Karen Sullivan on wed 16 sep 09
Consider the standard
We have for judging
Originality is seeing
Something new...
Then consider the standard
For judging "good work", as
Seeing something
That is memorable.
(Add you own variables for
The definition of memorable)
This then becomes the
Vote for the importance
Of knowing History.
I guess it has been over
20 years ago..but I was
In a lecture by an artist
Who was accepted to an important
Show, and he assembled his work
For the show from the cast off
Wrappings of the artist who
Set up his work next to him.
I guess it made the artist
Who was casting off "trash"
Very angry...
I was amazed at the bravado
Of walking in to an important
Show with nothing in hand
To install.
That means the show of gathering
Wrapping of works submitted
Is not a new idea...
The jurors needed more
Knowledge of what has been done.
My other bit of wisdom...
"How innovative your idea,
Is based on how obscure you
Resources are." So.....
Dig deep for inspiration.....
I remember a story about
Alexander Calder, who arrived
To install a show..
The gallery owner asked where
His work was....and he pulled
A bundle of wire out of his
Coat, explaining that was
All he needed.
Karen
marci and rex on wed 16 sep 09
At 12:07 PM 9/16/2009, Karen Sullivan wrote:
>I guess it has been over
>20 years ago..but I was
>In a lecture by an artist
>Who was accepted to an important
>Show, and he assembled his work
>For the show from the cast off
>Wrappings of the artist who
>Set up his work next to him.
My question is how do these people get juried into the show in
the first place? Every juried show
Ive ever entered required you to
show slides of specific work...and the stipulation was made
that if accepted and the work in the show wasnt like the
work in your submission packet, you would/could be removed. ...
Marci
James Freeman on wed 16 sep 09
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:18 PM, marci and rex wrote=
:
> My question is how do these people get juried into the show in
> the first place? Every juried show
> Ive ever entered required you to
> show slides of specific work...and the stipulation was made
> that if accepted and the work in the show wasnt like the
> work in your submission packet, you would/could be removed. ...
Because, Marci, we are at the bottom of the Art food chain. Real
Artists do not have to submit to a jury. Real Artists are their own
jury. It is we who need to be vetted to make sure we will not
embarrass the host. Real Artists have already been vetted by the
cognoscenti.
Take care.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I
should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/clayart/
marci and rex on wed 16 sep 09
At 02:47 PM 9/16/2009, James Freeman wrote:
>Because, Marci, we are at the bottom of the Art food chain. Real
>Artists do not have to submit to a jury. Real Artists are their own
>jury. It is we who need to be vetted to make sure we will not
>embarrass the host. Real Artists have already been vetted by the
>cognoscenti.
( looking up with my lip quivering) ... J-j-j-j-james.....
D-d-d-do you think I could ever maybe be a REAL Artist someday ?
I'll be good. I PROMISE!
Ill write abstruse ,enigmatic , Delphian, ambiguous ( yes,
I have a Thesaurus and I know how to use it )
REAL Artist statements and smoke expensive French cigarettes
while mumbling" They just dont understand" . I can not bathe
for weeks and dress in black sacks . I know how to hold a glass
of wine in a pretentious manner AND Ive got a GREAT scowl ...
Here. Let me show ya:
( SCOWL!!!!!!) ......SEE?
So, can I be a REAL Artist ? Can I ? Huh ? Huh
? .........( realizes that she is jumping up and down like a
puppy , stops, lights an expensive French cigarette...
and looks for someone whose face she can blow the smoke into .. )
Marci
Snail Scott on thu 17 sep 09
A couple of observations:
1.
The amount of time and labor invested in a piece
of art does not in any way define the merit of the
work. It needs to have had enough work to
accomplish its ends appropriately. More is not
better. Nor is less.
Spending long hours on mediocre work does not
make it excellent. It just makes it time-consuming.
2.
The notion that a work of art must have the sole
authorship of one person is a fairly recent anomaly
in the history of art (and one closely linked to
studio craft). Historical artworks were often the
work of uncredited assistants within the studio,
and credit went to the master of the atelier. Paid
technicians have been the norm, not the exception,
through thousands of years of fine art AND crafts.
The idea that one person's hand must be solely
(or at least mostly) responsible for both design
and fabrication has a lot of fairly recent contributions,
closely connected with ideas of the artist as secular
shaman, artist as idiot-savant, artist as conduit
of Truth, and concepts like 'aura' - that indefinable
'something' that a 'real' artwork has, setting it apart from
even a perfect replica of it. This is an idea that many
artists were giving the finger to even as it reached
near-gospel status in mid-twentieth century Modernism.
Many, many artists rely on museum and gallery
staff not just to install, but to fabricate their work
on-site. For this sort of institution, it's not an unfair
imposition, but part of the job description. For some
artworks, the cost of shipping would far exceed the
labor costs of the museum staff or hired fabricators,
and it would take far too long for the artists to make it
themselves on premises. For other projects, the act
of making the object, or the identity of the fabricator,
is simply not an important aspect of the artwork. And
in some cases, the execution of the physical object
by a person who isn't the artist is an essential element
of the concept.
3.
Anyone exhibiting anywhere ought to know the venue.
That applies equally to gallery spaces, craft fairs, and
contests. All venues will show the preferences of their
jurors - that's what jurors are for. If an institution has
usually chosen jurors who prefer conceptual works,
maybe it's not the right venue for a highly-crafted work
without a strongly original hook. That artwork may be
wonderful in its own right, but anyone who thinks that
any work of art will be equally well received in all
venues is naive. That's why there are many venues.
Crabbing because someone chose to give their big fat
award to a style you don't care for is pointless. If no one
is offering any prizes for your kind of art, that's a shame,
but life isn't fair. Art competitions never give prizes to
to the 'best art'; there is no such thing. They give prizes
to the art they like best.
4.
re: the 'wrappings' piece that won the prize: It's fairly
typical that many people have chimed in about its lack
of craftsmanship, some have commented on its
originality or lack thereof, and a few have presumed
(based on the foregoing) that the artist was acting in
bad faith throughout. Virtually no one has seen fit to
consider the intended meaning as if the artist really
meant it.
The artist, it seems to me, was making an environmental
statement. He considered and and displayed the excess
waste byproducts of the art in the show, and by implication,
pointed up the resources used to make that art as well,
It made the artworks and the waste pile coequal within
the exhibition, suggesting that they, too, used resources.
Making an artwork that stated these ideas in a more
conventional form would have been both pointless
and ironic, since then it too would have used up more
resources. Further, he limited his use of resources by
neither shipping a physical artwork nor traveling in
person to construct one, again remaining true to the
concept.
No amount of labor or fine craftsmanship would have
improved the piece, and would in fact have diminished
it. Hate it or love it, but the amount of labor involved was
precisely appropriate to the idea. And apparently the
juror loved the idea.
5.
Is it really necessary to assume that everyone involved
in conceptual contemporary art is either a con artist or
brainwashed?
-Snail
James Freeman on thu 17 sep 09
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Snail Scott wr=
=3D
ote:
> A couple of observations:
> 4.
> re: =3DA0the 'wrappings' piece that won the prize: It's fairly
> typical that many people have chimed in about its lack
> of craftsmanship, some have commented on its
> originality or lack thereof, and a few have presumed
> (based on the foregoing) that the artist was acting in
> bad faith throughout. Virtually no one has seen fit to
> consider the intended meaning as if the artist really
> meant it.
>
Snail...
The fact that no one chose to comment on the purported or supposed
"meaning" of the piece does not in any way imply that no one
considered it. I certainly did, and could have written his Artist
statement for him. I am sure the others did also.
> The artist, it seems to me, was making an environmental
> statement. He considered and and displayed the excess
> waste byproducts of the art in the show, and by implication,
> pointed up the resources used to make that art as well,
> It made the artworks and the waste pile coequal within
> the exhibition, suggesting that they, too, used resources.
I see where one could make this interpretation by adopting a very
narrow definition of the title of the piece, "Collateral". In the
sense of "descended from a common ancestor, one could support your
interpretation. It would, however, be an incredibly shallow statement
for an Artist to make: "Making and shipping stuff creates waste."
Profound. Even if this was his intended statement, does this make it
Art, or merely advertising? It would read only as a rather obtuse
"public service announcement".
The wider definitions of the word "collateral", running alongside,
accompanying, or supporting or corroborating, would support the
prevailing interpretation that the work was intended to function
precisely as it apparently has; as a slap in the face to the "artists"
who actually "made" their pieces. I believe that he made the very
overt statement that "Your work is of no greater value than the stuff
you wrapped and shipped it in", and in fact the juror went further in
making the award, stating "Actually, the stuff you wrapped and shipped
your work in has a GREATER value than your work". You can't pee on a
crucifix, call it art, then sit around innocently wondering why the
Christians are mad at you.
> Making an artwork that stated these ideas in a more
> conventional form would have been both pointless
> and ironic, since then it too would have used up more
> resources.
Definitely more ironic. Irony too is a powerful tool. But pointless?
> Further, he limited his use of resources by
> neither shipping a physical artwork nor traveling in
> person to construct one, again remaining true to the
> concept.
True only to his imagined environmental sensibilities. It is actually
contrary to his imagined concept in that he proves the antithesis;
that a work of Art, his own as exemplar, does NOT necessarily create
"excess waste byproducts".
> 5.
> Is it really necessary to assume that everyone involved
> in conceptual contemporary art is either a con artist or
> brainwashed?
Why do you assume that this is a presumption? It seems rather to be a
conclusion.
I am sure that your interpretation is correct, or at least that the
Artist and juror would seek solace and shelter in your interpretation,
but I believe you can also see that the prevailing interpretation is
at least equally valid, and that it is not an unreasoned, prejudiced,
or knee-jerk position at all.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I
should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/clayart/
| |
|
