Sculpture Community - Sculpture.net  

Go Back  Sculpture Community - Sculpture.net > Sculpture Roundtable Discussions > Sculpture focus topics
User Name
Password
Home Sculpture Community Photo Gallery ISC Sculpture.org Register FAQ Members List Search New posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-21-2005, 10:12 AM
oddist's Avatar
oddist oddist is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New England
Posts: 524
Is contemporary art a fraud?

some things to think about...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/friez...597394,00.html

Since joining this bulletin board I have found myself drawn to works I did not appreciate earlier.

Thanks to you all...
__________________
oddist

"Important artists are innovators whose work changes the practices of their successors; important works of art are those that embody these innovations."
Galenson, David W. Old Masters and young geniuses, Princeton University Press, 2006
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-21-2005, 11:00 PM
Merlion's Avatar
Merlion Merlion is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,716
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

I started doing, and still mainly do realistic figure sculptures. For quite a while, my appreciation of sculptures ends with the Rodin era, or the end of the 19th century. On the other hand, I am beginning to appreciate some modern contemporary art, especially when the artists approach it seriously.

Last edited by Merlion : 10-22-2005 at 01:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-21-2005, 11:06 PM
JAZ's Avatar
JAZ JAZ is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Massachsetts
Posts: 1,776
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

That's a wonderful essay, Oodist. Thank for posting it. In reading about the Olafur Eliassen installation, I'm reminded of others of his I've seen. One in Iceland related more literally to our views of ourselves more than the water reflections one, though perhaps not so poetically. In a large rectangular exhibit space the floor had been done with a pattern of woods of different colors arranged like repeated three dimensional shapes. The ceiling was entirely covered in mirror. The room contained nothing else but a few support columns. When you walk in alone it is the space itself that seems vertiginous in its multiplicities, but when you see another person on the other side of the room, who has an inverted image of himself walking right above him surrounded by floor it makes you look over your head. There you see yourself looking up, so high above you. The space itself becomes confusing and filled with energy. Who and where am I after all?
Damien Hirst, also mentioned in the essay, is someone whose work I have trouble with. When I was at the Museum School, Gerry Bergstein, a well known painter who I was taking classes from passed around an article on Hirst's work titled "Is it Art, or is it just dead meat?"
Thank you for the link to the essay. It is reassuring.
JAZ
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-22-2005, 12:22 PM
GaryR52 GaryR52 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 673
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

As a modernist, I've never had any problem with modern art, of course. However, like Merlion, I do have my own "cut-off" point and that falls, oddly enough, at about the point that the Duchampian strain begins to really gain acceptance, i.e., the period of conceptual and performance art we've been seeing since the seventies.

I had no problem with the Primary Structuralist, or Minimalist art of the sixties and seventies, as it contains some of the same qualities of modern architecture and thus, appeals to my love of that.

Of course, anything prior to the sixties, back to the French Impressionists is all within my love of modernism, with few exceptions (specifically, again, Duchamp's "ready mades" and the notion that anything can be art). So, formally speaking, the entire modernist period is within the bounds of my tastes, but, it's tempered by my belief that art is more dependent upon process and the artist's hand than it is a conceptual assemblage of objects the artist himself didn't make. Bruce Nauman I can relate to; Jeff Koons, not so much.

The point at which art ceases to be a creative process (and by that, I mean the artist has actually been engaged in object making) and becomes, instead, all about the idea and less about object making, is the point I part company with it. If you carved the vacuum cleaner from a block of plaster, fine. If it's a real, unaltered Hoover that you've merely hung on a gallery wall and called your own, forget it. That, for me, is the point at which art becomes a fraud.

Gary

Last edited by GaryR52 : 10-22-2005 at 12:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-22-2005, 01:15 PM
tobias tobias is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: canada
Posts: 749
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

[quote=GaryR52 If you carved the vacuum cleaner from a block of plaster, fine.

Gary[/QUOTE]

Man I love this. I dont know if it was suppost to be funny but it sure made me laugh. Thank you Gary! This is exactly how I feel about this issue. I love duchamp early work I hate duchamp late work. I think the horse by duchamp villion is brilliant but some of the other later work by his brother is absolutly horrible. It does seem to me that this is where it went wrong but there have been some notable great sculptors and painters since then .At this point I think you have to look at style more than time period for instance noguchi and for a more realist richard macdonald. Both have contributed amazing works and are they contemporary? I dont know.What about all the sculptors who post here? I think this may be another thread. What do we call our selfs?
Are sculptors working now still contemporary?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-22-2005, 01:23 PM
fused fused is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 801
Re: No art is fraudulent... is it?

...art is more dependent upon process and the artist's hand
than it is a conceptual assemblage of
objects the artist himself didn't make.

The artist's hand is an interesting criteria. Richard Serra has sculptures all over the world --that can be measured in tonnage-- who's construction elluded his hands. I suppose these impressive works might be relative to architecture (as well) in comparison of their process of coming into being. The realm of modern/contemporary sculpture includes many designers of works --which include architects-- who develop concepts and pay others with particular skills to execute the actual work.

IF... you pay someone else to carve a vacum cleaner out of a block of plaster is it art?

Last edited by fused : 10-23-2005 at 02:09 AM. Reason: add a thought?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-23-2005, 12:05 AM
JAZ's Avatar
JAZ JAZ is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Massachsetts
Posts: 1,776
Re: No art is fraudulent... is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fused

IF... you pay someone else to carve a vacum cleaner out of a block of plaster is it art?
Yesterday I went to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston with some friends. Out front on the lawn, (ironically flanking the sculpture of the Native American on his horse praying to the Great Spirit) were two gigantic "sculptures" from the Lane collection. They are two America's Cup yachts. They are definitely gorgeous boats, beautifully designed. Even the extensive guy wire system that supports them is beautifully designed. We discussed whether they were art. I suggested that if we argued about them, they would be.
JAZ
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-23-2005, 03:05 AM
GaryR52 GaryR52 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 673
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Looks like I struck a chord....or a nerve.

Tobias, I certainly don't include Noguchi among those I'd regard as questionable or outright charlatans. Isamu Noguchi is among my favorite sculptors, in fact. His work has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the influence of Marcel Duchamp, though. What I object to is merely displaying an unaltered manufactured object and calling it one's own "art," as Jeff Koons has done, from time to time. This all began with Duchamp's "ready-mades," which were just manufactured goods propped against a wall or otherwise displayed. In my opinion, to call this "art" is a fraud. It's my belief that the minimum criteria for any work of art is that it be made by or in some way physically altered by the artist himself. I could put my cell phone on a pedestal and call it a sculpture, if that's all there is to creating art. But, Noguchi comes from the direct-carve tradition. He's a real artist.

Fused, in the case of Richard Serra, as well as all other metal sculptors, the evidence of his hand is in the cutting and welding of the steel that makes up his monumental sculptures. The welding process is no less a sculpting process than carving or modeling are. The key point here is whether the artist actually makes anything, or whether he's just displaying a pre-made object that he, himself did not design or create. In the case of Koon's "Hoover," all he has done is hang an unaltered vacuum cleaner on a gallery wall and give it a name. He didn't design the vacuum cleaner, nor did he build it. It's, therefore, not even his creation at all. He has simply appropriated it as his own. Serra, on the other hand, fabricates everything he makes from steel, with his own two hands and a welder. There is a huge difference.

If an artist has designed a piece that is then fabricated by someone else, it is still his creation, whether constructed by his own hand or not, because the concept originated with the artist. Without the artist's input, there is nothing to be fabricated. On the other hand, I, personally, have a bit of disdain for artists who do this. If you're too busy to create your own art, either don't do so much of it or don't do it at all. If you're having assistants do your work for you because they have more skill than you do, try another line of work. Your patrons believe they are buying something made by you, the artist. If what they have bought from you is something an assistant of yours did, you've cheated the buyer. I wonder how many people with R.C. Gorman prints hanging on their walls know that many of those prints were executed by Gorman's assistants and that the only thing Gorman himself did was sign them?

In the case of architecture, the architect is not a fine artist. Architecture is design in the service of the construction industry, whether architects like to think otherwise or not. It's also a service business, in which the client's needs and ideas must be translated into tangible form by the architect and later erected by a team of construction workers. Each person in the chain gets credit for his particular contribution, including the architect, but a building is a collaborative effort. It may be an artform, in a sense, but it isn't pure art for art's sake and that's what distinguishes architecture from sculpture. Sculpture isn't required to have any function beyond being sculpture. Architecture, while many may think of it as giant sculpture, must serve several functions that go beyond mere appearance. So, no one expects an architect's vision to be entirely realized by his own hand.

JAZ, I take it these were the actual boats on display? If so, I wouldn't call them sculpture, except in the sense that their forms may be sculptural. Like Koon's "Hoover," they are manufactured objects.

I suppose there are probably a few ISC members lurking here who are doing assemblages of found objects and might be wondering if I'm including them in all this. To an extent, I think found-object sculpture is still art, in that it does bear some trace of the artist's hand, even if only in the fact that the artist has assembled and attached the various objects that make up the sculpture. The totality of the finished piece requires the artist's input. I draw the line, though, at taking an unaltered manufactured object and doing nothing to it at all, but expecting me to believe it's somehow art and that it's somehow your creation, as opposed to something made by the manufacturer that built it.

Gary

Last edited by GaryR52 : 10-23-2005 at 06:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-23-2005, 06:10 AM
Merlion's Avatar
Merlion Merlion is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,716
Re: No art is fraudulent... is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAZ
Yesterday I went to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston with some friends. Out front on the lawn, (ironically flanking the sculpture of the Native American on his horse praying to the Great Spirit) were two gigantic "sculptures" from the Lane collection. They are two America's Cup yachts. They are definitely gorgeous boats, beautifully designed. Even the extensive guy wire system that supports them is beautifully designed. We discussed whether they were art. I suggested that if we argued about them, they would be.
JAZ
Would you have pictures of these yacht sculptures you can post here, JAZ? I'd love to see them.

Racing yachts while battling the wind are very beautiful. Much of this has to do with the 3D shapes of the pair of sails which interact with each other like a two-piece Henry Moore sculpture.

I have done as a maquette for a big sculpture proposal, a model racing yacht with sails made of polished aluminium sheets, see below. The proposed yacht sculpture sits on a shallow tray of water, and the water is continually pumped towards the bow of the yacht bow thus creating bow waves as if the yacht is moving forward. The whole sculpture, yacht and tray, rotates slowly on a vertical central axis. As the sails are made of rolled stainless steel plates polished to a mirror finish, they will give under the sun intriguing reflections that slowly change with the rotation.

I submitted this proposal for an important local sculpture competition for installation at a tall building standing at the city centre next to the sea front. Unfortunately my proposal didn't get short listed. It was rejected at the preliminary round by judges, who unlike the second round of judges are, I've been told, mainly art teachers.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Racing Yacht S.JPG
Views:	386
Size:	21.4 KB
ID:	2340  

Last edited by Merlion : 10-23-2005 at 11:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-23-2005, 12:53 PM
tobias tobias is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: canada
Posts: 749
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

[quote=GaryR52]Looks like I struck a chord....or a nerve.

Tobias, I certainly don't include Noguchi among those I'd regard as questionable or outright charlatans. Isamu Noguchi is among my favorite sculptors, in fact. His work has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the influence of Marcel Duchamp, though.

Gary all I was trying to do by bringing these vastly different sculptors(noguchi and macdonald) into this disscussion is to question what is contemporary art. After that I think it would be easier to answer the question. Then I wondered what do you call us? I think the word contemporary refers to a time period. I think we fall into that time period and I sure dont consider my self to be a fraud. If it has to do with effort I spent 8 hr beating a blok of granite yesterday . I dont think any amount of effort creates or destroys the perception of fraud. Now I may be misunderstanding the term contemporary and if I am some one please help me out.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-23-2005, 01:25 PM
fused fused is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 801
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

"...in the case of Richard Serra, as well as all other metal sculptors, the evidence of his hand is in the cutting and welding of the steel that makes up his monumental sculptures."

Richard Serra isn't the person who cuts, welds, forms or installs his sculptures. Like Koons, he pays others to do his "work."

Isamu Noguchi and Marcel Duchamp are two of my favorite artists and I also admire the sculpture of Marcel's older brother, Jacques Villon.

Last edited by fused : 10-23-2005 at 01:50 PM. Reason: ...
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-23-2005, 06:40 PM
GaryR52 GaryR52 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 673
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

[quote=tobias]
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryR52
Gary all I was trying to do by bringing these vastly different sculptors(noguchi and macdonald) into this disscussion is to question what is contemporary art. After that I think it would be easier to answer the question. Then I wondered what do you call us? I think the word contemporary refers to a time period. I think we fall into that time period and I sure dont consider my self to be a fraud. If it has to do with effort I spent 8 hr beating a blok of granite yesterday . I dont think any amount of effort creates or destroys the perception of fraud. Now I may be misunderstanding the term contemporary and if I am some one please help me out.
I agree that "contemporary" has to do with the period in which we live, Tobias. It is used to boardly refer to all art styles produced during our own time. Some wrongly use the term when they really mean "modern art," or "modernism," or even abstract or non-objective art.

As for what we call ourselves, I have never preferred the label "contemporary, " for exactly the reasons I just mentioned. I refer to myself as a modernist, if a label beyond that of simply "artist" or "sculptor" is required. I'll leave it to the critics to decide how to pidgeon-hole me.
I count as my chief influences Henry Moore, Barabara Hepworth and others who have pursued abstract or non-objective organic form.

Don't make the mistake of assuming I'm talking about "effort." I just argued with Iron Ant (or was it Bluedogshuz?) over this recently. When I say the line between art and fraud is separated only by the artist's having actually created something, I'm not suggesting some sort of competition bewteen artists to see who works the longest or hardest or to see which technique is more difficult. That has nothing to do with it and I believe it is a mistake to judge art that way. It doesn't matter whether you spent 8 hours, 8 days, 8 months, 8 years or 8 minutes working on a piece. That isn't what makes it "art." What art is isn't determined by the relative difficulty of the process, either.

What I am saying is that the difference between art and fraud lies in whether the artist has actually created something of his own or whether he has simply appropriated the product of someone else's labors and called it his own "art." An unaltered Hoover vacuum cleaner is not the product of Jeff Koons' labor, but the product of the Hoover company's employees. For Koons to then appriopriate this and call it his own "sculpture" is a fraud, in my opinion. Had the vacuum cleaner been the work of another artist, Koons would be sued for copyright infringement. That it's a manufactured object simply makes him guilty of perpetrating a fraud.

Fused, if I'm incorrect that Richard Serra produces his own sculptures entirely himself, then I'm disappointed. However, to compare Richard Serra with Jeff Koons is inacurate. What Koons has done is to create nothing at all. Not even the idea represented by a Hoover vacuum cleaner's physical embodiment can be claimed by Koons, as he didn't design it, either. Serra, on the other hand, Like R.C. Gorman and other big name artists, may not actually construct his own works, but the ideas and the drawings and sketches his assistants work from are entirely his own. I don't care much for sculptors who do this, as I said above, but I certainly have more respect for them than I do for charlatans like Jeff Koons.

Gary

Last edited by GaryR52 : 10-23-2005 at 06:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-23-2005, 08:20 PM
fused fused is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 801
Re: Is contemporary art a _ _ _ _?

Jeff Koons is a pop-art curiosity --far from inspiring to me-- as an artist with his kitch to fine art heavily promoted extravaganzas, but his projects and celebrity go way beyond vacuum cleaners inside plex boxes. He has paid to have works made in all of the traditional sculptural materials... bronze: a bouyancy compensator etc., stainless steel: a balloon bunny etc., ceramic: Michael Jackson & monkey etc., glass: the kama sutra etc. and other stuff.

Maybe he's more of an alchemist?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-23-2005, 10:29 PM
GaryR52 GaryR52 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 673
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Well, it really wasn't my intent to single out Jeff Koons, in particular. His vacuum cleaners are just the most irritating example I could recall of this trend. I have no interest in the man or his career, really.

Gary
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-24-2005, 01:04 AM
JAZ's Avatar
JAZ JAZ is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Massachsetts
Posts: 1,776
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Merlion,

Here you go. http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_art...hoy/?page=full

This image doesn't really show the beautiful surfaces, the color, or the shark painted on one of the keels. They are gorgeous and well designed, but they are boats.

The way they are displayed is really what this is about. By taking them out of context, arranging specific colors and shapes below them and by erecting a sleek set of cables and stays somewhat reminiscent of Kenneth Snelson's tensegrity pieces, these found objects begin to be something else, something other than sailing machines. They are at least art related - they do elicit viewer responses to their formal elements.

But the significance of this really is that this installation has done something new, something insidious. There is no artist connected to it at all, at least as far as I can see. Who made the decision to display these America's Cup yachts on the MFA lawn amid works everyone recognizes as sculpture (by sculptors)? Who decided on the raking angle, the aesthetics of the support structure? Was it the collector, Mr. William I. Koch? Or was it the MFA? (I have not actually read much about this, I confess.) What matters is that it wasn't an artist.

On thinking about it, this isn't the first time I've seen things displayed in art venues as art, which had no artist involved in their creation. In Bilbao, Spain I saw the Art of the Motorcycle, yes, dozens of motorcycles. The MFA had an exhibit of sleek, classic cars not long ago. The Museum of Modern Art in NY has a collection of well designed funtional objects. Etc.

But the yachts are the first functional objects, sans artist, I've seen displayed as sculpture amid recognized sculptures. And the boats themselves are not altered at all. At least the seminal (no pun intended) urinal had some guy's name painted on it (okay, not the artist's, but at least written by the artist.)

The yachts differ from the work of artists who hire others to fabricate their works because in those cases the artists have conceived a concept and directed its origins. The boats were designed by a team whose goal was to win a race. In the case of the yachts, a collector, Mr. Koch, has purchased the two beautiful expensive boats and wants them prominently displayed along with his fabulous collection of sculpture. To give you an idea of the scope of his purchasing power, the west lawn sports four or five sizeable sculptures by Botero and there are more inside - all part of the Koch collection. And that's just for starters.

Mr. Koch sees the yachts as art, and he has seen to it that others do too.

JAZ

Last edited by JAZ : 10-24-2005 at 01:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-24-2005, 12:32 PM
Merlion's Avatar
Merlion Merlion is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,716
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Thanks JAZ for posting the pictures of the two yacht hulls in front of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, and for the insightful comments.

I agree the hulls of racing yachts are very beautiful. There are two reasons for this. One is the natural phenomenon that streamline objects are very often aesthetically beautiful. To avoid flow resistance, their surfaces have to be very smooth, and so are their lines and curves. The other is the result of design, as the yachts are luxury items that have to attract buyers. Very often these designers have training in visual arts and have to paid special attention to the selection of colour and the aesthetic design of the hull above the waterline.

I was not aware that the MFA displayed only the hulls. They would have difficulty showing the sails under the effect of the wind, which is what I was commented on earlier.

The beauty of the sails are the also result of both natural phenomenon and design. The designers tend to select sail profiles that look nice, and for shapes that are streamline, again to avoid resistance, in this case sideway air resistance. The natural phenomenon gives rise to beautiful shapes caused by wind blowing against flexible sheets supported at the edges by ropes. Also it is a natural phenomenon that the pair of sails have to be positioned correctly in relation to each other to give rise to suitable airflow.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-24-2005, 12:59 PM
oddist's Avatar
oddist oddist is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New England
Posts: 524
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

One of the things that led me to post this title was an article I read about Rachel Whitereads latest installation at the Tate. As I was reading the article I found myself asking "maybe art is an experience?"...so I searched on "art as experience."

What I came up with was a book by that name and also a short review of the book with some intriguing quotes.

The quote that struck me from this review was:

"For to perceive, a beholder must create his own experience. And his creation must include relations comparable to those which the original producer underwent....Without an act of recreation the object is not perceived as a work of art." (p. 54)

(I'm in the process of reading the book just to add to my own background on art and aesthetics.)

Anyway, there are a myriad of materials and techniques used today in the production of sculpture. There are realists, minimalists, audio-visualists, constructionists, kineticists, and on and on the list goes...growing with every creative effort on the part of todays creative artists....Each style has its place, its proponents and detractors.

I went to an "Iron Pour" at the Sculpture Fest at the Vermont Carving Studio and in the early dark of evening saw nothing produced but a flaming chute of molten iron cascading some 30 feet into a water filled quarry...the bright yellow light of the stream of iron lite up the faces of the granite and the hissing of the steaming water as the hot iron hit echoed off the long abandon walls. Was it art? It took a while, but I found the experience to have been worth the two hour drive and yes, it was ART. As momentary as it was...it is forever in my memeory.

I believe much museum art is for the attraction and entertainment of the visitors. If an installation, it's not made to last. It just draws the public. There are calendars, and mugs, and catalogs, etc. sold to commemorate such and event. But an installation says something about our time and the artists that endeavour to pursue this means of expression are as valid as any. They truly speak to our time. For all we know, most of the pieces that are not considered by many to be real sculpture will end up in a museum basement storage collecting dust...becoming something for future Art Historians to contemplate.

The Koons vac's...I don't take to them either...but they are part of our time and the museum that displays them is recording this. They do say something. What? I guess it's all up to the beholder. It doesn't make it good art. It make it part of today's art.

Who really knows what will be next. Look at all the materials and technology now being used to create art. Even biology.

After all, I know I have produced some things I don't consider to be art. And I've never shown them...for that reason...But, it doesn't mean they are not.

I for one am going to keep an open mind...Who knows what I might learn.
__________________
oddist

"Important artists are innovators whose work changes the practices of their successors; important works of art are those that embody these innovations."
Galenson, David W. Old Masters and young geniuses, Princeton University Press, 2006
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-24-2005, 01:29 PM
ExNihiloStudio's Avatar
ExNihiloStudio ExNihiloStudio is offline
Level 6 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 105
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Nice commentary on the racing boats Joyce. They are an exquisite piece of engineering.
The MFA already has galleries of musical instruments, silver, ceramics and other functional things, so there’s the precedent for displaying the boats. The scale of the racing boats compared to everything else around them is very striking.
__________________
- Mark G. Taber
Ex Nihilo Studio
http://www.ExNihiloStudio.com
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-25-2005, 05:44 AM
obseq's Avatar
obseq obseq is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,700
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

A huge problem in contemporary art is the fact as the definition of 'art' is wantonly broadened, 'artists' now have a free pass to call any bloody thing they make 'art.'
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-25-2005, 07:50 AM
GaryR52 GaryR52 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 673
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

...courtesy of Mr. Duchamp. It's all traceable back to Duchamp's so-called "ready mades." Actually, it was more than just the ready mades, themselves; it was the then previously unconsidered concept that art could be anything the artist wanted it to be. It's a concept that has been carried on since Joseph Beuoys, Koons and many others, like it or not.

What has always struck me about this is its "emperor has no clothes" aspect. By that, I mean that the relative success of any artist's ability to pull it off is purely dependent upon the art establishment's participation in the illusion. Sometimes the critics, in a more sober and reflective moment, see things for what they are and say so. Most of the time, however, they are swept along by the current of suspended disbelief and so report the whole event as a rousing success, the artist as an "art star." I've noted this, in years past, reading the reviews in ArtNews. Most of the time, the reasoning was so tortured as to be laughable, but every once in a while Peter Scheldall would have a lucid moment, as he did in one 1982 issue in which he referred to some now forgotten sculptor's work (titled "Jurassic Classic: On the Rodin Again") as "this piece of crap."

Of course, it's far easier to get a rise out of the mainstream media than the New York art press. I still recall Morely Safer's 60 Minutes piece on the state of modern art, also in the eighties, and, in particular, his amusement with Koon's vacuum cleaners. Predictably enough, Safer echoed the public's view that, if this was art, then literally anything could be art.

Right back to Duchamp's assertion that it is, indeed, art. The difference, then, lies in whether one believes this is a good thing or a bad thing. In the contemporary art world, I imagine it's seen as a good thing, particularly by the talentless and opportunistic, while the majority of the public, of course, sees it as evidence the appocalypse is about to begin at any moment. I suppose where, on that continuum, one's opinion lies is dependent upon their will to believe that art is whatever artists proclaim it to be and that the beholder is just along for the ride.

Gary

Last edited by GaryR52 : 10-25-2005 at 07:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-25-2005, 08:43 AM
ExNihiloStudio's Avatar
ExNihiloStudio ExNihiloStudio is offline
Level 6 user
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 105
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

I personally have been not too worried about the “Is it art?” question. Instead I ask myself “How do I understand it? Where is it coming from? How does it work? Do I like it?”
__________________
- Mark G. Taber
Ex Nihilo Studio
http://www.ExNihiloStudio.com
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-25-2005, 08:58 AM
GaryR52 GaryR52 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 673
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

So do I, Mark, at least, intuitively, anyway. If I like it, naturally, I find it easier to accept. I know myself well enough to know why I like a piece, as well. I've even liked a few conceptual works, so I suppose they must have been especially good ones to have passed my "crap detector." As I said, I'm a modernist, so I have a very broad range of what I'll accept as art, though I still favor works that have some evidence of actual creation by the artist. That's the line I draw, personally and, of course, like anything, everyone else is free to disagree with it. For me, if there was no act of creation, there is no art, for the very nature of art is that it is created by someone. If that someone is the Hoover company, not Jeff Koons, for example, I have a great degree of difficulty in accepting that Jeff Koons has made any art at all. Anyone can appropriate a manufactured object and proclaim it his work of art. It requires no effort, just the unmitigated gaul to foist it upon the beholder as one's own work, reality be damned. This level of contempt for the mind of the beholder is what I find so insulting about such "work."

Gary
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-25-2005, 06:07 PM
grommet grommet is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,279
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

For me, when the media or effort is questionable, I look for a really good story. To justify the "art" claim when the crap detector is shrieking, I say prove it. Half the art is in the thought process, the thoughts & questions it provokes, yes, the experience. So, if you gotta good schpiel, you may go undetected. If you do it twice & are smirking afterwards, well that's another story.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-25-2005, 06:40 PM
GaryR52 GaryR52 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 673
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Okay. But, in the case of Koons' "Hoover," what is the story? Vacuumed the living room, emptied the bag? Or is it just, "Maybe I can fool them all, create a big controversy and make myself famous."

Gary
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-25-2005, 07:08 PM
oddist's Avatar
oddist oddist is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New England
Posts: 524
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Gary,

Does being a Modernist put you in the category of Modernism as described at this link?

Or are you using the term Modernist to describe yourself as making Modern Sculpture?

And wasn't all Modern Sculpture Contemporary Sculpture at one time?????


And don't forget Worhol's contribution to the exploitation of everyday items in art.
__________________
oddist

"Important artists are innovators whose work changes the practices of their successors; important works of art are those that embody these innovations."
Galenson, David W. Old Masters and young geniuses, Princeton University Press, 2006

Last edited by oddist : 10-25-2005 at 07:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Sculpture Community, Sculpture.net
International Sculpture Center, Sculpture.org
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Russ RuBert