Lori Leary on mon 10 may 10
Well said, Kathy. Also, I know I can't judge any piece of art based on
a tiny photo from an internet article written by someone who may have a
vested interest in creating controversy to increase readership. The
gallery manager did mention that there were more components to the piece:
=93The point of it is that it doesn=92t look finished, if you look closer
there are precious materials inside... People=92s first impressions are
challenged by looking again. Their first impressions are not necessarily
correct and it has really got people talking and interested.=94
I would hesitate to dismiss any piece of art based on such limited
information.
Lori L.
Kathy Forer wrote:
> On May 10, 2010, at 8:15 PM, James Freeman wrote:
>
>> =93Often a work that looks very careless, as if it hasn=92t taken any
>> time to
>> make, like a random mark, ends up being something that takes a long
>> time to
>> produce. The way I make my work takes time.=94
>
> Not all good artwork is formal. Not saying this is good, or artwork,
> but form is not an a priori condition for art. If it were, there would
> be strict canons and hierarchies of suitable form. We would neglect
> and miss too many forms that are new or unusual to our eyes and
> sensibilities and sanction only tired and worn formal contrivances.
>
> Kathy
>
James Freeman on mon 10 may 10
Kathy...
I believe that form is absolutely a sine qua non of visual art, and
inseparable from it. I also don't understand how such a position leads to
the necessity for hierarchies or canons of suitable form, strict or
otherwise. Tradition or complacency may at times sanction only tired and
worn formal contrivances, but neither formalism nor form itself does so.
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/resources
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Kathy Forer wrote:
>
> Not all good artwork is formal. Not saying this is good, or artwork, but
> form is not an a priori condition for art. If it were, there would be str=
ict
> canons and hierarchies of suitable form. We would neglect and miss too ma=
ny
> forms that are new or unusual to our eyes and sensibilities and sanction
> only tired and worn formal contrivances.
>
> Kathy
>
>
Kathy Forer on mon 10 may 10
On May 10, 2010, at 10:27 PM, James Freeman wrote:
> I believe that form is absolutely a sine qua non of visual art, and
> inseparable from it. I also don't understand how such a position
> leads to the necessity for hierarchies or canons of suitable form,
> strict or otherwise. Tradition or complacency may at times sanction
> only tired and worn formal contrivances, but neither formalism nor
> form itself does so.
I didn't parse my thoughts very clearly, my apologies! Perceptual form
may be axiomatic with an art form but it's also quite different than
observed formal qualities. If it weren't, then Impressionism would
never had let the daylight in to late nineteenth century painting,
there could be no development beyond the latest accepted forms.
It's really formalism that is the subject here. Stylism too. It's an
argument for shelving preconceptions about what something should look
like. Reams have been written and statements proclaimed, but the best
proof is art that challenges your prejudices.
Kathy
James Freeman on mon 10 may 10
Conceptual art at it's best! The Ikon Gallery in Birmingham, England is
showing the work of one Susan Collis.
http://www.birminghammail.net/news/birmingham-news/2010/05/06/britain-s-wor=
=3D
st-art-exhibition-at-birmingham-s-ikon-gallery-97319-26387778/
The work consists of some wood scraps, a few rags, and a piece of drywall
corner bead is a little heap on the gallery floor, and a broom leaning
against the wall. Ms. Collis defends her work in a powerful voice:
=3D93Often a work that looks very careless, as if it hasn=3D92t taken any t=
ime =3D
to
make, like a random mark, ends up being something that takes a long time to
produce. The way I make my work takes time.=3D94
Bravo!
...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/resources
Kathy Forer on mon 10 may 10
On May 10, 2010, at 8:15 PM, James Freeman wrote:
> =3D93Often a work that looks very careless, as if it hasn=3D92t taken any=
=3D20=3D
> time to
> make, like a random mark, ends up being something that takes a long =3D20=
=3D
> time to
> produce. The way I make my work takes time.=3D94
Not all good artwork is formal. Not saying this is good, or artwork, =3D20
but form is not an a priori condition for art. If it were, there would =3D2=
0=3D
be strict canons and hierarchies of suitable form. We would neglect =3D20
and miss too many forms that are new or unusual to our eyes and =3D20
sensibilities and sanction only tired and worn formal contrivances.
Kathy
phil on tue 11 may 10
Hi James,
Yes...
It just says so much, in so many ways.
It is eloquent...so of a genre that is long since exquisitely trite and
tried for decades now.
No 'dust' or crumbs or small detritis, either, in the might have been swept
or otherwise
pushed-together little pile, as one would have, if the debris were in fact
occasioned by some small re-modeling incidental or other...which is part of
the mystique or mystery, in this instance.
It just says it all...so well.
The gallery supplies the 'formality' of course...by hosting such more or
less naive, contrived
in-formality, of installations.
Granted, that is England, what's left of it...what's left of its mind and
emblems, as
exemplified in these and other ways...
...sigh...
Anymore, it is hard to be exposed to any
media/entertainment/educational/cultural experiences, without palpating the
increasingly less distal or in fact surrounding sphygmus, of the old
'Frankfurt School'...or, rather, on how well they have
done.
Love,
Phil
Lv
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Freeman"
Conceptual art at it's best! The Ikon Gallery in Birmingham, England is
showing the work of one Susan Collis.
http://www.birminghammail.net/news/birmingham-news/2010/05/06/britain-s-wor=
st-art-exhibition-at-birmingham-s-ikon-gallery-97319-26387778/
The work consists of some wood scraps, a few rags, and a piece of drywall
corner bead is a little heap on the gallery floor, and a broom leaning
against the wall. Ms. Collis defends her work in a powerful voice:
=93Often a work that looks very careless, as if it hasn=92t taken any time =
to
make, like a random mark, ends up being something that takes a long time to
produce. The way I make my work takes time.=94
Bravo!
...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/resources
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2866 - Release Date: 05/10/10
11:26:00
James Freeman on tue 11 may 10
Kathi, Lori...
First, let me reiterate that I did not dismiss the work. I called it
"conceptual art at it's best", and "best conceptual art ever". While it ma=
y
not actually be the best conceptual art ever (the starving dog and the aids
blood on paper towels come immediately to mind, as does the rotting cow
head), it is certainly way up there, comfortably amongst the best. My
reasons for believing so may be different than yours, but I believe they ar=
e
quite valid. I believe this piece is a perfect exemplar of the genre, and
speaks volumes. Perhaps not about what the artist and gallery owner claim,
but it does speak in a loud and forceful voice.
I guess I just don't understand how form, formalism, or observed formal
qualities, or the attachment of importance to same, leads to any limitation=
s
whatsoever, and I do not see how they can possibly operate to cause or
reinforce "preconceptions about what something looks like". Impressionism
was about saying that it was OK to paint what you felt, the impression a
sight left upon your mind, rather than precisely what you see. It was an
argument against the primacy of mimesis, not against form.
The argument that an artform is valid, or important, or good, or whatever
term you wish, because it challenges our preconceptions of what constitutes
art is a curious one, and one that I personally utterly dismiss. Let's
tweak it a bit and see what happens. Let's postulate a restaurant that
serves salads made of wilted, somewhat blackened and slimy lettuce, the
leaves we ordinarily throw away as unpalatable. Entrees will have coarse o=
r
slimy textures, smells that ordinary folk find foul, meats with pungent
flavors such as raccoon or woodchuck, or more conventional cuts that have
gone rancid, all served with a nice glass of cork-tainted or oxidized wine?
In short, we will "challenge people's preconceptions about what food is".
Nothing poisonous, nothing that can injure you, just unappetizing but edibl=
e
things, perhaps even with poor visual presentation. Now I ask, is it food?
Sure. Should such a restaurant exist? How long will it stay in business?
Will you eat there? Is it important to be open to such food? Will you
insist that it is good food or important food? What if the food critic
insists that it is? Is the rejection of such food a sign that one is a
philistine or not open minded? Does any of this change if the restaurant
hides a bite of filet mignon underneath?
Just making a point does not make art, especially if the point is a banal o=
r
jejune one. Perhaps it's just a "gallant gallstone".
Just my opinion. And since I just expressed a point of view, the above is
art. I'm challenging your preconceptions about preconceptions. :-)
<---- (that's a smiley face)
...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/resources
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Kathy Forer wrote:
> Perceptual form may be axiomatic with an art form but it's also quite
> different than observed formal qualities. If it weren't, then Impressioni=
sm
> would never had let the daylight in to late nineteenth century painting,
> there could be no development beyond the latest accepted forms.
>
> It's really formalism that is the subject here. Stylism too. It's an
> argument for shelving preconceptions about what something should look lik=
e.
> Reams have been written and statements proclaimed, but the best proof is =
art
> that challenges your prejudices.
>
> Kathy
>
>
Lee Love on tue 11 may 10
I haven't don't much conceptual art. I did 108 Jizo bottles for
the dead from the Iraqi invasion. Before that at the UofMN, I did my"
American Teabowl."
The essential aspect is conceptual art, is that you are
capable of interesting concepts.
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Lee Love on tue 11 may 10
I need coffee. SOrry for typos!
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Lee Love wrote:
> =3DA0 =3DA0I haven't don't much conceptual art. =3DA0 I did 108 Jizo bott=
les fo=3D
r
> the dead from the Iraqi invasion. =3DA0Before that at the UofMN, I did my=
"
> American Teabowl."
>
> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0The essential aspect is conceptual art, is t=
hat you ar=3D
e
> capable of interesting concepts.
>
> --
> =3DA0Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
> http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
>
> =3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
> the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
>
--=3D20
--
Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
paul gerhold on tue 11 may 10
I am not sure how anyone can feel cheated by this piece of "conceptual
art". Admission to the gallery is free. Just thinking about a piece of ar=
=3D
t
that is not art or may not be art or what is art is of some value to people
who value the thinking process and any event or item that triggers thinking=
=3D
.
Obviously the setting in a gallery is critical to the process. Similar
works exist in my garage almost consistantly and trigger no thoughts at all
with the possible exception of disposal.
Paul
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:15 PM, James Freeman =3D
m
> wrote:
> Conceptual art at it's best! The Ikon Gallery in Birmingham, England is
> showing the work of one Susan Collis.
>
>
> http://www.birminghammail.net/news/birmingham-news/2010/05/06/britain-s-w=
=3D
orst-art-exhibition-at-birmingham-s-ikon-gallery-97319-26387778/
>
> The work consists of some wood scraps, a few rags, and a piece of drywall
> corner bead is a little heap on the gallery floor, and a broom leaning
> against the wall. Ms. Collis defends her work in a powerful voice:
>
> =3D93Often a work that looks very careless, as if it hasn=3D92t taken any=
tim=3D
e to
> make, like a random mark, ends up being something that takes a long time =
=3D
to
> produce. The way I make my work takes time.=3D94
>
> Bravo!
>
> ...James
>
> James Freeman
>
> "All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I shoul=
=3D
d
> 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/resources
>
Kathy Forer on tue 11 may 10
On May 11, 2010, at 6:56 AM, James Freeman wrote:
> Kathi, Lori...
> I believe this piece is a perfect exemplar of the genre, and
> speaks volumes. Perhaps not about what the artist and gallery owner =3D
claim,
> but it does speak in a loud and forceful voice.
But how well does it fulfill its stated intention? Wasn't intentionalism =
=3D
dead, slain in the seventies or was it eighties?=3D20
And if her intent was to make us consider that her work was =3D
long-conceived and arranged, how successful was that?=3D20
If you're saying this piece, which we really can't experience from the =3D
photograph -- some things look so snazzy in photos and others not so =3D
photogenic, -- is successful for you because it confirms something other =
=3D
than the artist intended, that's prejudice and preconception. You are =3D
judging her by your rules.=3D20
Nothing wrong with having rules. I saw recently that Albert Einstein =3D
said "You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play =
=3D
better than anyone else.=3D94
> I guess I just don't understand how form, formalism, or observed =3D
formal
> qualities, or the attachment of importance to same, leads to any =3D
limitations
> whatsoever, and I do not see how they can possibly operate to cause or
> reinforce "preconceptions about what something looks like". =3D
Impressionism
> was about saying that it was OK to paint what you felt, the impression =
=3D
a
> sight left upon your mind, rather than precisely what you see. It was =
=3D
an
> argument against the primacy of mimesis, not against form.
It's folly to denounce intellectualism and then attribute the success of =
=3D
a new form to "an argument against the primacy of mimesis."
There was a moment in my experience when modern art, previously closed =3D
to my vision, appreciation and understanding, surrounded me and invited =3D
me in. Jackson Pollock on the stairwell at the Iverson Museum, thank =3D
you. It had taken a semester or two of the good Professor, Norman Daly's =
=3D
teachings, but I allowed myself to take in what I had no vocabulary for, =
=3D
not like the representational stuff I had steeped in for years, and it =3D
was good. It was a magnetic leap.=3D20
> The argument that an artform is valid, or important, or good, or =3D
whatever
> term you wish, because it challenges our preconceptions of what =3D
constitutes
> art is a curious one, and one that I personally utterly dismiss.
Who said what?
> Let's
> tweak it a bit and see what happens.=3D20
[...]
> Does any of this change if the restaurant
> hides a bite of filet mignon underneath?
The Rules Are No Game. When I look at something new there's that =3D
combination of wonderment and where does this fit into what I know? It's =
=3D
very difficult to experience something fresh if it's seen as a game.=3D20
Is it necessary for it to be bad to be innovative? Lots of good things =3D
are new and creative. A salad of pine leaves and escargot. A soup of =3D
stone. An artisan-made glass of wine.=3D20
> Just making a point does not make art, especially if the point is a =3D
banal or
> jejune one. Perhaps it's just a "gallant gallstone".
>=3D20
> Just my opinion. And since I just expressed a point of view, the =3D
above is
> art. I'm challenging your preconceptions about preconceptions. :-)
> <---- (that's a smiley face)
If we all stayed in one place all the time, point of view would be more =3D
valid.=3D20
Kathy
aaron cortelyou on thu 13 may 10
This is the kind of stuff my friends and I have come to refer to as
avant-tarde. I personally absolutely love conceptual art but am sick
and tired of "deskilling". It's old, uninteresting and absolutely no
longer creates any kind of dialogue between the viewer and the object.
I'm constantly confused at how these people get shows, still!
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Kathy Forer wrote:
> On May 11, 2010, at 6:56 AM, James Freeman wrote:
>
>> Kathi, Lori...
>
>> I believe this piece is a perfect exemplar of the genre, and
>> speaks volumes. =3DA0Perhaps not about what the artist and gallery owner=
c=3D
laim,
>> but it does speak in a loud and forceful voice.
>
> But how well does it fulfill its stated intention? Wasn't intentionalism =
=3D
dead, slain in the seventies or was it eighties?
>
> And if her intent was to make us consider that her work was long-conceive=
=3D
d and arranged, how successful was that?
>
> If you're saying this piece, which we really can't experience from the ph=
=3D
otograph -- some things look so snazzy in photos and others not so photogen=
=3D
ic, -- is successful for you because it confirms something other than the a=
=3D
rtist intended, that's prejudice and preconception. You are judging her by =
=3D
your rules.
>
> Nothing wrong with having rules. I saw recently that Albert Einstein said=
=3D
"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better=
=3D
than anyone else.=3D94
>
>> I guess I just don't understand how form, formalism, or observed formal
>> qualities, or the attachment of importance to same, leads to any limitat=
=3D
ions
>> whatsoever, and I do not see how they can possibly operate to cause or
>> reinforce "preconceptions about what something looks like". =3DA0Impress=
io=3D
nism
>> was about saying that it was OK to paint what you felt, the impression a
>> sight left upon your mind, rather than precisely what you see. =3DA0It w=
as=3D
an
>> argument against the primacy of mimesis, not against form.
>
> It's folly to denounce intellectualism and then attribute the success of =
=3D
a new form to "an argument against the primacy of mimesis."
>
> There was a moment in my experience when modern art, previously closed to=
=3D
my vision, appreciation and understanding, surrounded me and invited me in=
=3D
. Jackson Pollock on the stairwell at the Iverson Museum, thank you. It had=
=3D
taken a semester or two of the good Professor, Norman Daly's teachings, bu=
=3D
t I allowed myself to take in what I had no vocabulary for, not like the re=
=3D
presentational stuff I had steeped in for years, and it was good. It was a =
=3D
magnetic leap.
>
>> The argument that an artform is valid, or important, or good, or whateve=
=3D
r
>> term you wish, because it challenges our preconceptions of what constitu=
=3D
tes
>> art is a curious one, and one that I personally utterly dismiss.
>
> Who said what?
>
>> =3DA0Let's
>> tweak it a bit and see what happens.
> [...]
>> Does any of this change if the restaurant
>> hides a bite of filet mignon underneath?
>
> The Rules Are No Game. When I look at something new there's that combinat=
=3D
ion of wonderment and where does this fit into what I know? It's very diffi=
=3D
cult to experience something fresh if it's seen as a game.
>
> Is it necessary for it to be bad to be innovative? Lots of good things ar=
=3D
e new and creative. A salad of pine leaves and escargot. A soup of stone. A=
=3D
n artisan-made glass of wine.
>
>> Just making a point does not make art, especially if the point is a bana=
=3D
l or
>> jejune one. =3DA0Perhaps it's just a "gallant gallstone".
>>
>> Just my opinion. =3DA0And since I just expressed a point of view, the ab=
ov=3D
e is
>> art. =3DA0I'm challenging your preconceptions about preconceptions. =3DA=
0:-)
>> <---- (that's a smiley face)
>
> If we all stayed in one place all the time, point of view would be more v=
=3D
alid.
>
>
> Kathy
>
| |
|
