with clarity so sharp the effect is dazzling?
Well this piece was written 22 years ago and technology has moved on a bit. Video content still moves, implying no beginning, no end, because of the rich colour, the hint of electricity is closer than ever, the size of the average home TV has more than doubled and in the front room, a picture has less notice taken of it than the box of moving images.
Whats my point? It is difficult to look at an argument on lack of focus and colour like oil paints when the devise for comparison is now more akin to fluorescent spray cans and can show every detail clearly in well represented cinematic format (take Blue Planet II) The constant motion is still prevalent, but the screen now has an anti glare to it so the sun doesn’t ruin your viewing and the frame around the edge has all but gone, in fact the next generation of screens will either be a part of the furniture so you can’t distinguish it from a cupboard door when its off, or you will roll up your super-sized screen and chuck it in the corner when you have guests around.
We’ve moved on, like the constant stream of photorealistic art that the paps show as the best thing since sliced bread. Painting needs to find its niche in this world, and keep re-finding it as the tech improves.
Lara Pittman – In Conversation with Terry R. Myers (1996)
Lara, discussing the immediacy of a painting, it is created at a point for a point, not to be discussed as history or looking into the future
Lara had her last reviewed work described as eccentric and here she is arguing to be included instead of separated but a definition that stands her apart.
I can’t say the same for all my sketching, it represents the now as it is done, however the larger works created on the back of a sketch are a remembrance of the past, they are history as I make them, there is a nostalgia about them from the moment I begin. Maybe, with those pieces I am asking someone to look at the picture and get a tiny sense of what I felt as I looked at whatever it is I’ve re-created on a surface.
The question is, if I should seek out situations to observe, or situations to remember myself? My favourite painting is Eduard Manets bar at the Folie Bergere, I first saw it while doing A levels, and its terrible ennui struck me of this woman watching life happening but not participating, she can’t afford to, she works for their happiness, and only participates on a periphery. Which leads on to why I paint and draw what I paint and draw, the act of creating takes me away from participation into the role purely of observer which isn’t the best place to live, photography helps because it can pick up those instances to be dealt with later allowing me to take part in my own life. Maybe being an artist is about observing from the periphery constantly, a world apart?
Catherine David and Robert Storr – Kassel Rock (1997)
A conversation about an exhibition and artists choosing their work to go in it and the organisers (I guess the 2 in the conversation) getting to curate. Richter is discussed as is his photo collection over his paintings.
Bernard Frize – In Conversation with David Ryan (1997)
different processes in painting used to create an image, Frize plays with paint and accepts the anomalies he creates. He likes to see a painting become closer to the series he is producing. His work is like Fleming’s penicilin, an accident on canvas while experimenting. He wants to redefine the conversation on colour and paint because his process is different, he thinks the language we use is fixed and a new one needed.
how “art produced in a given context, reaches a point where it becomes universal.”
When it is produced in series surely? the moment there is something to compare it with?
Lane Relyea – Virtually Formal (1998)
Links painting to computer technology of the time, shows differences ie physical presence over easily deletable pixels. This is another difficult piece for me, abstract art doesn’t translate to computer generation as easily, the effects of gravity would be much harder to replicate, also some of the work discussed is done by people who create huge canvases or strips of paint that take over rooms, the capability of computers at that time doesn’t correspond in scope or scale.
However completed on a computer the formalism approach is accurate. Do the artists excape it on canvas? they set there own rules, so probably not.
Mary Heilmann – Looking at Pictures (1999)
short text on Mary’s thoughts on her arts creation, how its autobiographical in reference and how she looks at art as planes.
Howard Halle – Photo-unrealism (2000)
Looking at the photos of Andreas Gursky which are immens detailed observations of places and close-ups. These are geographical in detail, and whilst showing order, also show difference, the text is talking about them as paini=tings rightfully given the content as an interesting, arresting series of spaces that invite further exploration in their obvious order.
Geeta Kapur – Dismantled Norms: Apropos an Indian/ Asian Avantgarde (2000)
derogatory text about the state of art created in India/ Asia as a series of signs that just create objects and that multi media isn’t helping. Also that art is gendered and that gendering is leaning to more objectification or “public concern” either or. Pretty damning.
Looks at the portrayal of Gandhi by 2 modern artists, discusses how they take mythology and construe it in a modern take.
Midori Matsui – New openings in Japanese Painting: Three Faces of Minor-ity (2001)
Starts with history of Japanese arts, from introduction of western culture, while the indigenous art tried to either intergrate the new or reject it totally, discusses Takashi Murakami’s work pulling away from new pop and painting large original canvases.
Deterritorisaion, good word to discuss Japanese art placement today, articulation, used to describes how “ideology discovers its subject”
So what we have is a colonialised place finding itself through a thread of art, in this instance, through a cartoon like genre that is subverted to look other than its innocent beginnings expect, using the ‘cute’ element and in some cases making the pictures behave in a slightly scary way.
Albert Oehlen and Andre Butzer – In Conversation (2001)
Oehlen states there is no difference in his work on and off the computer, they should both elicit emotions in the viewer, mostly through repetition of the emotion displayed.
Pictures also show a bit of all the pictures that have come before. Butzer, “The picture is a living being and conversational material is everywhere.” so all art creates an emotional response that creates a dialogue between viewer and artwork.
Daniel Birnbaum – Where is Painting Now? (2002)
Turning the river in Stockholm green and staying anonymous because the act is the important thing, not ownership of it, but about “our perception of public space.”
Francis Alys Belgian who walks around with a hole in his bucket dripping paint as he goes, recording his journey in a way no different to any other painting, while using the medium in a new way.
Using stained glass windows as a painting, architecture etc. However other mediums to paint with isn’t something new to the new millennium.
Katharina Grosse – In Conversation with Jonathon Watkins (2002)
Discussing her distance from her work because of her chosen medium, spray paint, so she never has cause to physically interact with the canvas.
marking her space.
Ulrike Groos – On Paul McCarthy Painter (1995) (2003)
brief description of video ‘Painter” by McCarthy about the caricature he creates and its relationship to collectors and gallery owners, parodying those relationships. The irony in that in moving the whole set to another gallery it was broken and an argument ensued over responsibility which probably is echoed by the caricatures in the film.
Jonathon Lethem – The Fortress of Solitude (2003)
Extract from a story about time and art.
Glenn Brown – In Conversation with Rochelle Steiner (2004)
Rochelle asks about his use of other artists work as a starting point for his own, he explains that he uses images of the original that have lost so much of the fell of the original that its not really copying(?) How he feels about copyrights and how he feels about his sculptures (seemingly made of piped paint defying gravity).
Jordan Kantor – The Tuyman effect (2004)
Now this is relevant, my current exercises on the course are about creating prints with thin paint and working into them, my current quandary is how to get a more definite line given I can’t use anything other than oil paint or oil pastels over oil paint.
This piece is discussing the work of Luc Tuymans and Wilhelm Sasnal et al who have a loose thin painting style. It discusses it not as a technical inadequacy, or failure to paint.
the artists use photography, cropped in and a reduced palette to render the pictures hinting at the restricted planes viewed from the photo.
Beatriz Milhazes and Christian Lacroix – in conversation (2004)
Millhazes who’s work uses pattern and circular forms like mandalas, painted onto plastic, then transferred onto the final surface and the plastic peeled off. leaving a very smooth finish.
Her work contains the patterns of a lower social class from her country of origin, Brazil, this culture appropriated some of its elements from Spanish invasions centuries ago, however both the language and patterns have remained.
Milhazes says she is scared of many things, however I would argue that those are the things she is distant enough from to observe for her work.
Observation versus participation again.
Cheri Samba – In Conversation with Andre Magnin (2004)
Discusses the origins of his work from the place where he started, then explains that as much as he is still based there, he travels to places like Europe to talk about his work and sell it there.
has an open studio back in Kin (Shara) that is open to everyone at specific times in the week, overseas travellers and locals alike, but acknowledges that his work is financially out of reach from the locals who used to buy his work for the price of a loaf of bread.
So he is distanced from the people from his career origins. As much as he says he is an ambassador for that region of the Congo, his choice is not to do any community art?
John Kelsey – Stop Painting Painting (2005)
A critique of the work of Micheal Krebber, whose exhibition of bedsheets on stretchers lacked paint and where propped up around the gallery, sometimes with flyers for the show attached. Explains his history of appropriation, including readymades, then suggests that he is re-evaluating the gallery space with his un painted work and re-invigorating the potential for readymades of Baselitz.
How the artist is elusive and talks little, how he is an artists’s artist.
He sounds like a diva.
Jerry Saltz – The Richter Resolution (2005)
Asking to have a break from using photos and mechanical projection devices in art, just so artists can go back to exploring the media. Camera Lens is different to the eye, we see differently to each other, painting should reflect those differences.
Isabelle Graw – Classics of Modernism: Jutta Koether’s Treatment of Canonical Painters (2006)
Koether reproduces the works of impressionists in her modern style, because she is appropriating art, she is changing its message, as a female painting female nudes, she is objectifying the object, which while ironic isn’t any different to the original? In which case its been done before and is now old hat.
A quick look at the internet implies she has moved on from this. Not a bad thing.
John Tagg – Vanessa Jackson: The Private Persistence of Public Art (2006)
Looking at the availability of art given the market that surrounds it and hides it away and talks about it above the public.
Svetlana Alpers And Matthew Collings – The Painter (2007)
Well thats a depressing piece. A conversation about the end of meaning in painting, from deciding there is no interest in painting, to there is no knowledge about painting to it having suddenly broken, to hoping that it hasn’t and will carry on, to waiting for the next thing after painting.
There certainly isn’t much painting in overall art exhibitions, 1 painter got shoe-horned into British Art Show 8 around photos and multi-electronic-media, however, how relevant is a hole room installation to someone buying art for there house? homes aren’t getting bigger. So the question is more who is my art for?
Philip Tinari – Original Copies: On the Defan Oil Painting Village (2007)
I have heard of the Dafen village before, it is a place to order paintings, that will arrive in bulk repetition and at a reasonable price, think of it as commissioning on a grander scale with less research into the artist, So the same thing the Flemish artists did, but more modern, no actual contact etc.
Artists have used this space for there own ends above the actual painters, mostly to look at the exploitation of the people while in essence, exploiting them themselves.
This model isn’t that far from what being an artist is about, most artists do not get their work in high end galleries with a price tag that has more than 2 zeros, so by modernising the system it is merely keeping more roofs over heads.
However, I get the point, this is a dumbing down of the meaning and value of art. It just means that the pictures we end up seeing in charity shops will end up being of a better quality, and something had to make up for the loss of Athena on the high street for those in rented accommodation and low funds…
Joan Key – Pavel Buchler: Painting as Praxis (2007)
“Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life.” – Marx and Engels
“it is not necessarily the painting that fails. Rather the failure occurs in the social destination.”
Buchler’s paintings are the painting over of previously done work, the peeling off and then after washing the canvas, gluing the painting fragments back on. The resultant patchwork under a name of a hidden contents meaning that it is a reborn thing. The expectation that it will not work is a form of melancholy Key writes as visible in the work.
He is less worried about the final image than the process and ordered habit of creating it.
“Society needs the labour of artists more than it needs the art.” the artists give value to the objects being sold.
So the painting has no value without the knowledge that it was done by an artist. So the low value of the work at Defan is because their value as artists is lower over their ability to perform art, which is high.
So, to have value as an artist, I just have to be an artist and my work will have value, as long as I pitch it at the right person.
Thus proving you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Sebastion Egenhofer – Figures of defiguration: Four Theses on Abstraction (2008)
Iconoclasm and Monetary Abstraction
Iconic abstraction – destruction of iconography This gives it its energy and direction.
Critique claims that the direction of art is now linked more to commercial enterprise and results than art for arts sake. The notion of starving for my art comes up here, not content with the fact that without an audience, the next stage in art would never be seen and progress happen.
Because abstract was separate from icon, the art was supposed to be able to be read no matter the social history of the viewer
However, because a picture has a value, these abstract forms have acquired meaning that becomes iconic.
Art looking at imaginary vacant people, (Sherman’s film stills) is a sign of abstraction because these representations are representations of no-one specific.
So icon-ess art using generalised imagery is abstract, but generalised characteristics (ie two eyes a nose and a mouth is a human) is not icon based for people? contradicts itself there.
Modernist universalism based on this imagined person.
ok, “its is articulated in the rupture, the gap between the identification imposed by the imprinted mask and the non iconic support.” So the 2 are not linked.
Historicity and Production
Painting as a medium grounds the picture in the time it was made as much as the contents of the image. there is evidence of the hand of the painter.
The painting is its own history
And use of collage around 1910 was the start of abstraction as it removed the trace of the brush and some of the history of the piece.
I’m having difficulties with this last bit, I think its saying that because of our faceless identities (presumably through social media) and a lack of perspective in pictures that the non identities in the art are free? But I could have that wrong.
David Joselit – Painting Beside Itself (2009)
excert from another interview where Martin Kippenberger posits that everything is art from the picture to the wall in the gallery it’s hung on.
That there is a network at play for all art, the network that sees it onto the internet or onto a wall in a gallery and then into storage, the image has a journey.
This has been an eye opening book, asking the hows and whys of producing art and the whos and emotions of an expected audience (if there is one) whilst also discussing the markets at play and the value of art as well as how it achieves that said value.
I’ve only read 200+ pages, but my understanding of my perspective in art has moved on a galaxy’s distance.
As an artist, making pictures, I need to understand why I make them, from a personal perspective that has to include how much it takes from my life in the shift from participation to observation that is the birth of the idea for a picture, photography is my savour here, I don’t project my images to copy, and I accept my mistakes in fact the act of correcting them on paper leaves a historical trail of my observation and progress as an artist which I don’t think of as a bad thing.
Who am I creating for? I don’t want to make pictures that aren’t looked at, and I don’t have a strong enough link to most of them to say I object to them passing out of my hand and into someone else, I hope that my images spark a recognition in the viewer which leaves a positive response, I think that pictures that leave you happy are under-rated.
I may change this view before the end of my degree, however I think that when I’ve finished the last course I should probably read this book again to see if my answers are still the same.
I don’t do imaginary people and places, I don’t think I need to, there are enough people living on this planet to show real people living real lives and even if they don’t know I’ve painted them, my pictures are a record of them, an added history to the image. Which means I am not working abstractly (which is good to know) I also understand that my work is of this time and probably feminine (partially because of my desire for a positive emotional response).
My art has a value, currently as an artist it is greater than the sum of its parts but it’s mostly because the pictures are good over the fact they have been made by me, my ability to network and create supportive relationships is the bit that will add value, my increased artist-ness.
If you get the chance, I’d probably recommend reading this…