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
  #26  
Old 10-25-2005, 08:03 PM
GaryR52 GaryR52 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 673
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Oddist, modernism is on-going. It hardly has ended. Modern architecture, which I've been directly associated with, is not only still a viable movement, it is on the upswing, currently. Modern artists continue to make modern art. Modern sculpture is still being made today. It has never ceased to be made. The term "modern," in it's broadest sense, means "up to date," "trendy" or "new." I use the term Modernist, however, to describe myself because what I am doing is a continuation of Modern Art, or the movement known as Modernism, which, contrary to the beliefs of those who haven't been paying attention for the last forty years, has never gone away. Art of that period, or art that is made in the style of that period is called "modern art," regardless of when it was made. It could be seventy years old or seven minutes old.

"Contemporary," on the other hand, is a term meaning "pertaining to the period of time being considered." It is not, however, an art style or genre. Many make the mistake of assuming "contemporary art" is a type of art and many believe it is the same thing as "modern art." All the term refers to is the art of today, the art of the current period. This includes every style and genre of art being practiced today and that would include modernism, yes, but, it would also include everything else. That is why I don't use the term to describe my art. It lacks any specificity, as it doesn't refer to any particular style, techinique or genre. To say one likes "contemporary art" is to say one likes all art being produced currently, regardless of style, genre or medium.

Warhol was a progenitor of Pop Art. While it is still certainly collectible, the movement (if it can even be described as such) was a historical flash in the pan and has been relegated to art history. It supposedly supplanted abstract expressionism (though there are still, currently abstract expressionist paintings being produced) and it was, in turn, supposedly supplanted by Minimalism. The fact that almost no one today is doing anything that would be labeled "Pop Art," suggests this is true. Meanwhile, there are still minimalists hard at work and minimalism in architecture is making a resurgence, as well. By the way, I don't identify with Warhol or with Pop Art and never have, so I don't know why you would mention him. Pop is not the same thing I'm referring to when I use the term "modernism," although, arguably, Pop was a part of the modern art continuum. My chief influences, as I've said before, are Henry Moore, Barbara Hepworth and other sculptors who pursued abstract and non-objective organic form, which has never subsided, either.

To get back to the topic, what concerns me is the trend toward merely appropriating existing objects and then calling it "sculpture." Again, this is not to say creating art has to be difficult or that it must require great skill to be art. It is simply to say that art, by it's very definition, entails some sort of creative act. If the object already exists, if someone else, some manufacturer has already given it form and the "artist" does or adds nothing further, in what sense is the artist creating anything? He has, instead, merely committed what might be called an act of plagiarism by asserting that some manufacturer's product is his own creation. If this isn't fraud, then what is?

Gary

Last edited by GaryR52 : 10-25-2005 at 08:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-26-2005, 08:10 AM
oddist's Avatar
oddist oddist is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New England
Posts: 524
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Well...ok...you found me out...

I know not of what I speak...

I'm a fraud...

And according to Websters, fraud is "intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right."

So, what is truth in this discussion?

One man's truth is another's falsehood.

There once was a Salon de Refuse for all not considered art, but now considered "Modern Art."

Maybe an artist that uses an object that already exists is bringing to the attention of the viewer the fact that it does exist...something the viewer may never have considered on their own.

There's a big art world out there and we are just a minuscule part of it.
__________________
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
  #28  
Old 10-26-2005, 08:37 AM
GaryR52 GaryR52 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 673
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Aha! Caught another one! Your secret's safe with me, Oddist.

That seems like a very narrow definition of "fraud." I rather prefer Wikipedia's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

I shudder to think there were any people who didn't know vacuum cleaners exist until Mr. Koons brought it to their attention. Jeez, I'm glad I've never been to their houses.

Indeed, it is a big art world. All the more easy for a charlatan like Koons to take advantage of.

Gary
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-26-2005, 09:34 AM
grommet grommet is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,279
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Re: hovering hoover. Has Koons provided a statement with the piece? Or is he just snobbishly daring you to say boo? No time to look it up right now.

You can always do what one lady did when offered broccoli. She'd say "No thank you dear, broccoli's for other people".
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-26-2005, 12:06 PM
GaryR52 GaryR52 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 673
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

I originally saw the one in the plexiglass case on 60 Minutes, back in the eighties, when Morely Safer did a piece on the state of modern art.

Here is a page that shows a few variations I haven't seen before, incorporating fluourescent tube lighting along with the vacuum cleaner(s). There are some multiple versions, as well, all wall-hung. I guess, in this instance, one could get away with claiming it's an assemblage, because of the addition of the lights. No artist's statement anywhere, though; just images and captions. This is a site put up by Koons, himself, by the way, so, if there were going to be any statement, this is the place I'd expect it to be.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~exadega/koons/thenew.html
By the way, this is the same site where Koons has posted his porno pics, also, so, if you have any kids in the room, you might want to avoid the "Made in Heaven" page.

Well, I definitely say "no, thank you" to this stuff, Grommet, but, since the thread here posed the question of whether contemporary art is a fraud or not, I'm just giving my two cents worth on the issue. I'm sure no one else would have mentioned this, out of a desire to "be nice" and non-controversial. My thought on this is, "hey, you asked."

Gary
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-26-2005, 05:57 PM
grommet grommet is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,279
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

I enjoy a good scoop of controversy now and then. Thanks for the link. I found the vacs amusing, largely due to the book I'm reading right now. "Nice Big American Baby" by Judy Budnitz. One of the short stories (sales pg 157)is a surreal bit that includes traveling salesmen. If they posted the story next to his pieces, more people might enjoy them. As he hasn't declared his intent, I'll read into it freely. The repetition of the concept is also very annoying, just as salespeople can be. (My apologies to those who find themselves in the profession.Whatever you do, do it with dignity.) It would be amusing to leave a loop sales tape playing on the attributes of the vacuum with his stuff.
I'll still agree with the detector on this one for the lack of artist contribution though.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-26-2005, 08:21 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?

Interesting ...I just bought a Hoover WindTunnel Canister vacuum cleaner.

I leave it around the house because it's such a nice looking piece..

Does this make me a wanna-b???

Or does it just suck as a piece of art.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	hoover.jpg
Views:	213
Size:	38.0 KB
ID:	2363  
__________________
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 : 10-26-2005 at 08:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-26-2005, 09:14 PM
GaryR52 GaryR52 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 673
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

LOL! Hey, I just bought a Dirt Devil handheld carpet cleaner. Maybe we can do a collaborative piece?

Gary
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-26-2005, 10:24 PM
bluedogshuz's Avatar
bluedogshuz bluedogshuz is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jacksonville Florida
Posts: 388
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

I think that more and more art is being created for entertainment and I feel that is fraudulent. If the idea of the creation is to shock or sell tickets or any other such nonsense then yes, I think it is fraud. It is a necessity so museums and galleries can stay in business, bread on the table. As a child I spent alot of time in the contemporary section of the museum because I sensed an incredible honesty in materials and expression that transended every day concerns, much of the work a personal signature from an artist trying to express feelings or whatever. I could relate to 20th century art and have never lost my love for it. Art from previous centuries was often created for someone or a church or king or something. The artist often restrained, albiet the work was masterfully done. I think the closer work gets to being contrived for an audience the less value it has for me. I may be dead wrong but I don't think contemporary art that IS fraudulent (created for entertainment) will survive. Pollack, Rothko, Ab ex are selling for more than almost anything and its because the are quite authentic and nakedly honest.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-27-2005, 12:45 AM
GaryR52 GaryR52 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 673
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

I think you've got a good point, Blue, and I agree that much of what is passed off as art, especially in sculpture and definitely in so-called "performance art" is contrived to be controversial for the sake of attracting attention. Whatever happened to following one's own muse and quietly, humbly giving it to the world? Koons' crap seems especially designed to shock and serve the function of making Jeff Koons famous. It certainly doesn't seem to have any other relevence. Sorry for seeming so fixated on Jeff Koons, but the guy is really beginning to piss me off.

Gary
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-27-2005, 06:36 AM
grommet grommet is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,279
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

http://www.jca-online.com/koons.html
Look! I just made art like Koons when I paste this link in!
Reminds me of when little kids witness something & then want to do it, but use what's available instead of the actual items. Like playing dolls. "Look Mama, I made an art show!"
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-27-2005, 07:18 AM
GaryR52 GaryR52 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 673
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LostNYC
...there's a pretty cool bouquet of flowers made entirely of polychromed wood that is very nice, different.
What?!! There's some actual artwork??!! That must be the stuff he has his assistants make for him.

Seriously, though, I do see one piece I really like, "Balloon Flower," and I can honestly call it a "sculpture." Now, if this were the sort of thing he did most of the time, I'd have no problem with Jeff Koons at all. "Rabbit" isn't too bad, either. See, I can be balanced, charitable and kind, too.

Gary
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-27-2005, 09:41 AM
grommet grommet is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,279
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Quote:
See, I can be balanced, charitable and kind, too.
Yeah, but it's good aerobic exercise when one gets all irate & start windmilling arms & puffing. Then you have enough blood flowing to go back to work in the frigid studio!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-27-2005, 11:22 AM
GaryR52 GaryR52 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 673
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

LOL.

60s here, today.

Gary
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-27-2005, 11:24 AM
fused fused is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 801
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Koons and Serra have common ground with their checkbooks.


What makes this art?
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 10-27-2005, 11:28 AM
GaryR52 GaryR52 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 673
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Hmmm....arson as art. I guess one could charge admission for the burning, itself, and call it a performance art event, then sell the charred remains as sculpture, right?

Gary
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-27-2005, 12:11 PM
grommet grommet is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,279
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

potentially. Sounds like a marketing ploy to me though. Get press based on people's affection for fuzzy things. "why I had a bear just like that one" Do you think they did market research to find out which stuffed animals were most popular & hence would pull more heart-strings? If good art requires the artist's hand, is arson a consideration in the process? (As opposed to just an application of fire.)
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-27-2005, 12:42 PM
GaryR52 GaryR52 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 673
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Quote:
Originally Posted by grommet
...If good art requires the artist's hand, is arson a consideration in the process? (As opposed to just an application of fire.)
Good question. If you confine the discussion only to performance art and dismiss the concerns for talent, skill or relevence that might apply to other genres, then you could possibly argue that it's art, based upon the fact that the artist created a fire that, in turn, created charred stuffed animals. That is, unless he hires an assistant to light the fire.

Agreed that the choice of objects to be burned seems contrived to elicit a response from certain people. I would think that anyone with children would be roused, to some extent, as well as extreme animal lovers, who might interpret the choice of stuffed animals as being symbolic of real animals. It seems there is always a deliberately targeted sensitivity these "artists" attempt to exploit for maximum shock value. In that sense, it wouldn't be far off the mark to liken it to a form of intellectual terrorism. Maybe that's a little exaggerated, but so is the claim that any of this is art.

Gary
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-27-2005, 05:33 PM
sculptor's Avatar
sculptor sculptor is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: IOWA
Posts: 1,493
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

as/per Fred Ross
"The art of painting, one of the greatest traditions in all of human history has been under a merciless and relentless assault for the last one hundred years. I'm referring to the accumulated knowledge of over 2500 hundred years, spanning from Ancient Greece to the early Renaissance and through to the extraordinary pinnacles of artistic achievement seen in the High Renaissance, 17th century Dutch, and the great 19th century Academies of Europe and America. These traditions, just when they were at their absolute zenith, at a peak of achievement, seemingly unbeatable and unstoppable, hit the twentieth century at full stride, and then ... fell off a cliff, and smashed to pieces on the rocks below.

Since World War I the contemporary visual arts as represented in Museum exhibitions, University Art Departments, and journalistic art criticism became little more than juvenile, repetitive exercises at proving to the former adult world that they could do whatever they damn well wanted ... sadly devolving ever downwards into a distorted, contrived and contorted notion of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression? Ironically, this so-called "freedom" as embodied in Modernism, rather than a form of "expression" in truth became a form of "suppression" and "oppression." Modernism as we know it, ultimately became the most oppressive and restrictive system of thought in all of art history"

Fred appears to be just a tad more rad than me on this subject.

further:
"Every reasonable shred of order and any standards with which it was possible to identify, understand and to create great paintings and sculpture, was degraded ... detested ... desecrated and eviscerated. The backbone of the painters' craft, namely drawing, was thrown into the trash along with modeling, perspective, illusion, recognizable objects or elements from the real world, and with it the ability to capture, exhibit, and poetically express subjects and themes about mankind and the human condition and about man's trials on this speck of stardust called Earth ... Earth, hurtling through infinity with all of us along on board, along with everything we know and everything we hold dear.
Reason ... philosophy ... religion ... literature ... fantasy ... dreams, and all of the feelings, emotions and pathos of our every day lives ... all of it was no longer worthy of the painter's craft. Any hint by the artist at trying to portray such things was branded as banal, maudlin, photographic, illustration, or petty sentimentality.
Our children, going supposedly to the finest universities in the world, being taught by professors with Bachelors or Arts, Masters of Arts, Masters of Fine Arts, Masters of Art Education ... even Doctoral degrees, our children instead have been subjected to methodical brain-washing and taught to deny the evidence of their own senses. Taught that Mattisse, Cézanne, and Picasso, along with their followers, were the most brilliant artists in all of history. Why? Because they weren't telling us lies like the traditional painters, of course. They weren't trying to make us believe that we were looking at scenes in reality, or at scenes from the imagination, from fantasy or from dreams
They were telling us the truth. They were telling it like it is. They spent their lives and careers on something that was not banal, and not silly, insipid or inane. They in fact provided the world with the most ingenious of all breakthroughs in the history of artistic thought. Even the great scientific achievements of the industrial revolution paled before their brilliant discovery. And what was that discovery for which they have been raised above Bouguereau, exalted over Gérôme, and celebrated beyond Ingres, David, Constable, Fragonard, Van Dyck, and Gainsborough or Poussin? Why in fact were they heralded to the absolute zenith ... the tiptop of human achievement ... being worthy even of placement shoulder to shoulder on pedestals right beside Rembrandt, Michelangelo, Leonardo, Caravaggio, Vermeer and Raphael? What did they do? Why were they glorified practically above all others that ever went before them? Ladies and gentleman, they proved ... amazing, incredible, and fantastic as it may seem, they proved that the canvas was flat ... flat and very thin ... skinny ... indeed, not even shallow, lacking any depth or meaning whatsoever.
During most of the 20th Century, the type of propaganda that has been hurled at academic artists is so insidious that people have been literally trained to discredit, out-of-hand, any work containing well-crafted figures or elements, or any other evidence of technical mastery. All the beauty and subtlety of emotions, -- interplay of composition, design and theme, -- the interlacing of color, tone and mood, -- are never seen. The viewer has been taught that academic painting on a prima facie basis is bad by definition -- bad by virtue of its resorting to the use of human figures, themes or stories and objects from the real world.
Prestige suggestion causes them to automatically assume that a work must be great if it's by any of the "big names" of modern art, so they at once start looking for reasons why it must be proclaimed great. Any failing to find greatness is not considered a failing in the art but in the intelligence and sensibilities of the viewer. Students operating under that kind of intimidating pressure, you can be sure, will find greatness - no matter what they are looking at.
The reverse of this has been trained into them when they view academic paintings. They have been taught that works exhibiting realistic rendering are "bad art" and therefore any good that is seen is not due to qualities inherent in their artistic accomplishments, but are rather due to a lack of intelligence and taste in the viewer. The same intimidating pressure works in reverse to ensure that a work by Bouguereau, Lord Leighton, Burne Jones, Gérôme, Frederick Hart, or any of the rest of you here, will not be seen as anything other than bad by definition.
No student in a school with this kind of dictatorial brain-washing will ever risk exploring or even listening to opposing views, for fear of being stigmatized from that point on, with some undesirable label and being universally despised ... sadly, a very effective deterrent to independent thought. Thus the visual experience of well-drawn representational elements is perceived as a negative, ad hominem, that proves with knee-jerk automaticity the presumed "badness" of the art and its creator.
It is especially ironic that these are the same people who trumpet the virtues and inalienable right to freedom of speech, while they surreptitiously and steadfastly conspire to remove that freedom from those with whom they disagree.
...
Nobody can accomplish anything of merit if they are in fact not derivative. Only by mastering the accomplishments of the past and then adding to it can we go still further. Every other field of endeavor recognizes this truth. Without the knowledge of the past we are doomed to everlasting primitivism.
And, as far as holding our works up to the old masters, that's what we want to have happen. If we are to accomplish things of true merit and excellence, we must germinate and nurture great masters in the next millennium too. Bouguereau was quite aware that his work would be compared on the altar of past accomplishments, as did his contemporaries. It was precisely because they mastered the techniques of the past, built upon them and then opened them up to an avalanche of new subject matter and Enlightenment ideals, that they accomplished the greatest half-century of painting in art history.
The word derivative comes from the word derive or to come from, not to copy. Bouguereau, Lord Leighton, Alma-Tadema, Gérôme, Vibert, Burne-Jones, etc. did not copy the art of earlier eras, but they most certainly derived from the prior schools. Many of the methods of learning the skills of drawing, modeling, perspective, composition, the sourcing and preparing of pigments, canvas preparation, paint application etc., were developed before them.
Michelangelo, you could also say, was derivative of Donatello, whose David was sculpted decades before. Leonardo and Raphael were derivative of Giotto and Roger Vander Weyden. All of 17th century Dutch art built on the breakthroughs of the High Renaissance, which itself derived from the accomplishments of the early renaissance. Praxiteles in ancient Greece most certainly derived much technique and knowledge from those sculptors who came during the centuries before him. All we really care about today is that he did it the best.
...
they have been propagandized by modernism into believing that only those works that break boundaries, ignore standards, and show no interest in skill or technique can be truly "original" or "inspired." In fact originality of methods take precedence over all else. If something has been done before, or is derivative in any way of anything that was done before, it thereby loses value proportionate to those similarities. In such a "Through the looking glass" world, every would-be "artist" is placed in the untenable position of trying to create an entirely new art form in order to be considered relevant. The sheer glaring reality is that nothing could be more imprisoning, binding, restricting, chaining and shackling than the impossible limitations of modernism and post-modernism, that remove from the would-be artist every tool (including training) that could give him or her the ability to create great works of art. The simple truth is that each and every one of us (and I mean nearly every human being), is capable of thinking of something that has never been done before. Does that make it worth doing and the work of genius?
...
Modern and Post-modern Art is nihilistic and anti human. It denigrates humanity along with our hopes, dreams, desires and the real world in which we live.
...
It has been called exciting and cutting-edge, but the sad truth is that it is incredibly humdrum and monotonous. Whether you glue together pieces of plastic or shards of glass, assemble metal scraps or piles of feathers. Whether you dribble little dollops of colors or drag fat uneven slashes of black. Whether you compile a mountain of paper or wrap the Statue of Liberty. The effect is always the same. MEANINGLESS PRIMITIVISM.
Modernism is art about art. It endlessly asks the question ad nauseum: what is art? what is art? Only those things that expand the boundaries of art are good; all else is bad. It is art about art. Whereas all the great art in history, my friends is ART ABOUT LIFE

more later
sculptor
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-28-2005, 01:31 AM
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?

Pardon me jumping into this thread halfway. I notice an online write-up in the Guardian newspaper interviewing some of the young collectors at the currently ongoing contemporary Frieze Art Fair in London. I post an excerpts giving some insight into their thinking.

---------------------------------------------------------------
"Art, for sure, is investment. I don't agree with anybody who says, 'I only buy it because I love it.' That's crap. Obviously it's an asset class."

He is uneasily conscious that so many collectors chasing the Next Big Thing are making the contemporary art market boil till the lid jiggles. In a tiny spare room upstairs in his flat, there is a work by the Zurich-based Caro Niederer. It is still sealed in bubble-wrap and brown parcel tape. "I bought it in March 2004. I can tell you the price has trebled." Shariat puts his hands together and shakes them at me. "I mean trebled, James! I'd have to be a Colombian drugs dealer to pay this money. I think it's a bit out of control."

----------------------------------------------------------

The full article can be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/friez...597556,00.html

The point is whether this is a bubble that is going to burst someday.

Last edited by Merlion : 10-28-2005 at 09:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-28-2005, 08:17 AM
sculptor's Avatar
sculptor sculptor is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: IOWA
Posts: 1,493
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlion
...The point is whether this is a bubble that is going to burst someday.
bubble-----well yes, maybe...and if so
(more from Fred)
"There are only 826 Bouguereaus and about 465 Tademas in the world. Do you know
how many Picassos there are? Can anybody here guess? There are 80,000 of them,
and the balance between supply and demand has faltered, and like the dot com
stocks of last year they will soon come crashing down along with hundreds of
billions of paper profits lost in the dust of history. Like the tulip bulbs in
the 17th century or Tokyo Real estate in the 1980's, investors will be
decimated. If I owned a work by any of those "Abstract artists" I would be
racing to cash it in before the fall, and that has been my recommendation to
dozens who have asked me."
.....
and
....
"Of course, this isn't exactly the first time in history that ideas which were
complete shams managed to engulf the belief systems of entire cultures and
civilizations. In many of those in the past, the lunacy was enforced by the
severest of punishments for anyone who would dare to speak out. At least we live
in a time and place where it's possible to speak against this consummate con
that has been perpetrated against the greatest period of artistic development
and achievement in the history of Western Civilization and culture over the last 500 years. Three-quarters of the 20th century will go down in art history as a great wasteland of insanity -- a nightmarish blip in the long road of the
development of human logic and reason and art, from which we are only just
starting to awake. "

whither hence?
sculptor
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-28-2005, 10:50 AM
oddist's Avatar
oddist oddist is offline
ISC Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New England
Posts: 524
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Fred sounds like a very angry artist with one hell of a bone to pick with the art world...
__________________
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
  #48  
Old 10-28-2005, 12:05 PM
GaryR52 GaryR52 is offline
Level 10 user
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 673
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Quote:
Originally Posted by oddist
Fred sounds like a very angry artist with one hell of a bone to pick with the art world...
Well, either that, or a closed-minded cretin who thinks the only valid objective of art and artists is to record the natural world.

About the collector mindset addressed above, I think it's very unfortunate that some collectors view artworks only for their potential as investments. Even more unfortunate is that this plays directly into the hands of opportunistic "artists" who smell money to be made, so crank out works that they know will be snatched up by such collectors. This reminds me of the market for so-called "graffitti art," created overnight in the early eighties by gallery owner Holly Soloman. She gathered a few grafiti-scrawling kids together, just punks who were out spray painting subway cars until Soloman enlisted them to do the same on canvases, which she supplied for them. The results were sold in her gallery at outrageous prices and created a flash-in-the-pan market for "graffiti art" that fizzled out after a year or two. The "artists" became overnight sensations, got major attention from New York art critics and the art press, and, once the market fizzled, were pretty much cast aside. Keith Haring and Jean-Michel Basquiat were the principle beneficiaries, among the artists, but both are tragically dead at an early age, now.

Gary
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-29-2005, 01:17 AM
JAZ's Avatar
JAZ JAZ is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Massachsetts
Posts: 1,776
Re: Is contemporary art a fraud?

Quote:
Originally Posted by oddist

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.
Oddist, that iron pour was organized by the Iron Guild at Mass. College of Art.They are doing another in Boston next weekend, on Oct 30:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 2005
CONTACT: ironguild@gmail.com , or Laurie Carman 1-857-257-6094

The Post-Apocalyptic Halloween Iron Pour

Sunday October 30 @ 7:30 pm,
The Courtyard at Massachusetts College of Art, 621 Huntington Ave., Boston
Open to the public. $7 admission

Art, music, fire and molten metal integrate to create an unpredictable and exciting event that should not be missed.

On Sunday, October 30th, the Iron Guild will present their Third Annual Halloween iron pour. The event will transform Massachusetts College of Art's courtyard into a fiery post-apocalyptic site of destruction. As in previous iron pours at Halloween, rock bands will be performing live music, and while the furnaces are raging at 3000 degrees, molten iron will be poured and fire sculptures will burn. This year's lineup includes:
Green Milk from the Planet Orange (from Japan),
The Body (from Providence RI),
Wildlife (from Boston), and
Michael Colombia.

Founded in January of 2003, the Iron Guild began designing and fabricating iron furnaces called "cupolas." A combination of metalworking, foundry and innovative spectacle performance, an iron pour by the Iron Guild is an experience unlike anything the general public has witnessed. The October 30th event will involve several cupolas, casting over one thousand pounds of iron into various fiery sculptures.

At 7:30 pm the music starts & things begin heating up. Iron will be poured many times throughout the evening. This event is open to the public.


WHEN: Sunday, October 30, 2005, 7:30 pm.
WHERE: MassArt Courtyard, 621 Huntington Avenue, Boston on MTBA's Green "E" line.
Handicapped accessible.
ADMISSION: $7
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
call Laurie Carman at 857.257.6094 or visit www.ironguild.net

Mark,
You might be interested in that too. Though, as Oddist points out, spectators don't actually see any of the castings that are made during the pour, just the flashy stuff. But if you like molten metal, it's really fun. Guild members will wear face paints, etc. and the bands they pick are just as molten, at least when I went.

But back to the yachts. I am well aware of the museum's fine collections of beautifully designed functional items. And the yachts fit comfortably with those. When you and I and Joe went to New York a few months ago I saw an exhibit at the Cooper-Hewitt of furniture made by sculptors. That also would be a good fit for the yachts.

The part that I wonder about is the MFA displaying them among sculptures done by actual sculptors. The Yachts are the only objects on the lawns that were not created or designed by any artist. The MFA and the collector are making the statement that they are sculpture. Maybe there is no longer any need for sculptors at all?

Also problemmatical is the MFA's political statement of aligning the yachts with a supposed icon to a minority group whom whites have demeaned in more than enough other ways already. The juxtaposition of the two is downright nasty or ignorant.

But I agree that they are beautiful, streamlined, sculptural boats. They are gorgeous. People will love them.

JAZ
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-24-2005, 10:07 AM
underachiever's Avatar
underachiever underachiever is offline
Level 3 user
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 33
Re: No art is fraudulent... is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlion
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.
I'm assuming you are referring to the CDL contest. Well, frankly, the main reason your work wasn't selected was simply because the CDL contest tends to prefer Modern looking works. Singapore's art scene is still generally stuck in the 90's, and if you really want to have a chance, you might do well to refer to something from that period. Or produce something that's especially weird like the winner did.

At least, that's what I got from one of the judges.
__________________
I choose a block of marble and chop off whatever I don't need.
- Auguste Rodin
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