Rimas VisGirda on thu 5 may 11
Hi James, since you mentioned them the other day, it reminded me that I hav=
e a couple of Arneson bricks as well as one facsimile. The facsimile and on=
e are wood-fired, the other is terra-cotta. They are of course "ceramic" -n=
o Martha Stewart paint on them, so they could be shown in Ceramics Monthly.=
They are well crafted, or seem so to me. Whether they are art or not art c=
an be left alone. But I wonder what you would think of their authenticity i=
f you knew that most, if not all, of Arneson's bricks were press molded by =
his assistant, George Grant? I haven't checked yet, but the signature on th=
e bottom might also have been crafted by George... So my question, to mysel=
f, becomes -do I own Bob Arneson's craft/art work, although he never touche=
d it with his hands? Or do I own, the manifestation of, his idea? In realit=
y, although once again I haven't checked, Arneson most likely said "George,=
make me X amount of bricks today," so those might be considered
"real" as they were crafted (or is the word manufactured?) under his autho=
rity, and what does that infer about their authenticity... So much to ponde=
r, so little time... -Rimas
James Freeman on thu 5 may 11
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Rimas VisGirda wrote:
Hi James, since you mentioned them the other day, it reminded me that I hav=
e
a couple of Arneson bricks as well as one facsimile. The facsimile and one
are wood-fired, the other is terra-cotta. They are of course "ceramic" -no
Martha Stewart paint on them, so they could be shown in Ceramics Monthly.
They are well crafted, or seem so to me. Whether they are art or not art ca=
n
be left alone. But I wonder what you would think of their authenticity if
you knew that most, if not all, of Arneson's bricks were press molded by hi=
s
assistant, George Grant?
...snip...
So my question, to myself, becomes -do I own Bob Arneson's craft/art work,
although he never touched it with his hands? Or do I own, the manifestation
of, his idea? In reality, although once again I haven't checked, Arneson
most likely said "George, make me X amount of bricks today,"
Rimas...
That question has, of course, been asked for hundreds of years in the field
of the visual arts, and even longer in the field of literature. Why are th=
e
Old Masters considered Old Masters when they may have been painted almost
entirely, save for a few brush strokes, by an assistant? In the ceramic
arts, most of what is attributed to Bernard Palissy was likely not made by
him at all, and we don't even have to delve into why a Hamada pot is
Hamada's. In current times, most of the major "blue chip" artists don't
make anything at all, and many steal, um, sorry, "appropriate" their ideas
from others (Lichtenstein copying comic strip panels verbatim, Warhol,
Shepard Fairy, Richard Prince abstracting or embellishing commercial photos=
,
Damien Hirst copying pre-extant works and simply ignoring the originals,
Jeff Koons ordering reproductions of balloon dogs from a foundry, Tracy Emi=
n
ordering copies of neon go-go bar signs, Saint Ai of Weiwei ordering
sunflower seeds...).
Kant told us that art resides in the idea, not in the object. If he and
those who expanded and expounded on his work are correct (and legions of ar=
t
critics, historians, and professors tell us they are) then you own genuine,
in the flesh, real live Robert Arneson bricks, no question about it. Of
course, outside of the rarefied confines of the art world, you own
personalized bricks that Robert Arneson ordered with his name on them, just
like the personalized, well, pretty much everything on the planet, that one
can order from the Lillian Vernon catalog. (When I finish typing this, I am
going to order a set of Robert Arneson bath towels. If anyone else is
interested, perhaps we can go in together and get a quantity discount.).
Perhaps it's just the old financier in me coming to the fore, but my
unsolicited advice would be to help promote the current art paradigm,
thereby assuring the authenticity and concomitant monetary value of your
bricks!
I started pondering this topic; what is real, and from whence does the
monetary value of an artwork derive; many years ago after reading an
interesting and delightful book called Master Art Forger, by John Godley.
It is about Han Van Meegeren, a painter who painted Vermeers; not forged
copies of extant Vermeers, but rather original Vermeers that had not existe=
d
before. I found it fascinating that a painting could go from priceless to
valueless in the blink of an eye without any change whatsoever in the
physical object of the painting itself.
In the art world, for good or for bad, and for today at least, the hand tha=
t
made the object seems to matter not a whit. All that matters is the brand
name attached to the "art". Art is now completely commoditized and
merchandised, just like Louis Vuitton handbags or that $740,000 per bottle
vodka that comes packaged in a Russian Hummer.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"...outsider artists, caught in the bog of their own consciousness, too
preciously idiosyncratic to be taken seriously."
"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
Taylor Hendrix on thu 5 may 11
Excellent questions all, but I just want to know can the bricks hold
stuff down, fly through windows, or drop on unsuspecting toes?
Taylor, in Rockport TX
wirerabbit1 on Skype (-0600 UTC)
http://wirerabbit.blogspot.com
http://wirerabbitpots.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wirerabbit/
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Rimas VisGirda wrote:
> Hi James, since you mentioned them the other day, it reminded me that I h=
=3D
ave a couple of Arneson bricks as well as one facsimile. The facsimile and =
=3D
one are wood-fired, the other is terra-cotta. They are of course "ceramic" =
=3D
-no Martha Stewart paint on them, so they could be shown in Ceramics Monthl=
=3D
y. They are well crafted, or seem so to me. Whether they are art or not art=
=3D
can be left alone. But I wonder what you would think of their authenticity=
=3D
if you knew that most, if not all, of Arneson's bricks were press molded b=
=3D
y his assistant, George Grant? I haven't checked yet, but the signature on =
=3D
the bottom might also have been crafted by George... So my question, to mys=
=3D
elf, becomes -do I own Bob Arneson's craft/art work, although he never touc=
=3D
hed it with his hands? Or do I own, the manifestation of, his idea? In real=
=3D
ity, although once again I haven't checked, Arneson most likely said "Georg=
=3D
e, make me X amount of bricks today," so those might be considered
> =3DC2=3DA0"real" as they were crafted (or is the word manufactured?) unde=
r hi=3D
s authority, and what does that infer about their authenticity... So much t=
=3D
o ponder, so little time... -Rimas
>
Snail Scott on fri 6 may 11
On May 5, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Rimas VisGirda wrote:
> ... I wonder what you would think of their authenticity if you knew =3D
that most, if not all, of Arneson's bricks were press molded by his =3D
assistant, George Grant? I haven't checked yet, but the signature on the =
=3D
bottom might also have been crafted by George...
I used to be a foundry technician, making other people's=3D20
work 40 hours a week for a paycheck. They would bring=3D20
in the pattern, in some material or another, and we would=3D20
mold it, make a wax and dress that, gate it, invest it, burn=3D20
it out, cast it, knock it out, remove gates and clean the parts,=3D20
weld it back together, chase it and do patina. Often, we did=3D20
the signature as well, replicated from a file copy kept for=3D20
that purpose. Sometimes, we even did the art as well. An=3D20
artist (usually a well-heeled amateur) would bring in their=3D20
pattern and say, "I just don't like the way the face came out,=3D20
and there's something wrong with the left hand...could you=3D20
guys fix that up?" And we would. There was a standard =3D20
labor charge for every step: making the mold had a certain=3D20
hourly rate, chasing had another, dressing waxes had its=3D20
own rate, and so did 'making the art'. Skilled labor, making=3D20
art, and so billed at a higher rate than sandblasting or=3D20
knockout.=3D20
So, am I the artist for any of that stuff? I doubt anyone would=3D20
think so. I and my colleagues were hired help, even if we=3D20
did 95% of the work in hourly terms. Nowadays, we generally=3D20
accept the division of art and craft that we inherited from the=3D20
Renaissance, and consider the 'thinking it up' part to be the=3D20
definitive and intrinsic part of the process. The physical=3D20
execution might be essential to the existence of the artwork,=3D20
but needn't be the master's own hand. Whether done by=3D20
apprentices, studio assistants, contractors, or whomever, it's=3D20
seldom held to be a consideration in the proper attribution=3D20
of the work.=3D20
We can declare all we like that there is no distinction between=3D20
art and craft, but I doubt that any craft artist would be taken=3D20
seriously if the majority of the work was done by hired hands.=3D20
In craft, be it 'fine craft' or whatever, the execution is the=3D20
essence of the object.
__________________________________________
Final exam on 'Art and Craft in Contemporary Theory':
(45 minutes, no notes)
Interestingly, Jeff Koons' well-known life-size porcelain=3D20
'figurine' of Michael Jackson and Bubbles is not signed by=3D20
Koons; it is signed by the fabricator of the piece. Discuss.
50 points extra credit if any definitive conclusion can be=3D20
supported.=3D20
-Snail
Rimas VisGirda on fri 6 may 11
Hi James, the commercialization of art is nicely summarized in The Mona Lis=
a Curse by Robt Hughes. It's a multi-part piece on YouTube. I'd gotten up t=
o part 5 then got distracted... will get back to it next week now that I'm =
reminded. Here is part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DEbQ0GqX0Its&feature=3Dplayer_embedded
-Rimas
Rimas VisGirda on sat 7 may 11
Another Arneson story... During the mid 80's Arneson had a major retrospect=
ive originate at the Des Moines Art Center. I was teaching at Drake Univers=
ity at the time and took part in helping install the exhibition. Major work=
arrived from all over the world and I was given charge of installing "Frag=
mants of Western Civilization", 1972. It came from its owner in Australia i=
n a huge crate, about 7h x 8w x 3d ft. When the front panel was removed the=
re was a central section that flopped down to provide a ramp for the main p=
iece to wheel out. There were numerous foam lined drawers that contained in=
dividual bricks and brick multiples. Some drawers contained rubble and ther=
e was included a 50# sack of Redart. I was given a copy of the catalog to a=
ssemble the piece... As we started to assemble, nothing seemed to be workin=
g out, the piece appeared different from what was in the catalog. On closer=
inspection, the catalog picture had been printed backwards! Those
were the days before digital photography and the transparency, most probab=
ly a 4x5 or 8x10 had been exposed on the wrong side by the printer... A sid=
e note that most people don't know about is that Bob made a "special" brick=
for each venue that had the name of the venue stamped in it, in our case "=
Des Moines" which came by mail from California in time for the installation=
(probably made by George). I found a picture on flickr, you can see it her=
e:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laah853/5169643656/in/photostream
It is the "correct" view of the piece. I had a hard time finding the pictur=
e, maybe because most of them are the "incorrect" view from the catalog and=
have been removed? You can read some details of the piece here:
http://artsearch.nga.gov.au/Detail.cfm?IRN=3D116224&PICTAUS=3DTRUE
Regarding his bricks, I had an opportunity to curate an Arneson show for th=
e Rochester Art Center, I chose bricks as the theme... it was nice to see w=
hat a clever, tongue in cheek, person could accomplish with such a simple o=
bject... That's all, -Rimas
| |
|
