The technological imagination from the early Romanticism through the historical Avant-Gardes to the Classical Space Age and beyond
segunda-feira, 9 de janeiro de 2012
Yukio Mishima (三島由紀夫): a Kamikaze for Beauty - The Harmony of Pen and Sword
"Beauty is a terrible and awful thing. Within the beautiful both sides meet and all contradictions exist side by side."
--Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
INT. KASHIWAGI'S ROOM - NIGHT (Golden Pavilion)
Mizoguchi fingers a miniature bamboo model of the Golden Pavilion. Kashiwagi cuts a floral arrangement in his humble room.
KASHIWAGI Nothing's that unbearable. You'll get over it.
MIZOGUCHI No. Everything is p-p-powerless.
KASHIWAGI What happened? She ran away?
MIZOGUCHI (indicates model) It was as sm-small as this, but grew so b-b-big it filied the world like tremendous music. I was s-s-surrounded by eternity. My arms were p-p-paralyzed. (clutches model to his chest, extends his other hand) How can I reach out and t-t-touch life with one hand, when I've got e-e-eternity in the other? I tried to c-concentrate on my lust but she just va-vanished. That's the p-p-power of beauty's eternity. It poisons us. It blocks out our lives.
KASHIWAGI Maybe it's not beauty that has so much power. Maybe it's just you.
MIZOGUCHI
Beauty!
KASHIWAGI What makes you so sure?
MIZOGUCHI I've d-d-devoted my life to it..
KASHIWAGI (laughs)
Please, enough of your pride! Beauty is like a rotten tooth. It rubs against your tongue, hurting, insisting on its importance. Finally you go to a dentist. Then you look at the small bloody tooth in your hand and say, "Is that all it was?" Knowledge can turn the very unbearableness of life into our weapon. Only knowledge can set us free.
MIZOGUCHI N-nothing else?
KASHIWAGI No, everything else is- madness or death.
MIZOGUCHI There must be some p-power. Something we can d-d-do.
As they speak, the background slowly turns into a solid GOLD screen. Yellow smoke drifts across the floor.
KASHIWAGI (teasing) You forgot beauty already?
MIZOGUCHI (shoves model in pocket) Beauty is now my enemy. Life is b-b-bearable only when I imagine the G-gold Pavilion has been destroyed. The"American b-b-bombers will come. Then I'll be free.
22 INT. AIR RAID BUNKER - NIGHT (1945)
INT. KIMITAKE'S ROOM - DAY (1937)
BLACK AND WHITE. Kimitake, 12, pages through an illustrated survey of European art.
He turns a page, then stops. His eyes close in on a painting of the martyrdom of St. Sebastian by Guido Reni.
Sebastian, wearing a loin cloth, is tied to a tree. His pale body stands out against dark skies; his eyes are lifted toward Heaven. One arrow pierces his left armpit, another his right side.
MISHIMA (V.O.) Suddenly I came across a picture whose only purpose was to wait for centuries and ambush me.
The camera examines the details of Reni's sentimental painting.
Kimitake leans back and unzips his fly. The camera returns to Reni's painting as Kimitake masturbates.
MISHIMA (V.O.) The instant I saw it I trembled with joy. My body was filled with a passion as strong as anger. My hand began its unconscious dance.
MISHIMA (V.O.) Words are a deceit. In order to express the unexpressable, the writer must be deceitful. But action is never deceitful, (pause)
Can art and action ever be united?
He's in his own world:
MISHIMA (V.O.) (continuing) Bunburyodo "to harmonize pen and sword." The samurai motto used to be a way of life, now it's a cliche. The truth is that harmony can only happen in a moment, a flash. The average age for men in the Bronze Age• was eighteen, in the Roman era twenty-two. Heaven must have been beautiful then. Today, it must look dreadful.
When a man reaches forty, he has no chance to die beautifully. No matter how he tries, he will die of decay. He must compel himself to live.
domingo, 8 de janeiro de 2012
The Mask of Death of Modernism - Mark Vallen on Robert Hughe’s "The Mona Lisa Curse" - Art for a Change
Robert Hughes: "The entanglement of big money with art has become a curse on how art is made, controlled, and above all - in the way that it’s experienced."
In these “postmodern” days it has been said that there is no more passé a vocation than that of the professional art critic. Perceived as the gate keeper for opinions regarding art and culture, the art critic has supposedly been rendered obsolete by an ever expanding pluralism in the art world, where all practices and disciplines are purported to be equal and valid.
Robert Hughes, however, is one art critic who has delivered a message that must not be ignored.
On September 18, 2008, British television’s Channel 4 broadcast The Mona Lisa Curse, a documentary film by Mr. Hughes that offers a devastating critique of contemporary art and its over commercialization.
While a DVD release of The Mona Lisa Curse has not yet been made, a complete version of the film has been published on YouTube, though it is an uncertainty how long the movie will remain posted. The streaming video is presented in twelve parts that are each approximately 6 minutes in duration. In this article I summarize each part and provide a link to it. I encourage one and all to view Hughes’ documentary in its entirety.
In The Mona Lisa Curse, Hughes has described with remarkable clarity the forces seeking to tame art, putting it in the service of plutocrats. The market driven and controlled cultural landscape outlined by Hughes reminds me of what the Italian political theorist and revolutionary Antonio Gramsci once said of society in decline; “The old is dying. The new cannot be born. In the interregnum, a variety of morbid symptoms appear.” The candor and forthrightness of Hughes in identifying the trap art is currently ensnared in should be responded to as a call to arms – especially by artists.
The Curse: Part 1
Hughes opens his film by comparing Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, with Damien Hirst’s, For the Love of God. Hughes tells us that; “What ties the Mona Lisa to this glittery bobble is their role in a giant shift in the art world, that shift is all about money. It’s a story that I’ve watch unfold during the last 50 years. I’ve seen with growing disgust; the fetishization of art, the vast inflation of prices, and the effect of this on artists and museums. The entanglement of big money with art has become a curse on how art is made, controlled, and above all - in the way that it’s experienced. And this curse has affected the entire art world.”
“Apart from drugs, art is the biggest unregulated market in the world, with contemporary art sales estimated at around $18 billion a year. (….) Boosted by regiments of nouveau riche collectors, and serviced by a growing army of advisors, dealers and auctioneers. As Andy Warhol once observed, ‘Good business is the best art.’”
The Curse: Part 2
In 1962 the Mona Lisa was temporarily loaned to New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art by the Louvre in Paris for the painting’s first exhibit in the United States. Over one million Americans filed past Leonardo da Vinci’s masterpiece – including President Kennedy and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy. As Hughes noted about the display of the Mona Lisa; “People came not to look at it, but to say that they’d seen it. (….) The painting made the leap from artwork to icon of mass consumption.” The postmodernist period of art as commodity and mass spectacle had begun.
Screen capture of Andy Warhol from The Mona Lisa Curse. Said Hughes: "He was one of the stupidest people I’ve ever met in my life."
“(….) If anyone had told Leonardo that 500 years after his death, his portrait would be the most famous painting in the word, he’d have thought the notion mad. In 1963 in New York, the Mona Lisa was now treated like it was a photo in a magazine. To be quickly scanned and then discarded.
When Andy Warhol heard the painting was coming to New York, he quipped: ‘Why don’t they have someone copy it and send the copy, no one would know the difference.’”
The Curse: Part 3
Hughes recalls his early days in the vibrant late 1960s art scene of New York, where he met and befriended the likes of Pop artist Robert Rauschenberg (1925-2008) and James Rosenquist (1933-).
Rent was cheap, art was affordable, and anyone interested in purchasing original artworks could do so for a song - as art was not yet considered a profit making investment. Hughes adds; “In just a few years this would change, art as commodity would begin to take over from art as art.”
The Curse: Part 4
I found this segment particularly interesting, since I wrote about the history it covered in a 2008 web log post titled, The Unveiling of Robert Scull. In this clip Hughes uses historic footage to tell the tale; “On the 18th of October, 1973, the Sculls auctioned off 50 works from their collection through Sotheby Park-Bernet, Inc. This was the first time a collector from that small contemporary art world treated their collection as an investment.”
The Curse: Part 5
This segment is a continuation of the Scull auction saga from part 4. According to Hughes, “American contemporary art as a serious ‘commodity’ was about to be born.” (….) The Scull auction shifted the art world’s emphasis from aesthetics to money. From now on, not just art lovers, but everyone would want a piece of the action. Contemporary art and big money would be ever more closely entwined.”
The Curse: Part 6
Hughes argues that contemporary art is expensive, not because of any intrinsic spiritual or historic worth, but because it makes for good investments that yield high profits. “The consequences of such prices, was that art became admired, not through any critical perspective, but for its price tag. Auction houses were the new arbiters of taste.” (….) The prices, they have a cultural function - their cultural function is to strike you blind, so that you can’t make your own judgments.”
A particularly funny scene in the documentary is when Hughes visits the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York to view a Damien Hirst ’sculpture’ – a dead shark suspended in a tank of formaldehyde titled; The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living. Barely concealing his amusement Hughes calls the pickled shark; “The world’s most overrated marine organism” - adding that Hirst’s work is “a comedy, but a kind of tacky comedy too, that bears a lot upon the way that we think about art and how it is made.”
The Curse: Part 7
In this segment Hughes tells us that; “At the age of 70, I belong to the last generation that could spend time in a museum without ever once thinking about what the art might cost.” Hughes delves into the changing role and function of art museums, interviewing Philippe de Montebello, the director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York from 1978 to 2008.
Circa 1960s photo of Robert Hughes and Robert Rauschenberg. Still from The Mona Lisa Curse.
Also interviewed is the affable Thomas Hoving, who served as the director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art from 1967 to 1977. Hoving ushered in profound changes in museum culture, using public relations and advertising for the very first time in history to promote museum exhibits. Hoving was the first to allow corporations to underwrite or sponsor museum exhibitions – paving the way to today’s increased corporate control of art institutions.
On the role of museums, Hughes says; “The way that art is experienced in these spaces has changed beyond recognition. The museum has adopted the strategy of mass media; an emphasis on spectacle, the cult of the celebrity masterpiece, art clocked through the blink of an eye or through the lens of a camera. But what it’s gained through an increase in these numbers, it’s lost in terms of freedom of access and availability to the eye and the mind.”
The Curse: Part 8
This portion of the video deals with the recent transformation of art museums into business franchises. The former director of the Guggenheim Museum, Thomas Krens, states in an interview; “The Tate is a brand, the Louvre is a brand - is the Guggenheim a brand, I guess it is.” Hughes comments that “Krens is renowned for putting on shows of Giorgio Armani, in return for massive underwriting from - guess who? - and for franchising the Guggenheim around the world. He pioneered the museum’s global brand, building Guggenheims in Bilbao, Berlin, and Venice, with varying degrees of success and failure.”
In his interview, Krens also said; “If you look at this in global terms, it’s probably in some sense related to the power and importance of brands that represent quality. Quality automobiles, quality wristwatches, or quality cultural objects.” That Mr. Krens can equate the world’s cultural heritage to “quality wristwatches” is telling. Hughes observed that; “Krens’ agenda to popularize the museum is a euphemistic and more palatable way of saying how the art market transforms the museum into a commercial model.”
The Curse: Part 9
Hughes speaks of the commodification of art, saying that in order “To give everyone their Mona Lisa, you must escalate the production process.” The artist’s studio literally becomes an industrial unit churning out “product”, as with Warhol’s “factory.” On the subject of Warhol, Hughes said the following; “I admired some of his work in the 60s and early 70’s, but he turned into a dull celebrity business man branded to the hairline. It was as good as printing dollar bills. The dominance of the art market has produced multiple Andys - global brands like Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst.”
Hughes examines the role of “art advisors” who peddle misleading information to clueless wealthy clients regarding art as investment; “CEO’s and art speculators have created a feeding frenzy, and they’re serviced by a swarm of art advisors buzzing and crawling around the jam jar.”
The Curse: Part 10
Hughes converses with New York art dealer Richard Feigen, who says; “A menu of certain favored artists has gotten expensive because they have been promoted - this is my opinion - and it has very little to do with how important they are (….) If you have an artist that has a huge supply, it permits promotion of the artist. You can have exhibitions everywhere; it’s worth people’s while to promote it. But some of the stuff that’s consequential doesn’t get shown because it isn’t trendy. Why isn’t it trendy - I’ve just explained, basically it’s not worth anyone’s while to make it trendy.”
A single Warhol print on sale at Sotheby’s for a mere $6 million. Screen capture from The Mona Lisa Curse.
Hughes also focuses on mega-collector and art dealer, Alberto Mugrabi. The men of the Mugrabi family – father Jose and his two sons, Alberto and David, have some 800 works by Warhol in their collection of more than 3,000 works; a private collection thought to be the largest and most expensive in the world.
Mugrabi is shown at Sotheby’s Auction House bidding with his father on a painting by “appropriation” artist Richard Prince – a painting that sold for $7.4 million. Mugrabi professed; “We support these artists by promoting them, by buying them at auction, by buying them privately - you could say it’s a way of controlling it.”
The Curse: Part 11
This is my favorite portion of the documentary. It shows Hughes visiting the Lever House skyscraper in New York City for an interview with collector Alberto Mugrabi. The bottom floor of the building is where the Lever House Art Collection is located; a project conceived by real estate tycoon Aby Rosen and Alberto Mugrabi in 2003 as a way to inject corporate art into the public sphere. At the ground floor courtyard at Lever House, Hughes is confronted by The Virgin Mother, Damien Hirst’s 35ft-tall statue of a young pregnant woman that shows half of the woman’s skin and tissue removed to reveal the fetus.
Damien Hirst’s "The Virgin Mother", a 35ft-tall statue of a young pregnant woman. Screen capture from The Mona Lisa Curse.
Hughes surveys the sculpture and says; “Isn’t it a miracle what so much money and so little ability can produce? Just extraordinary. You know, when I look at a thing like this I realize that, so much of art - not all of it thank god, but a lot of it - has just become a kind of cruddy game for the self-aggrandizement of the rich and the ignorant, it is a kind of bad but useful business.”
The Hughes interview with Alberto Mugrabi is priceless; a confrontation between two philosophies, one that extols art as spiritual and necessary to the human heart, the other that sees art strictly in business terms. Hughes is sagacious, looking all the world like some great wise owl as he controls the discussion from his perch. Mugrabi attempts to hold his own but he is clearly outgunned. It is remarkable to see Mugrabi, a man who shapes, manipulates, and controls a fair share of the elite art world, reduced to babbling in the presence of an opinionated art critic who speaks his mind. A typical exchange in the conversation follows:
Hughes: “You take Richard Prince to be an artist of significance, do you?”
Mugrabi: “Absolutely”
Hughes: “What is significant about his work?”
Mugrabi: “He’s a guy that has his own ideas… he’s a person that has done a lot of different types of work…”
Hughes (interrupting): “But Richard Prince’s works seems to consist of basically two types. One is those rather weak jokes, and the other one is the transcription of photographs in paint.”
Mugrabi: “He’s such a deep person that maybe you don’t see it in his paintings – but he definitely is.”
Hughes: “If he is why does one not see it in his paintings?”
Mugrabi: (momentarily struck silent) “Cuz… I, I see it… I think, I think…”
The Curse: Part 12
Hughes wraps up his documentary with some final words;
“Some think that so much of today’s art mirrors and thus criticizes decadence, not so – it’s just decadent, full stop. It has no critical function, it is part of the problem. The art world beautifully copies our money driven, celebrity obsessed, entertainment culture; same fixation on fame, same obedience to mass media that jostles for our attention with its noise and wow and flutter.”
“For me, the cultural artifact of the last 50 years has been the domination of the art market. Far more striking than any individual painting or sculpture. It has changed art’s relationship to the world and is drowning its sense of purpose.”
“If art can’t tell us about the world we live in, then I don’t believe there’s much point in having it. And that is something we are going to have to face more and more as the years go on; that nasty question which never used to be asked because the assumption was always that it was answered long ago - ‘What good is art?, What use is art, what does it do? Is what it does actually worth doing? - and an art which is completely monetized in the way that it’s getting these days, is going to have to answer these questions or it is going to die.”
http://art-for-a-change.com/blog/2009/11/the-mona-lisa-curse.html
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/
BBC - The Mona Lisa Curse
In these “postmodern” days it has been said that there is no more passé a vocation than that of the professional art critic. Perceived as the gate keeper for opinions regarding art and culture, the art critic has supposedly been rendered obsolete by an ever expanding pluralism in the art world, where all practices and disciplines are purported to be equal and valid.
Robert Hughes, however, is one art critic who has delivered a message that must not be ignored.
On September 18, 2008, British television’s Channel 4 broadcast The Mona Lisa Curse, a documentary film by Mr. Hughes that offers a devastating critique of contemporary art and its over commercialization.
While a DVD release of The Mona Lisa Curse has not yet been made, a complete version of the film has been published on YouTube, though it is an uncertainty how long the movie will remain posted. The streaming video is presented in twelve parts that are each approximately 6 minutes in duration. In this article I summarize each part and provide a link to it. I encourage one and all to view Hughes’ documentary in its entirety.
In The Mona Lisa Curse, Hughes has described with remarkable clarity the forces seeking to tame art, putting it in the service of plutocrats. The market driven and controlled cultural landscape outlined by Hughes reminds me of what the Italian political theorist and revolutionary Antonio Gramsci once said of society in decline; “The old is dying. The new cannot be born. In the interregnum, a variety of morbid symptoms appear.” The candor and forthrightness of Hughes in identifying the trap art is currently ensnared in should be responded to as a call to arms – especially by artists.
The Curse: Part 1
Hughes opens his film by comparing Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, with Damien Hirst’s, For the Love of God. Hughes tells us that; “What ties the Mona Lisa to this glittery bobble is their role in a giant shift in the art world, that shift is all about money. It’s a story that I’ve watch unfold during the last 50 years. I’ve seen with growing disgust; the fetishization of art, the vast inflation of prices, and the effect of this on artists and museums. The entanglement of big money with art has become a curse on how art is made, controlled, and above all - in the way that it’s experienced. And this curse has affected the entire art world.”
“Apart from drugs, art is the biggest unregulated market in the world, with contemporary art sales estimated at around $18 billion a year. (….) Boosted by regiments of nouveau riche collectors, and serviced by a growing army of advisors, dealers and auctioneers. As Andy Warhol once observed, ‘Good business is the best art.’”
The Curse: Part 2
In 1962 the Mona Lisa was temporarily loaned to New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art by the Louvre in Paris for the painting’s first exhibit in the United States. Over one million Americans filed past Leonardo da Vinci’s masterpiece – including President Kennedy and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy. As Hughes noted about the display of the Mona Lisa; “People came not to look at it, but to say that they’d seen it. (….) The painting made the leap from artwork to icon of mass consumption.” The postmodernist period of art as commodity and mass spectacle had begun.
Screen capture of Andy Warhol from The Mona Lisa Curse. Said Hughes: "He was one of the stupidest people I’ve ever met in my life."
“(….) If anyone had told Leonardo that 500 years after his death, his portrait would be the most famous painting in the word, he’d have thought the notion mad. In 1963 in New York, the Mona Lisa was now treated like it was a photo in a magazine. To be quickly scanned and then discarded.
When Andy Warhol heard the painting was coming to New York, he quipped: ‘Why don’t they have someone copy it and send the copy, no one would know the difference.’”
The Curse: Part 3
Hughes recalls his early days in the vibrant late 1960s art scene of New York, where he met and befriended the likes of Pop artist Robert Rauschenberg (1925-2008) and James Rosenquist (1933-).
Rent was cheap, art was affordable, and anyone interested in purchasing original artworks could do so for a song - as art was not yet considered a profit making investment. Hughes adds; “In just a few years this would change, art as commodity would begin to take over from art as art.”
The Curse: Part 4
I found this segment particularly interesting, since I wrote about the history it covered in a 2008 web log post titled, The Unveiling of Robert Scull. In this clip Hughes uses historic footage to tell the tale; “On the 18th of October, 1973, the Sculls auctioned off 50 works from their collection through Sotheby Park-Bernet, Inc. This was the first time a collector from that small contemporary art world treated their collection as an investment.”
The Curse: Part 5
This segment is a continuation of the Scull auction saga from part 4. According to Hughes, “American contemporary art as a serious ‘commodity’ was about to be born.” (….) The Scull auction shifted the art world’s emphasis from aesthetics to money. From now on, not just art lovers, but everyone would want a piece of the action. Contemporary art and big money would be ever more closely entwined.”
The Curse: Part 6
Hughes argues that contemporary art is expensive, not because of any intrinsic spiritual or historic worth, but because it makes for good investments that yield high profits. “The consequences of such prices, was that art became admired, not through any critical perspective, but for its price tag. Auction houses were the new arbiters of taste.” (….) The prices, they have a cultural function - their cultural function is to strike you blind, so that you can’t make your own judgments.”
A particularly funny scene in the documentary is when Hughes visits the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York to view a Damien Hirst ’sculpture’ – a dead shark suspended in a tank of formaldehyde titled; The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living. Barely concealing his amusement Hughes calls the pickled shark; “The world’s most overrated marine organism” - adding that Hirst’s work is “a comedy, but a kind of tacky comedy too, that bears a lot upon the way that we think about art and how it is made.”
The Curse: Part 7
In this segment Hughes tells us that; “At the age of 70, I belong to the last generation that could spend time in a museum without ever once thinking about what the art might cost.” Hughes delves into the changing role and function of art museums, interviewing Philippe de Montebello, the director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York from 1978 to 2008.
Circa 1960s photo of Robert Hughes and Robert Rauschenberg. Still from The Mona Lisa Curse.
Also interviewed is the affable Thomas Hoving, who served as the director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art from 1967 to 1977. Hoving ushered in profound changes in museum culture, using public relations and advertising for the very first time in history to promote museum exhibits. Hoving was the first to allow corporations to underwrite or sponsor museum exhibitions – paving the way to today’s increased corporate control of art institutions.
On the role of museums, Hughes says; “The way that art is experienced in these spaces has changed beyond recognition. The museum has adopted the strategy of mass media; an emphasis on spectacle, the cult of the celebrity masterpiece, art clocked through the blink of an eye or through the lens of a camera. But what it’s gained through an increase in these numbers, it’s lost in terms of freedom of access and availability to the eye and the mind.”
The Curse: Part 8
This portion of the video deals with the recent transformation of art museums into business franchises. The former director of the Guggenheim Museum, Thomas Krens, states in an interview; “The Tate is a brand, the Louvre is a brand - is the Guggenheim a brand, I guess it is.” Hughes comments that “Krens is renowned for putting on shows of Giorgio Armani, in return for massive underwriting from - guess who? - and for franchising the Guggenheim around the world. He pioneered the museum’s global brand, building Guggenheims in Bilbao, Berlin, and Venice, with varying degrees of success and failure.”
In his interview, Krens also said; “If you look at this in global terms, it’s probably in some sense related to the power and importance of brands that represent quality. Quality automobiles, quality wristwatches, or quality cultural objects.” That Mr. Krens can equate the world’s cultural heritage to “quality wristwatches” is telling. Hughes observed that; “Krens’ agenda to popularize the museum is a euphemistic and more palatable way of saying how the art market transforms the museum into a commercial model.”
The Curse: Part 9
Hughes speaks of the commodification of art, saying that in order “To give everyone their Mona Lisa, you must escalate the production process.” The artist’s studio literally becomes an industrial unit churning out “product”, as with Warhol’s “factory.” On the subject of Warhol, Hughes said the following; “I admired some of his work in the 60s and early 70’s, but he turned into a dull celebrity business man branded to the hairline. It was as good as printing dollar bills. The dominance of the art market has produced multiple Andys - global brands like Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst.”
Hughes examines the role of “art advisors” who peddle misleading information to clueless wealthy clients regarding art as investment; “CEO’s and art speculators have created a feeding frenzy, and they’re serviced by a swarm of art advisors buzzing and crawling around the jam jar.”
The Curse: Part 10
Hughes converses with New York art dealer Richard Feigen, who says; “A menu of certain favored artists has gotten expensive because they have been promoted - this is my opinion - and it has very little to do with how important they are (….) If you have an artist that has a huge supply, it permits promotion of the artist. You can have exhibitions everywhere; it’s worth people’s while to promote it. But some of the stuff that’s consequential doesn’t get shown because it isn’t trendy. Why isn’t it trendy - I’ve just explained, basically it’s not worth anyone’s while to make it trendy.”
A single Warhol print on sale at Sotheby’s for a mere $6 million. Screen capture from The Mona Lisa Curse.
Hughes also focuses on mega-collector and art dealer, Alberto Mugrabi. The men of the Mugrabi family – father Jose and his two sons, Alberto and David, have some 800 works by Warhol in their collection of more than 3,000 works; a private collection thought to be the largest and most expensive in the world.
Mugrabi is shown at Sotheby’s Auction House bidding with his father on a painting by “appropriation” artist Richard Prince – a painting that sold for $7.4 million. Mugrabi professed; “We support these artists by promoting them, by buying them at auction, by buying them privately - you could say it’s a way of controlling it.”
The Curse: Part 11
This is my favorite portion of the documentary. It shows Hughes visiting the Lever House skyscraper in New York City for an interview with collector Alberto Mugrabi. The bottom floor of the building is where the Lever House Art Collection is located; a project conceived by real estate tycoon Aby Rosen and Alberto Mugrabi in 2003 as a way to inject corporate art into the public sphere. At the ground floor courtyard at Lever House, Hughes is confronted by The Virgin Mother, Damien Hirst’s 35ft-tall statue of a young pregnant woman that shows half of the woman’s skin and tissue removed to reveal the fetus.
Damien Hirst’s "The Virgin Mother", a 35ft-tall statue of a young pregnant woman. Screen capture from The Mona Lisa Curse.
Hughes surveys the sculpture and says; “Isn’t it a miracle what so much money and so little ability can produce? Just extraordinary. You know, when I look at a thing like this I realize that, so much of art - not all of it thank god, but a lot of it - has just become a kind of cruddy game for the self-aggrandizement of the rich and the ignorant, it is a kind of bad but useful business.”
The Hughes interview with Alberto Mugrabi is priceless; a confrontation between two philosophies, one that extols art as spiritual and necessary to the human heart, the other that sees art strictly in business terms. Hughes is sagacious, looking all the world like some great wise owl as he controls the discussion from his perch. Mugrabi attempts to hold his own but he is clearly outgunned. It is remarkable to see Mugrabi, a man who shapes, manipulates, and controls a fair share of the elite art world, reduced to babbling in the presence of an opinionated art critic who speaks his mind. A typical exchange in the conversation follows:
Hughes: “You take Richard Prince to be an artist of significance, do you?”
Mugrabi: “Absolutely”
Hughes: “What is significant about his work?”
Mugrabi: “He’s a guy that has his own ideas… he’s a person that has done a lot of different types of work…”
Hughes (interrupting): “But Richard Prince’s works seems to consist of basically two types. One is those rather weak jokes, and the other one is the transcription of photographs in paint.”
Mugrabi: “He’s such a deep person that maybe you don’t see it in his paintings – but he definitely is.”
Hughes: “If he is why does one not see it in his paintings?”
Mugrabi: (momentarily struck silent) “Cuz… I, I see it… I think, I think…”
The Curse: Part 12
Hughes wraps up his documentary with some final words;
“Some think that so much of today’s art mirrors and thus criticizes decadence, not so – it’s just decadent, full stop. It has no critical function, it is part of the problem. The art world beautifully copies our money driven, celebrity obsessed, entertainment culture; same fixation on fame, same obedience to mass media that jostles for our attention with its noise and wow and flutter.”
“For me, the cultural artifact of the last 50 years has been the domination of the art market. Far more striking than any individual painting or sculpture. It has changed art’s relationship to the world and is drowning its sense of purpose.”
“If art can’t tell us about the world we live in, then I don’t believe there’s much point in having it. And that is something we are going to have to face more and more as the years go on; that nasty question which never used to be asked because the assumption was always that it was answered long ago - ‘What good is art?, What use is art, what does it do? Is what it does actually worth doing? - and an art which is completely monetized in the way that it’s getting these days, is going to have to answer these questions or it is going to die.”
http://art-for-a-change.com/blog/2009/11/the-mona-lisa-curse.html
http://www.art-for-a-change.com/
BBC - The Mona Lisa Curse
Cultural Stereotypes in the maps by Yanko Tsvetkov. Europe is laughing
The silent Finn, talkative Italian, reserved Englishman and German decent - those circulating stereotypes can be found in the art. More specifically, in the maps of stereotypes, which outlined the Bulgarian who lives in London, a designer and illustrator
Yanko Tsvetkov
. His work, which consists of maps of Europe, reflecting the cultural stereotypes of individual nations, is breaking record audience - his work has been already seen by almost half a billion Internet users. He has created seven fairly specific map of Europe. The viewer can see the vision of our continent by Americans, Britons, Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, Bulgarians and. .. Gay. And it's not idyllic pictures. It seems that the Old Continent is a multi-cultural melting pot of stereotypes and prejudices.
Europe according to France
And so, according to the French, Russia is "a dream of Napoleon," Poland "country plumbers" and the German "fatherland best friends."
Europe according to Britain
The British believe the Norwegians as "selfish fishermen," Russia is called "paranoid empire of oil", and the entire Community, "the Union of subsidized farmers.
Europe according to USA
Viewed from New York, Europe is as follows: the east: "buffer zones", ie Polish, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary and the Baltic States like a huge country, Just south is the state,"Dracula. The west border of the Buffer Zone is called sharp Porno. Americans see Spain on the Iberian Peninsula of Mexico. Indeed - the same language, similar culture, and of these women ... Italy - many godfathers. The Netherlands is the "Sodom". And honest UK is affectionately referred to as "Mama.
Europe according to Germany
See all maps and more work of the designer and illustrator Yanko Tsvetkov here http://alphadesigner.com/project-mapping-stereotypes.html
Yanko Tsvetkov
. His work, which consists of maps of Europe, reflecting the cultural stereotypes of individual nations, is breaking record audience - his work has been already seen by almost half a billion Internet users. He has created seven fairly specific map of Europe. The viewer can see the vision of our continent by Americans, Britons, Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, Bulgarians and. .. Gay. And it's not idyllic pictures. It seems that the Old Continent is a multi-cultural melting pot of stereotypes and prejudices.
Europe according to France
And so, according to the French, Russia is "a dream of Napoleon," Poland "country plumbers" and the German "fatherland best friends."
Europe according to Britain
The British believe the Norwegians as "selfish fishermen," Russia is called "paranoid empire of oil", and the entire Community, "the Union of subsidized farmers.
Europe according to USA
Viewed from New York, Europe is as follows: the east: "buffer zones", ie Polish, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary and the Baltic States like a huge country, Just south is the state,"Dracula. The west border of the Buffer Zone is called sharp Porno. Americans see Spain on the Iberian Peninsula of Mexico. Indeed - the same language, similar culture, and of these women ... Italy - many godfathers. The Netherlands is the "Sodom". And honest UK is affectionately referred to as "Mama.
Europe according to Germany
See all maps and more work of the designer and illustrator Yanko Tsvetkov here http://alphadesigner.com/project-mapping-stereotypes.html
sábado, 7 de janeiro de 2012
Ein Gespräch mit Joseph Beuys (1985)
Joseph Beuys (1921-1986), Jannis Kounellis (*1936),
Anselm Kiefer (*1945), Enzo Cucchi (*1950), »Ein Gespräch«
Die folgende Diskussion zwischen vier europäischen Künstlern schreibt eine bestimmte Linie moderner Kunsttheorie fort, die schon immer versucht hat, radikale Kunst und radikale Politik zwar aufeinander zu beziehen, dabei aber nicht die eine in der anderen aufgehen zu lassen. Dieses Projekt ist auf denkbar verschiedene Weisen formuliert worden, aber ein politischer Utopismus und die Tendenz, eine Veränderung von Bewußtsein und Gefühl als Voraussetzung konkreter Wirklichkeitsveränderung anzu-nehmen statt umgekehrt, gehören zu seinen langlebigsten Denkmotiven. Das Gespräch wurde am 4./5.6. und 28729.10.1985 in der Kunsthalle Basel geführt und von Jean-Christophe Ammann moderiert. - Ein Gespräch: Joseph Beuys. Jannis Kounellis. Anselm Kiefer. Enzo Cucchi, hrsg. von Jacqueline Burckhardt, Zürich: Parkett, 1986, Zürich: Parkett / Ostfildern: Cantz, 41994, S.158-162, 167-170.
Dienstag vormittag [29. 10. 1985]
***
KIEFER: Für mich gab es immerzu Menschen, die reduziert, und solche, die weniger reduziert waren, und dann hochgeistige Menschen, durch alle Zeiten und Kulturen hindurch.
BEUYS: Du sprichst jetzt von einem individuellen, menschlichen Schicksal. Es werden natürlich in Zukunft auch weiterhin Kranke und Blinde leben. Und es wird weiterhin alle verschiedenen Höhen von Fähigkeiten geben. Aber es werden alle Fähigkeiten entwickelbar, das Niveau wird gesteigert werden.
KOUNELLIS: Ja, aber die Kathedrale von Köln weist auf eine Zentralität hin, umfaßt eine Kultur und weist auf die Zukunft. Sonst würden wir riskieren, Nomaden zu werden.
BEUYS: Die Kathedrale von Köln ist eine schlechte Skulptur. Sie wäre gut als Bahnhof. Chartres ist besser. Aber was Kounellis von der Kathedrale sagt, ist ein schönes Bild. Wir müssen eine Kathedrale bauen!
KOUNELLIS: Ganz genau.
BEUYS: Die Kathedrale steht jetzt hier unter uns. Die alten Kathedralen stehen irgendwo in einer Welt, die noch rund war. Aber dann wurde die Welt durch den Materialismus reduziert. Es war aber eine innere Notwendigkeit, sie so zu verengen, denn dadurch wurde das menschliche Bewußtsein geschärft, ganz besonders in seiner analytischen Tätigkeit. Jetzt müssen wir eine Synthese vollziehen mit all unseren Kräften, und das ist die Kathedrale.
KIEFER: Ich habe ein unheimlich ungutes Gefühl, wenn Beuys meint, daß sich alle Menschen verändern würden, wenn man einen Begriff verändert. Es gab doch immer solche und andere.
BEUYS: Das ist doch selbstverständlich. Es handelt sich doch um die Anhebung des Niveaus auf allen Gebieten. Wir haben doch festgestellt, daß das Niveau so niedrig ist wie noch nie in der Geschichte. Man soll nur mal schauen, wie sich die Menschen in ihren Wohnungen einrichten. Noch nie haben sie so unwürdig gewohnt.
KIEFER: Das sagen wir jetzt. Aber Du weißt ja nicht, was die Leute in hundert oder sogar fünfzig Jahren sagen.
BEUYS: Die Leute werden es dann erkennen und das Zeug in den Müll werfen. Das tun sie jetzt schon. Nach einem halben Jahr werfen sie die Sachen weg und kaufen sich etwas Neues. Die Leute sind in diesen Wohnungen todunglücklich. Dabei ist das menschliche Wohnen einer der wichtigsten und elementarsten Ausdrücke ihres Kunstsinnes. Der ästhetische Sinn ist heute, wie nie in der Geschichte, gestört. Also bauen wir die Kathedrale!
KOUNELLIS: Eben. Dieser Exzeß des Nomadismus und dieser Exzeß der Ablehnung der Kultur schaffen eine absurde Situation.
KIEFER: Das Niveaugefälle ist mir klar. Aber das letzte Mal haben wir uns gefragt, weshalb ein unverdorbener primitiver Eingeböfenflf, wenn er seine Plästikschüssel erhält, die seine sofort wegwirft.
BEUYS: Sie sind verführbar geworden, weil die alten Stammeskulturen für unsere Zeit nicht mehr gelten. [...] Es wäre besser, diese Menschen würden sich entwickeln können. Aber natürlich werden diese Menschen dem Kapitalismus unterworfen und sterben auch meistens daran. Das kann man am baskischen Problem z.B. sehr gut sehen. Die Basken sind wohl der zurückgelassene Rest irgendeines nomadischen Volkes. Es gibt tausend Theorien, daß sie aus Asien kamen und vielleicht durch die Bestrafung des Stammesfürsten zurückgelassen wurden. Nun sitzen sie da und versuchen immer wieder, ihre alte Stammeskultur aufrechtzuerhalten. Aber sie haben keine eigene Literatur entwickelt, alles geht über die orale Tradition. Jetzt stellen sie mit Recht ganz bestimmte Forderungen.
AMMANN: Warum führst Du dieses Beispiel der Basken an?
BEUYS: Ich führe das Beispiel an, weil das Umfeld der EG, in dem die Basken sich befinden, den Machenschaften des Systems der westlichen Geldwirtschaft entspricht. D.h. die spanische Regierung gibt den Basken keine Autonomie, und deshalb entsteht ein Problem - wie in Nordirland. Ich habe in Spanien den Vorschlag gemacht, man solle den Basken die volle Autonomie geben.
Die Spanier meinen, daß die Basken dann verkommen würden, weil sie keine eigene Kultur hätten. Ich habe aber dann gesagt, die hätten wohl schon allein dadurch eine Kultur, daß sie die Absicht zur Selbstverwaltung hätten. Unter Umständen wäre es sogar möglich, daß dieses Volk, genau wie wir hier am Tisch, ein Konzept für seine eigene Wirtschaft entwirft, das für viele Leute modellhaft sein könnte. Wenn man den Basken die Selbstbestimmung gäbe, dann wäre das mit Sicherheit etwas ganz anderes. Das wäre doch eine große Chance, etwas Modellhaftes zu entwickeln, das wir wie ein Kunstwerk betrachten könnten. Wir könnten uns dann unter Umständen mit ihnen zusammensetzen und etwas Modellhaftes für die ganze Welt entwickeln.
CUCCHI: Die Methode der Basken ist interessant, weil sie den Terrorismus benützen. Ich weiß nicht, wohin uns der Terrorismus führt.
BEUYS: Der Terrorismus führt nicht zur Lösung der Frage. Er führt uns zu einem ganz langweiligen, konservativen Gesellschaftssystem.
CUCCHI: Nein, das habe ich nicht gemeint. Ich frage mich nur, welche Gefühle heute dem Terrorismus innewohnen, was die Form des Terrorismus sei. Sowohl die Basken wie auch die Nordirländer benutzen diesen Codex.
***
KOUNELLIS: Innerhalb von Europa gibt es sehr viele Völker, die unabhängig sein wollen, z.B. die Sizilianer, die Sarden, die Korsen u.a.
BEUYS: Das ist doch positiv.
KOUNELLIS: Ja, das ist positiv. Aber es ist auch sehr positiv, über die Kathedrale von Köln zu sprechen, glicht nur diejenigen, die sich abtrennen wollen, sind positiv.
BEUYS: Die Kathedrale von Chartres ist dann positiv, wenn man feststellt, daß solche Selbständigkeitsbestrebungen an ein anderes System heranführen, damit die Korsen, Sarden, Basken, Irländer und Schotten überhaupt eine Kathedrale bauen können. Sie dürfen aber nie die Machenschaften des Kapitalismus kopieren. Ich bin überzeugt, daß die Basken das richtig machen. Bei den Schotten bin ich nicht so sicher. Man muß doch an einem kleinen Kern anfangen und in eine übersichtliche Menschengemeinschaft ein anderes Prinzip bringen. Die Idee der Kathedrale bedeutet ein anderes Verständnis von Kultur, Recht, Geist, Wirtschaft usw. Wenn die Spanier den Basken die Autonomie geben würden, dann würde ich sogleich dahin gehen, und die Basken würden sagen, wir brauchen nichts dringender als solche Gespräche. Denn alles muß auf neuen Fundamenten errichtet werden. Wir wollen nicht das kopieren, worunter wir jahrhundertelang gelitten haben. Wir wollen das jetzt ganz auf einen neuen Boden stellen, auf den Boden der Kunst. Sie wollen den Gesellschaftskörper als ein Kunstwerk haben.
Der Terrorismus verhindert aber diese Bestrebungen, denn er gibt den größeren Staaten und Mächten neue Argumente, immer mehr Polizei einzusetzen, ein Militärstaat zu werden. Der Kapitalismus ist ja glücklich, den Terrorismus zu haben. Der wird vom Kapitalismus künstlich gezüchtet.
***
BEUYS: In bezug auf den erweiterten Kunstbegriff bin ich auf der Suche nach dem Dümmsten. Und wenn ich den Dümmsten, der auf dem allerniedrigsten Niveau ist, gefunden habe, dann habe ich sicher den Intelligentesten gefunden, den potentiell am meisten Vermögenden. Und der ist Träger der Kreativität. Die sogenannte Intelligenz, die sich die Leute wie ein Messer in den Kopf stecken, ergibt nur ein vordergründiges Bild, und diese Intelligenz muß zerstört werden. Die Dumpfheit muß beteiligt werden, denn in ihr existieren doch alle anderen Kräfte, wie ein wilder Wille, ein irres Gefühls¬leben und vielleicht ein ganz anderes Erkennen. Vielleicht leben die schon im Himmel.
KIEFER: Das ist eine persönliche Idee von Dir, Beuys.
BEUYS: Nein. Das geht über meine Person hinaus. Meine Person ist vollkommen uninteressant. Ich versuche nur, Kräfteverhältnisse in der Welt darzustellen, die heute so sind, wie sie sind, und morgen anders sein müssen. Und ich versuche, das an Beispielen klarzumachen.
***
BEUYS: [...] Wir sprechen hier doch nicht zusammen, um unser Verhältnis, das sowieso gut ist, zu verbessern. Wir sind hier, um die Kathedrale zu bauen.
KOUNELLIS: Die Konstruktion der Kathedrale ist die Konstruktion der sichtbaren Sprache.
BEUYS: Das ist ein wichtiges Detail. Heute ist aber alles möglich, und so kommt die Kathedrale nicht zustande. Wir haben uns geeinigt, eine Kathedrale bauen und zu einer wirklichen Menschenkultur kommen zu wollen. Aber wie diese Kathedrale aussehen soll und aus welchem Material sie gebaut wird, darüber haben wir keinen Konsens.
KOUNELLIS: Beuys hat schwer gelitten, mehr als wir alle. Das ist ein Gefühl, das ich habe, denn er hat ein Mißtrauen, grundsätzliche Dinge mit Offenheit zu diskutieren.
BEUYS: Offenheit ist natürlich auch ein bißchen ein veralteter Begriff. Viele Menschen finden sich sehr fortschrittlich und auf der Höhe, wenn sie von der sogenannten Offenheit sprechen. Aber die Offenheit muß natürlich zu einer präzisen Bestimmtheit werden. Sonst ist die Offenheit nichts anderes, als daß alles möglich ist. Ich sage aber, es ist fast nichts Möglich. Für1 die Disponilität eines jeden menschlichen Gesichtspunktes muß man ein Wahmehmungsorgan haben. Aber wenn man zu einem Konsens kommen will, muß aus der Offenheit eine ganz bestimmte Form werden, eine Verdichtung, und die ist das entgegengesetzte Bild zur Offenheit. Die Offenheit ist auch ein Propagandawort. Wir sind mit diesem Wort verführt worden. Man sprach von Offenheit, von pluralistischer Gesellschaft, d.h., daß alles im Grunde möglich ist; und man wollte nur ja keine speziellen Wege und Prinzipien, denn die verlangen eine präzise ausgearbeitete Form.
KOUNELLIS: Wir sind aber Individuen die sich nicht beeinflussen lassen.
BEUYS: Die Offenheit soll menschlich, anthropologisch auf das Individuum bezogen sein; offen für das, was der andere meint.
KOUNELLIS: Wir reden von einer Offenheit im Inneren von Europa, wo sich die Kulturen sehr nahe sind, trotz der Unterschiede.
BEUYS: Die heutige Kultur ist aber gerade nicht geprägt durch die gotischen Dome, sondern durch ein führendes Wirtschaftssystem, das die Kunst an die Peripherie oder in die Nicht-Existenz gedrängt hat. Und wenn jetzt das ganze System bankrott geht, weil die Wirtschaftskultur auf falschen Füßen steht, gibt es für die Kunst wieder die große Chance, eine echte Kultur in allen Zusammenhängen aufzubauen und nicht ein reduktionistisches Gebilde. Ich wehre mich einfach dagegen, daß dieses Mikrophon, das hier vor uns auf dem Tisch steht, nicht zur Kultur gehören soll.
KOUNELLIS: Solange das Mikrophon so auf dem Tisch steht, kann es nicht zur Kultur gehören. Wenn Beuys es aber auf den Filz stellt, dann wird es Teil der Kultur. Denn Beuys hat die Macht, das Mikrophon in Kultur umzuwandeln.
BEUYS: Aber die Macht nützt nur mir, das führt zurück auf mein individuelles Tun und nicht zur Kathedrale.
KOUNELLIS: Nein, das nützt allen, und das hat auch mit der Kathedrale zu tun.
***
BEUYS: [...] In bezug auf die Kunst als dem alleinigen Mittel, um die Kathedrale zu bauen, brauche ich doch die gesprochene Sprache.
KIEFER: Bevor der Künstler gestorben ist, kann man nicht vollständig feststellen, was er auf der ganzen Breite mit seinem Werk gemeint hat. BEUYS: Ich kann doch aber sagen, wie ich es gemeint habe.
KIEFER: Das, was Du dazu gesagt hast, ist aber nur ein kleiner Teil der wirklichen Tragweite.
BEUYS: Das stimmt doch gar nicht, daß der Künstler erst nach seinem Tode zum Sprechen kommt. Aber vielleicht ist das wahr, daß der tote Künstler besser als der lebende ist.
Sol Lewitt - Paragraphs on Conceptual Art (1967 and 1969)
The editor has written me is in in favor of avoiding "that the artist is a kind of ape that has to be explained by the civilized critic". This should be good new to both art an apes. With this assurence I hope to justify this confidence. To continue a baseball metaphor (one artist wanted to hit the ball out of the park, another to stay loose at the plate and hit the ball where it was pitched I am grateful for the opportunity to strike out for myself.
I will refer to the kind of art in which I am involved as conceptual art. In conceptual art the idea of concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made before¬hand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art. This kind of art is not theoretical or illustrative of theories; it is intuitive, it is involved with all types of mental processes and it is purposeless. It is usually free from the dependence on the skill of the artist as a craftsman.
It is the objective of the artist who is concerned with conceptual art to make his work mentally interesting to the spectator, and there¬fore usually he would want it to become emotionally dry. There is no reason to suppose however, that the conceptual artist is out to bore the viewer. It is only the expectation of an emotional kick, to which one conditioned to expressionist art is accustomed, that would deter the viewer from perceiving this art.
Conceptual art is not necessarily logical. The logic of a piece or series of pieces is a device that is used at times only to be ruined. Logic may be used to camouflage the real in¬tent of the artist, to lull the viewer into the belief that he understands the work, or to infer a paradoxical situation (such as logic vs. illogic). The ideas need not be complex. Most ideas that are successful are ludicrously simple. Successful ideas generally have the appearance of simplicity because they seem inevitable. In terms of idea the artist is free to even surprise himself. Ideas are discovered by intuition.
What the work of art looks like isn't too important. It has to look like something if it has physical form. No matter what form it may finally have it must begin with an idea. It is the process of conception and realization with which the artist is concerned. Once given physical reality by the artist the work is open to the perception of all, including the artist. (I use the word "perception" to mean the apprehension of the sense data, the objective understanding of the idea and simultaneously a subjective interpretation of both.) The work of art can only be perceived after it is completed.
Art that is meant for the sensation of the eye primarily would be called perceptual rather than conceptual. This would include most optical, kinetic, light and color art.
Since the functions of conception and perception are contradictory (one pre-, the other postfact) the artist would mitigate his idea by applying subjective judgment to it. If the artist wishes to explore his idea thoroughly, then arbitrary or chance decisions would be kept to a minimum, while caprice, taste and other whimsies would be eliminated from the making of the art. The work does not necessarily have to be rejected if it does not look well. Sometimes what is initially thought to be awkward will eventually be visually pleasing.
To work with a plan that is preset is one way of avoiding subjectivity. It also obviates the necessity of designing each work in turn. The plan would design the work. Some plans would require millions of variations, and some a limited number, but both are finite. Other plans imply infinity. In each case however, the artist would select the basic form and rules that would govern the solution of the problem. After that the fewer decisions made in the course of completing the work, the better. This eliminates the arbitrary, the capricious, and the subjective as much as possible. That is the reason for using this method.
When an artist uses a multiple modular method he usually chooses a simple and readily available form. The form itself is of very limited importance; it becomes the grammar for the total work. In fact it is best that the basic unit be deliberately uninteresting so that it may more easily become an intrinsic part of the entire work. Using complex basic forms only disrupts the unity of the whole. Using a simple form repeatedly narrows the field of the work and concentrates the intensity to the arrangement of the form. This arrangement becomes the end while the form becomes the means.
Conceptual art doesn't really have much to do with mathematics, philosophy or any other mental discipline. The mathematics used by most artists is simple arithmetic or simple number systems. The philosophy of the work is implicit in the work and is not an illustration of any system of philosophy.
It doesn't really matter if the viewer understands the concepts of the artist by seeing the art. Once out of his hand the artist has no control over the way a viewer will perceive the work. Different people will understand the same thing in a different way.
Recently there has been much written about minimal art, but I have not discovered any¬one who admits to doing this kind of thing. There are other art forms around called primary structures, reductive, rejective, cool, and mini-art. No artist I know will own up to any of these either. Therefore I conclude that it is part of a secret language that art critics use when communicating with each other through the medium of art magazines.
Mini-art is best because it reminds one of mini-skirts and long-legged girls. It must refer to very small works of art. This is a very good idea. Perhaps mini-art shows could be sent around the country in matchboxes. Or maybe the mini-artist is a very small person, say under five feet tall. If so, much good work will be found in the primary schools (primary school primary structures).
If the artist carries through his idea and makes it into visible form, then all the steps in the process are of importance.
The idea itself, even if not made visual is as much a work of art as any finished product. All intervening steps—scribbles, sketches, drawings, failed work, models, studies, thoughts, conversations—are of interest. Those that show the thought process of the artist are sometimes more interesting than the final product.
Determining what size a. piece should be is difficult. If an idea requires three dimensions then it would seem any size would do. The question would be what size is best. If the thing were made gigantic then the size alone would be impressive and the idea may be lost entirely. Again, if it is too small, it may become inconsequential. The height of the viewer may have some bearing on the work and also the size of the space into which it will be placed. The artist may wish to place objects higher than the eye level of the viewer, or lower.
I think the piece must be large enough to give the viewer whatever information he needs to understand the work and placed in such a way that will facilitate this understanding. (Unless the idea is of impediment and requires difficulty of vision or access.)
Space can be thought of as the cubic area occupied by a three-dimensional volume. Any volume would occupy space. It is air and cannot be seen. It is the interval between things that can be measured. The intervals and measurements can be important to a work of art.
If certain distances are important they will be made obvious in the piece. If space is relatively unimportant it can be regularized and made equal (things placed equal distances apart), to mitigate any interest in interval. Regular space might also become a metric time element, a kind of regular beat or pulse. When the interval is kept regular whatever is irregular gains more importance.
Architecture and three-dimensional art are of completely opposite natures. The former is concerned with making an area with a specific function. Architecture, whether it is a work of art or not, must be utilitarian or else fail completely. Art is not utilitarian. When three-dimensional art starts to take on some of the characteristics of architecture such as forming utilitarian areas it weakens its function as art. When the viewer is dwarfed by the large size of a piece this domination emphasizes the physical and emotive power of the form at the expense of losing the idea of the piece.
New materials are one of the great afflictions of contemporary art. Some artists confuse new materials with new ideas. There is nothing worse than seeing art that wallows in gaudy baubles. By and large most artists who are attracted to these materials are the ones that lack the stringency of mind that would enable them to use the materials well. It takes a good artist to use new materials and make them into a work of art. The danger is, I think, in making the physicality of the materials so important that it becomes the idea of the work (another kind of expressionism).
Three-dimensional art of any kind is a physical fact. This physicality is its most obvious and expressive content. Conceptual art is made to engage the mind of the viewer rather than his eye or emotions. The physicality of a three-dimensional object then becomes a contradiction to its non-emotive intent. Color, surface, texture, and shape only emphasize the physical aspects of the work. Anything that calls attention to and interests the viewer in this physicality is a deterrent to our understanding of the idea and is used as an expressive device. The conceptual artist would want to ameliorate this emphasis on materiality as much as possible or to use it in a paradoxical way. (To convert it into an idea.) This kind of art then, should be stated with the most economy of means. Any idea that is better stated in two dimensions should not be in three dimensions. Ideas may also be stated with numbers, photographs, or words or any way the artist chooses, the form being unimportant.
These paragraphs are not intended as categorical imperatives but the ideas stated are as close as possible to my thinking at this time. These ideas are the result of my work as an artist and are subject to change as my experience changes. I have tried to state them with as much clarity as possible.
If the statements I make are unclear it may mean the thinking is unclear. Even while writing these ideas there seemed to be obvious inconsistencies (which I have tried to correct, but others will probably slip by). I do not advocate a conceptual form of art for all artists. I have found that it has worked well for me while other ways have not. It is one way of making art: other ways suit other artists. Nor do I think all conceptual art merits the viewer's attention. Conceptual art is only good when the idea is good.
Sentences on Conceptual Art (1969)
1. Conceptual Artists are mystics rather than rationalists. They leap to conclusions that logic cannot reach.
2. Rational judgements repeat rational judgements.
3. Illogical judgements lead to new experience.
4. Formal Art is essentially rational.
5. Irrational thoughts should be followed absolutely and logically.
6. If the artist changes his mind midway through the execution of the piece he compromises the result and repeats past results.
7. The artist's will is secondary to the process he initiates from idea to completion. His wilfulness may only be ego.
8. When words such as painting and sculpture are used, they connote a whole tradition and imply a consequent acceptance of this tradition, thus placing limitations on the artist who would be reluctant to make art that goes beyond the limitations.
9. The concept and idea are different. The former implies a general direction while the latter are the components. Ideas implement the concept.
10. Ideas alone can be works of art; they are in a chain of development that may eventually find some form. All ideas need not be made physical.
11. Ideas do not necessarily proceed in logical order. They may set one off in unexpected directions but an idea must necessarily be completed in the mind before the next one is formed.
12. For each work of art that becomes physical there are many variations that do not.
13. A work of art may be understood as a conductor from the artist's mind to the viewer's. But it may never reach the viewer, or it may never leave the artist's mind.
14. The words of one artist to another may induce an idea's chain, if they share the same concept.
15. Since no form is intrinsically superior to another, the artist may use any form, from an expression of words (written or spoken) to physical reality, equally.
16. If words are used, and they proceed from ideas about art, then they are art and not literature, numbers are not mathematics.
17. AH ideas are art if they are concerned with art and fall within the conventions of art.
18. One usually understands the art of the past by applying the conventions of the present thus misunderstanding the art of the past.
19. The conventions of art are altered by works of art.
20. Successful art changes our understanding of the conventions by altering our perceptions.
21. Perception of ideas leads to new ideas.
22. The artist cannot imagine his art, and cannot perceive it until it is complete.
23. One artist may mis-perceive (understand it differently than the artist) a work of art but still be set off in his own chain of thought by that misconstrual.
24. Perception is subjective.
25. The artist may not necessarily understand his own art. His perception is neither better nor worse than that of others.
26. An artist may perceive the art of others better than his own.
27. The concept of a work of art may involve the matter of the piece or the process in which it is made.
28. Once the idea of the piece is established in the artist's mind and the final form is decided, the process is carried out blindly. There are many side-effects that the artist can¬not imagine. These may be used as ideas for new works.
29. The process is mechanical and should not be tampered with. It should run its course.
30. There are many elements involved in a work of art. The most important are the most obvious.
31. If an artist uses the same form in a group of works, and changes the material, one would assume the artist's concept involved the material.
32. Banal ideas cannot be rescued by beautiful execution.
33. It is difficult to bungle a good idea.
34. When an artist learns his craft too well he makes slick art.
35. These sentences comment on art, but are not art.
* Sol LeWitt, "Sentences on Conceptual Art," o-g (January 1969): 4; reprinted in Art-Language 1 (1969): 11-13; and in Ursula Meyer, Conceptual Art (New York: Penguin 1972), 174-75.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)






























































