James Freeman on mon 29 aug 11
The Australia arts council gave a grant of $20,000, taken from taxpayers, t=
o
an "artist". He took the check to the bank, and cashed it for two $10,000
bundles of $100 bills. These two bundles, entitled "Currency", are now art=
,
and will soon be auctioned at the Deutscher and Hackett auction house. The
reserve price for the auction is only $15,000 (which of course is the "art"
part of the deal).
The arts council defended the grant, saying it is " a provocative and
challenging work", and that "it dared the market to reveal how it valued ar=
t
and artists." Really.
Now, if the great artist had accepted the grant and just stuck the money in
his pocket and ran, it would be theft, plain and simple. Instead, he
"sells" that particular pile of cash, trading it for a different pile of
cash. Since he only sticks the new pile of cash in his pocket rather than
the original granted pile, this is somehow now not a theft nor money
laundering. An amazing act of legerdemain! Never mind the legal
fungibility of cash (at least here in the colonies). Also curious as to wh=
y
the tax payers are just bending over and taking this, but perhaps they are
much more enlightened than I.
In any case, details are here, if you care:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/in-cash-up-for-auction-in-the-na=
me-of-art/story-fn7x8me2-1226124865368
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
James Freeman on tue 30 aug 11
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 7:46 AM, paul gerhold wro=
te:
The way I read the article is that the $20000 art pile ia going to be
auctioned with a reserve price of $15000 Making the initial value of the ar=
t
involved minus $5000.
Hopefully you will keep us posted as to the final outcome.
Paul...
Assuming a 10% buyers' premium, any bid over $18,182 would indicate that th=
e
pile of cash has some value beyond it's intrinsic monetary value. The flaw
in this soi disant great artistic experiment is that while a bid above
$18,182 would indeed indicate some additional value beyond that printed on
it's face, it in no way implies, as the grantor suggests, that this
additional value is due to artistic merit or content. Especially
considering that the object in question is nothing more than fungible
currency which anyone could obtain, the more reasonable assumption is that
the premium purchaser was attempting to buy status, as when Steve Cohen pai=
d
$8 million for a generic (and indeed replacement) stuffed fish in
formaldehyde, or is simply a rich guy trying to be funny or decadent. If
someone drank enough Kool-Ade to really believe that the pile of cash was a=
n
art object in and of itself, then he could get his own from the bank for
$20,000, and would have absolutely no reason to pay a cent over this
amount. Indeed, the experiment, regardless of outcome, will prove nothing
at all about art.
As an aside, the experiment is not even terribly original. My grandfather,
after a lifetime of struggle and hard work, finally achieved a measure of
financial success, which he shared freely. My mother did not like him
giving we kids money, believing that it would spoil us. One day he gave us
each a penny. He then reached in his pocket and pulled out some nickles.
Saying that he really wanted his pennies back, he asked if any of us would
be willing to sell him their penny for a nickle. We then sold him our
nickle for a dime, our dime for a quarter, and finally our quarter for a
dollar. When we paraded into the kitchen with our crisp, new dollar bills,
my mother said to my grandfather, "You know I don't like you giving them
money", to which he replied, "All I gave them was a penny. The rest was
business."
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
Lee on tue 30 aug 11
>
> On Monday, August 29, 2011, James Freeman
> wrote:
>> The Australia arts council gave a grant of $20,000, taken from taxpayers=
=3D
,
> to
>> an "artist". =3DA0He took the check to the bank, and cashed it for two $=
10=3D
,000
>> bundles of $100 bills. =3DA0These two bundles, entitled "Currency", are =
no=3D
w
On Wall Street, this is business as usual, except the money
they steal is only taxed at half the rate of work from the sweat of
the brow.
--
=3DA0Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3DA0"Ta tIr na n-=3DF3g ar chul an tI=3D97tIr dlainn trina ch=3DE9ile"=3D9=
7that is, =3D
"The
land of eternal youth is behind the house, a beautiful land fluent
within itself." -- John O'Donohue
paul gerhold on tue 30 aug 11
The way I read the article is that the $20000 art pile ia going to be
auctioned with a reserve price of $15000 Making the initial value of the ar=
t
involved minus $5000.
Hopefully you will keep us posted as to the final outcome.
Paul
On Monday, August 29, 2011, James Freeman
wrote:
> The Australia arts council gave a grant of $20,000, taken from taxpayers,
to
> an "artist". He took the check to the bank, and cashed it for two $10,00=
0
> bundles of $100 bills. These two bundles, entitled "Currency", are now
art,
> and will soon be auctioned at the Deutscher and Hackett auction house.
The
> reserve price for the auction is only $15,000 (which of course is the
"art"
> part of the deal).
>
> The arts council defended the grant, saying it is " a provocative and
> challenging work", and that "it dared the market to reveal how it valued
art
> and artists." Really.
>
> Now, if the great artist had accepted the grant and just stuck the money
in
> his pocket and ran, it would be theft, plain and simple. Instead, he
> "sells" that particular pile of cash, trading it for a different pile of
> cash. Since he only sticks the new pile of cash in his pocket rather tha=
n
> the original granted pile, this is somehow now not a theft nor money
> laundering. An amazing act of legerdemain! Never mind the legal
> fungibility of cash (at least here in the colonies). Also curious as to
why
> the tax payers are just bending over and taking this, but perhaps they ar=
e
> much more enlightened than I.
>
> In any case, details are here, if you care:
>
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/in-cash-up-for-auction-in-the-na=
me-of-art/story-fn7x8me2-1226124865368
>
> 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 shoul=
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
>
Steve Mills on tue 30 aug 11
A man after my own heart!!
Steve Mills
Bath
UK
www.mudslinger.me.uk
Sent from my Ipod touch
On 30 Aug 2011, at 15:38, James Freeman wrot=
e:
>
>
> my mother said to my grandfather, "You know I don't like you giving them
> money", to which he replied, "All I gave them was a penny. The rest was
> business."
>
> 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 shoul=
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
pdp1 on tue 30 aug 11
Or..."It sart!"
I bought a 1928 series $5.00 Bill one time, at an Antique Store, for $2.00,
because the seller thought it had seen a lot of use and was mostly worn out=
.
While not directly related to this saga, it none the less shows how
vagueries and naivete, especially when combined, can occasion unusual
events.
$20,000.00 in Cash, being Auctioned with a starting Bid of $15,000.00, seem=
s
perfectly reasonable to me, since ostensibly, it leaves room for some
initial excitement and bidding action...Lol...
What shall happen once it approaches or reaches the $20,000.00 mark, is
where it will become interesting I think.
Plus, the purchaser - depending on their status - can maybe deduct the
purchase from their income or other taxes, since it is an 'investment' in
'Art'...or put it on a depreciation schedule, depending on the use they hav=
e
in mind for it.
While...Auction Houses often have buyer's Premiums, too...( fees, sometimes
very VERY heavy fees, added to the closing price, which favor the House and
are to be paid by the purchaser)...
So, in some situations, $20,000.00 in Cash, being auctioned, m-i-g-h-t only
close for 15 or so, if that much, if the prospective purchasers are taking
into account the various expenses and fees and liabilities to them
financially, of winning the Auction, balanced against the various
prospective gains ( if any ).
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Freeman"
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 7:46 AM, paul gerhold
> wrote:
> The way I read the article is that the $20000 art pile ia going to be
> auctioned with a reserve price of $15000 Making the initial value of the
> art
> involved minus $5000.
>
> Hopefully you will keep us posted as to the final outcome.
>
>
>
>
> Paul...
>
> Assuming a 10% buyers' premium, any bid over $18,182 would indicate that
> the
> pile of cash has some value beyond it's intrinsic monetary value. The
> flaw
> in this soi disant great artistic experiment is that while a bid above
> $18,182 would indeed indicate some additional value beyond that printed o=
n
> it's face, it in no way implies, as the grantor suggests, that this
> additional value is due to artistic merit or content. Especially
> considering that the object in question is nothing more than fungible
> currency which anyone could obtain, the more reasonable assumption is tha=
t
> the premium purchaser was attempting to buy status, as when Steve Cohen
> paid
> $8 million for a generic (and indeed replacement) stuffed fish in
> formaldehyde, or is simply a rich guy trying to be funny or decadent. If
> someone drank enough Kool-Ade to really believe that the pile of cash was
> an
> art object in and of itself, then he could get his own from the bank for
> $20,000, and would have absolutely no reason to pay a cent over this
> amount. Indeed, the experiment, regardless of outcome, will prove nothin=
g
> at all about art.
>
> As an aside, the experiment is not even terribly original. My
> grandfather,
> after a lifetime of struggle and hard work, finally achieved a measure of
> financial success, which he shared freely. My mother did not like him
> giving we kids money, believing that it would spoil us. One day he gave
> us
> each a penny. He then reached in his pocket and pulled out some nickles.
> Saying that he really wanted his pennies back, he asked if any of us woul=
d
> be willing to sell him their penny for a nickle. We then sold him our
> nickle for a dime, our dime for a quarter, and finally our quarter for a
> dollar. When we paraded into the kitchen with our crisp, new dollar
> bills,
> my mother said to my grandfather, "You know I don't like you giving them
> money", to which he replied, "All I gave them was a penny. The rest was
> business."
>
> 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 shoul=
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
Randall Moody on wed 31 aug 11
Lee,
You seem to be saying that either art is nothing more than capitalism or
that this piece of "art" can be excused since Wall Street does it too. So
which is it? Are we to look at art as nothing more than capitalism or are w=
=3D
e
to excuse away negative behavior by comparing it to other negative behavior=
=3D
?
Personally, I gave up the "Well, they are doing it too!", excuse when I got
out of elementary school.
Also, it must be pointed out that "they" don't "steal" the money and they
pay the amount of tax as required by law or face penalties just the same as
you or I do.
Now off to the studio to beat my head against some clay!
--=3D20
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Lee wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, August 29, 2011, James Freeman =3D
>
> > wrote:
> >> The Australia arts council gave a grant of $20,000, taken from
> taxpayers,
> > to
> >> an "artist". He took the check to the bank, and cashed it for two
> $10,000
> >> bundles of $100 bills. These two bundles, entitled "Currency", are no=
=3D
w
>
> On Wall Street, this is business as usual, except the money
> they steal is only taxed at half the rate of work from the sweat of
> the brow.
>
> --
> Lee Love in Minneapolis
> http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
>
> "Ta tIr na n-=3DF3g ar chul an tI=3D97tIr dlainn trina ch=3DE9ile"=3D97t=
hat is, =3D
"The
> land of eternal youth is behind the house, a beautiful land fluent
> within itself." -- John O'Donohue
>
--=3D20
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com
Steve Slatin on thu 8 sep 11
I was looking for some Lenore Tawney (fiber artist) on line, and
ran across this comment on Wikipedia. (I often quote Wikipedia
to my S.O., an academic, as it annoys her).
--Fiber artists face the same dilemma of all artists; determining "what is =
art?" More so with fiber arts, in that even if a particular potholder or do=
ily is pleasing aesthetically, does that make it art? Typically, pieces lik=
e potholders, which just follow patterns without doing anything more, are n=
ot considered works of fiber art. Fiber art works are works of art that com=
municate some sort of message, emotion or meaning and go beyond just the li=
teral meaning of the materials.--
What this shows is that there is a substantial basis for concluding that
the packs of money are, in fact art. While the irritation James Freeman ex=
presses here may not be a 'happy' reaction, it is certainly an emotional re=
sponse elicited by the artistic act. And it went far beyond the
range of emotional reaction that two packs of $10,000 each would have elici=
ted.
Quite a bit of modern art concerns itself with the question of just how muc=
h cash value inheres to the art itself. (This is kind of the main
theme to Damian Hurst's work, for example, or at least up there with death =
and disembowlment.) In a funny way, this piece determined just exactly how =
much the 'art' element is worth. The cash was worth X, the buyer paid X pl=
us so much, and the so much amount was the premium for the art.
And as we all know, one of the key pieces of success in art is being able t=
o raise a row over one's work. Soldner did this by taking his clothes off,=
long after anyone cared to have him shake it in public. Picasso did it by=
repeatedly reinventing his style, sometimes to significantly less interest=
ing and pleasant effect than he had previously obtained. Dali did it by ma=
intaining an absurd personal life.
And J.S. Boggs did it by addressing the fundamental question of "what is ar=
t vs. what is money" by drawing obviously non-authentic bills (which were m=
oney-like, and lovely) and trying to use them to buy things -- sometimes ge=
tting more, and sometimes less, than face value.
So the question then becomes "did the artist successfully raise a row
over his 'act of art'?"
Well, based on the comments James F. made, he certianly did. Not only
was it art, it was successful, and it raised a question (what's the premium=
for 'art') and answered it ($1350 or so).
Given that the vast majority of 'art' created doesn't bring in a
cent, I'm convinced we should learn from this man, and not condemn
him.
Steve Slatin --
N48.0886450
W123.1420482
--- On Thu, 9/8/11, James Freeman wrote:
>
James Freeman on thu 8 sep 11
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:46 PM, James Freeman <
jamesfreemanstudio@gmail.com> wrote:
The Australia arts council gave a grant of $20,000, taken from taxpayers, t=
o
an "artist". He took the check to the bank, and cashed it for two $10,000
bundles of $100 bills. These two bundles, entitled "Currency", are now art=
,
and will soon be auctioned at the Deutscher and Hackett auction house. The
reserve price for the auction is only $15,000 (which of course is the "art"
part of the deal).
The arts council defended the grant, saying it is " a provocative and
challenging work", and that "it dared the market to reveal how it valued ar=
t
and artists." Really.
Now, if the great artist had accepted the grant and just stuck the money in
his pocket and ran, it would be theft, plain and simple. Instead, he
"sells" that particular pile of cash, trading it for a different pile of
cash. Since he only sticks the new pile of cash in his pocket rather than
the original granted pile, this is somehow now not a theft nor money
laundering. An amazing act of legerdemain! Never mind the legal
fungibility of cash (at least here in the colonies). Also curious as to wh=
y
the tax payers are just bending over and taking this, but perhaps they are
much more enlightened than I.
So, the $20,000 of taxpayer money has been auctioned off, and as requested,
here are the results:
The $20,000 of taxpayer money was sold for a final hammer price of $17,500.
Thus, the "artist" took taxpayer money intended for the creation of art, an=
d
instead stuck $17,500 of it in his pocket. So is the buyer a co-conspirato=
r
in the crime? Nope. Seems the "artist" had agreed to a staggering 22%
buyers premium for the auction house (It's typically 10% for "art"
auctions). The buyer was thus out a total of $21,350 when all was said and
done. He paid $1350 for fun, or status, or to prove that he is a gullible
fool, or some other reason known only to him. The auction house who fenced
the misappropriated money walked away with a $3850 cut for their not small
part in the crime.
Winners and losers?
Winner: The "artist", who has $17,500 of taxpayer money in his pocket free
and clear, for doing nothing other than making a trip to the bank to cash a
check.
Winner: The auction house who received $3850 for their role as fence, less
what they paid to the security firm for guarding the pile as it sat in the
gallery.
Winner: The security firm, who was paid for guarding a pile of cash
foolishly left out in the open, when it could have simply been kept in a
safe for nothing.
Loser: The buyer, who is out $1350 for the privilege of looking like a
complete fool should his name be released. Can't really display a pile of
cash in one's home, can one?
Loser: The Australian taxpayers, who gave away $20,000 earmarked for the
creation of a piece of art to better the community, and instead have
nothing.
It is staggering to me that neither the "artist" nor the auction house are
being brought up on charges of theft or conversion or money laundering. It
also amazes me that the gentleman in charge of passing out the taxpayers'
grant money has not been dragged from his citadel by an angry mob and and
tarred-and-feathered. Were I the prosecutor, I would also investigate his
finances to determine whether he received a kickback from the "artist" or
the auction house for his part in the scheme.
The real "money quote" is "Asked what kind of message was being sent by the
price that was paid for the work, [the artist] said: "It's one of those
things where money means different things to different people." Duh. The
Australian people could have learned that valuable lesson for a lot less
than $20,000.
Just so you don't think I am making this crap up, here is a link to the
article:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/cash-artwork-sells-for-21350/stor=
y-fn9d3avm-1226126777761
As my kid would say, "Lol-ol-ol-ol-ol..."!
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
Randall Moody on thu 8 sep 11
I am of the opinion that money laundering under the name of art is still
money laundering. The buyer and auction house are involved in this in the
same way that a pawn shop owner or buyer would be involved in selling and
receiving stolen merchandise. I am not sure about how this would be handled
in Australian courts. I know that it would involve robes and funny wigs. :)
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com
Dannon Rhudy on thu 8 sep 11
I dunno, James. A pretty clever scheme, no? After all, taxpayer
money is there for the taking, and there's nothing as easy as
spending OPM. Just ask any government......
There'd never be a conviction of anyone in this particular scheme.
Firstly, no one probably has "standing" to bring suit. Secondly,
bringing such a suit would undoubtedly cost more than the original
scheme. Arguments would go round and round about what constitutes
"art", and surely we know from past endless discussions here that
"art" is anything that an "artist" says it is. One would lose on
the face of it.
I like the stance you've taken, but tilting at this windmill is
going to use up energy to no purpose. Go into your studio and
make stuff....
regards
Dannon Rhudy
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:46 PM, James Freeman <
jamesfreemanstudio@gmail.com> wrote:
The Australia arts council gave a grant of $20,000, taken from taxpayers, t=
o
an "artist". He took the check to the bank, and cashed it for two $10,000
bundles of $100 bills. These two bundles, entitled "Currency", are now art=
,
and will soon be auctioned at the Deutscher and Hackett auction house. The
reserve price for the auction is only $15,000 (which of course is the "art"
part of the deal).
The arts council defended the grant, saying it is " a provocative and
challenging work", and that "it dared the market to reveal how it valued ar=
t
and artists." Really.
Now, if the great artist had accepted the grant and just stuck the money in
his pocket and ran, it would be theft, plain and simple.....
Carl Cravens on thu 8 sep 11
Wait, this wasn't even creatively arranged bags of small bills or any kind =
of attempt to make it *look* artistic? Setting aside the idiocy of using c=
ash money as an artistic medium, two packs of large bills neatly stacked is=
n't art any more than a couple bags of clay laying on the table. You have =
to do more than store your raw materials before you get to call it "art". =
I can be pretty open about what we call art, but "art" simply doesn't happe=
n without "sweat."
Now this is interesting. The summary details from the Council website...
Beaubois, Denis | Visual Arts Board | New Work Established | Create a serie=
s of video performances on the theme of currency and work | $20,000.00 | 05=
-JUL-2010
His grant application was for the creation of *video performances*. How di=
d a video performance turn into a pile of cash? Is he really not finished.=
.. are there cameras rolling, capturing reactions, getting outraged intervi=
ews, etc? Is the "artwork" just a ruse to create a candid-camera situation=
?
--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net)
A man about to speak the truth should keep one foot in the stirrup.
James Freeman on fri 9 sep 11
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:29 PM, wrote:
I was once told, by a gallery owner, that the difference between "art" and
"craft" were the number of zeros in the price.
Couldn't agree more, Lennie! Here is something I posted to the list severa=
l
years ago:
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Ric, et al...
I have always maintained that the difference between art and craft boils
down to zeroes. If your pot is $30, it is "craft". If it is $300, it is
"fine craft". $3000, it is "art". $30,000, it is "fine art".
If it's a painting, it is automatically "art", unless of course you can
recognize what it is a painting of, in which case it is "kitsch", unless yo=
u
are one of the one or two figurative painters the art establishment
tolerates, in which case you are back to art.
If it is a sculpture, it is automatically "art", but bronze trumps stone,
stone trumps steel, steel trumps wood, and everything trumps clay. A
sculpture of nothing trumps a sculpture of something, and a sculpture of
something ugly or tortured trumps a sculpture of something beautiful.
If you glue or weld your junk together into something recognizable like an
animal or a robot, then it is automatically "kitsch", unless you are Debora=
h
Butterfield. If it is unrecognizable then it is automatically "art", unless
you are a child, in which case it is "cute".
There, I've settled the dispute once and for all! If there are any
questions, I will be holding office hours after class. This will be on the
exam.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
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
Lenny Dowhie on fri 9 sep 11
I was once told, by a gallery owner, that the difference between "art" and
"craft" were the number of zeros in the price.
Enjoy
Lenny Dowhie
In a message dated 9/9/2011 6:34:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
jamesfreemanstudio@GMAIL.COM writes:
Steve...
My "irritation" was not raised by the "art" at all. Thus, since you seem
to
allow that my having or not having a reaction is the arbiter of the
artistic
merit of this particular piece, it has plainly failed completely, so is no
art.
I have no problem with stupid art, and enjoy laughing at it and it's
admirers all the time. My problem with this particular piece is that the
"art" was just a theft of taxpayer money, even if not originally intended
as
such. If otherwise, the "artist" would have returned the $17,500 to the
taxpayers after performing his wonderful piece. Since the supposed "art"
was determining what value art has over and above that of it's raw
materials, all he needed was a loan of the $20,000. Why did he keep the
money?
The second flaw in your line of reasoning is that though there was
ultimately a premium paid for the cash, you have absolutely no way of
knowing why the buyer did so. Your assumption that the premium was paid
for
the artistic merit is completely without basis. I offered several possibl=
e
reasons for such an action. The most likely reason is that the buyer was =
a
shill, a part of the great experiment, with his premium refunded to him ou=
t
of the $17,500 cut the artist kept from the misappropriated $20,000.
The third flaw is in your assumption that creating a row automatically
defines something as art. There is no possible basis for this statement.
Some art creates a row, some does not. Some things that create a row are
art, some are not. I, myself, have created many a row, and I assure you
that none were art.
The fourth flaw is in claiming that my reaction to the piece constituted a
row. Again, my reaction was not to the piece at all, but rather only to
the
underlying crime and to the failure of the prosecutor to see it. Even if
my
reaction were to the piece itself, it would still not support your
contention. If the purpose of the piece was to elicit thought about the
inherent value of art, then a reaction, mine or otherwise, to the simple
theft of taxpayer money rather than to anything surrounding the actual
piece, would constitute a failure of the piece, not a success.
Though I think everyone else understood my position, here is an analogy to
the piece and to my reaction to it, just to make it more clear: You walk
into Walmart, grab a bundle of cash, a package of diapers, and a goldfish,
and dash out of the store without paying. You stand in front of the store
and proceed to juggle the purloined objects, a performance piece which you
believe will convey a message about the evils of consumerism. When the
nice
policeman arrests you, his reaction is not to your juggling act. It is to
the act of theft which occurred ancillary to your juggling act to which he
is reacting. Thus, your arrest makes no comment whatsoever, pro or con,
about your art. Clue: I'm the policeman in this story.
I think that an experiment designed to determine the value of the artistic
content of an object would be fascinating, and a worthwhile endeavor. The
piece in question, however, did not, and could not answer this question.
It
was an ill-designed experiment, with too many variables and no controls.
It
was an act of ego, and nothing more.
If you had merely expressed a contrary opinion and defended the piece, I
would not have responded, as you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
However, trying to ascribe thoughts and deeds to me which were never mine,
then claiming that your invented thoughts and deeds constitute proof that =
I
was ignorant, is just plain silliness. I know that you are intelligent
enough to know precisely what you attempted to do. I am profoundly
disappointed, however, that you think me so ignorant as to not be able to
see right through the simple tricks.
Enjoy your day.
...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 Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Steve Slatin
wrote:
> I was looking for some Lenore Tawney (fiber artist) on line, and
> ran across this comment on Wikipedia. (I often quote Wikipedia
> to my S.O., an academic, as it annoys her).
>
> --Fiber artists face the same dilemma of all artists; determining "what
is
> art?" More so with fiber arts, in that even if a particular potholder or
> doily is pleasing aesthetically, does that make it art? Typically, piece=
s
> like potholders, which just follow patterns without doing anything more,
are
> not considered works of fiber art. Fiber art works are works of art that
> communicate some sort of message, emotion or meaning and go beyond just
the
> literal meaning of the materials.--
>
> What this shows is that there is a substantial basis for concluding that
> the packs of money are, in fact art. While the irritation James Freeman
> expresses here may not be a 'happy' reaction, it is certainly an
emotional
> response elicited by the artistic act. And it went far beyond the
> range of emotional reaction that two packs of $10,000 each would have
> elicited.
>
> Quite a bit of modern art concerns itself with the question of just how
> much cash value inheres to the art itself. (This is kind of the main
> theme to Damian Hurst's work, for example, or at least up there with
death
> and disembowlment.) In a funny way, this piece determined just exactly
how
> much the 'art' element is worth. The cash was worth X, the buyer paid X
> plus so much, and the so much amount was the premium for the art.
>
> And as we all know, one of the key pieces of success in art is being abl=
e
> to raise a row over one's work. Soldner did this by taking his clothes
off,
> long after anyone cared to have him shake it in public. Picasso did it
by
> repeatedly reinventing his style, sometimes to significantly less
> interesting and pleasant effect than he had previously obtained. Dali
did
> it by maintaining an absurd personal life.
>
> And J.S. Boggs did it by addressing the fundamental question of "what is
> art vs. what is money" by drawing obviously non-authentic bills (which
were
> money-like, and lovely) and trying to use them to buy things -- sometime=
s
> getting more, and sometimes less, than face value.
>
> So the question then becomes "did the artist successfully raise a row
> over his 'act of art'?"
>
> Well, based on the comments James F. made, he certianly did. Not only
> was it art, it was successful, and it raised a question (what's the
premium
> for 'art') and answered it ($1350 or so).
>
> Given that the vast majority of 'art' created doesn't bring in a
> cent, I'm convinced we should learn from this man, and not condemn
> him.
>
> Steve Slatin --
>
> N48.0886450
> W123.1420482
>
>
> --- On Thu, 9/8/11, James Freeman wrote:
> >
>
Taylor Hendrix on fri 9 sep 11
Steve, ol' boy, you've sparked an interesting notion with your
comment: depending on the specific emotional response, the money
transforms into art or lucre. Funny that those simple stacks of bills
started all this as a roll of paper and a statutory obligation of a
free society...oh yes and as governmental largess (or was that
incompetence?).
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, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Steve Slatin wrot=
=3D
e:
...
> What this shows is that there is a substantial basis for concluding that
> the packs of money are, in fact art. =3DC2=3DA0While the irritation James=
Fre=3D
eman expresses here may not be a 'happy' reaction, it is certainly an emoti=
=3D
onal response elicited by the artistic act. =3DC2=3DA0And it went far beyon=
d th=3D
e
> range of emotional reaction that two packs of $10,000 each would have eli=
=3D
cited.
...
James Freeman on fri 9 sep 11
Steve...
My "irritation" was not raised by the "art" at all. Thus, since you seem t=
o
allow that my having or not having a reaction is the arbiter of the artisti=
c
merit of this particular piece, it has plainly failed completely, so is no
art.
I have no problem with stupid art, and enjoy laughing at it and it's
admirers all the time. My problem with this particular piece is that the
"art" was just a theft of taxpayer money, even if not originally intended a=
s
such. If otherwise, the "artist" would have returned the $17,500 to the
taxpayers after performing his wonderful piece. Since the supposed "art"
was determining what value art has over and above that of it's raw
materials, all he needed was a loan of the $20,000. Why did he keep the
money?
The second flaw in your line of reasoning is that though there was
ultimately a premium paid for the cash, you have absolutely no way of
knowing why the buyer did so. Your assumption that the premium was paid fo=
r
the artistic merit is completely without basis. I offered several possible
reasons for such an action. The most likely reason is that the buyer was a
shill, a part of the great experiment, with his premium refunded to him out
of the $17,500 cut the artist kept from the misappropriated $20,000.
The third flaw is in your assumption that creating a row automatically
defines something as art. There is no possible basis for this statement.
Some art creates a row, some does not. Some things that create a row are
art, some are not. I, myself, have created many a row, and I assure you
that none were art.
The fourth flaw is in claiming that my reaction to the piece constituted a
row. Again, my reaction was not to the piece at all, but rather only to th=
e
underlying crime and to the failure of the prosecutor to see it. Even if m=
y
reaction were to the piece itself, it would still not support your
contention. If the purpose of the piece was to elicit thought about the
inherent value of art, then a reaction, mine or otherwise, to the simple
theft of taxpayer money rather than to anything surrounding the actual
piece, would constitute a failure of the piece, not a success.
Though I think everyone else understood my position, here is an analogy to
the piece and to my reaction to it, just to make it more clear: You walk
into Walmart, grab a bundle of cash, a package of diapers, and a goldfish,
and dash out of the store without paying. You stand in front of the store
and proceed to juggle the purloined objects, a performance piece which you
believe will convey a message about the evils of consumerism. When the nic=
e
policeman arrests you, his reaction is not to your juggling act. It is to
the act of theft which occurred ancillary to your juggling act to which he
is reacting. Thus, your arrest makes no comment whatsoever, pro or con,
about your art. Clue: I'm the policeman in this story.
I think that an experiment designed to determine the value of the artistic
content of an object would be fascinating, and a worthwhile endeavor. The
piece in question, however, did not, and could not answer this question. I=
t
was an ill-designed experiment, with too many variables and no controls. I=
t
was an act of ego, and nothing more.
If you had merely expressed a contrary opinion and defended the piece, I
would not have responded, as you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
However, trying to ascribe thoughts and deeds to me which were never mine,
then claiming that your invented thoughts and deeds constitute proof that I
was ignorant, is just plain silliness. I know that you are intelligent
enough to know precisely what you attempted to do. I am profoundly
disappointed, however, that you think me so ignorant as to not be able to
see right through the simple tricks.
Enjoy your day.
...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 Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Steve Slatin wrote=
:
> I was looking for some Lenore Tawney (fiber artist) on line, and
> ran across this comment on Wikipedia. (I often quote Wikipedia
> to my S.O., an academic, as it annoys her).
>
> --Fiber artists face the same dilemma of all artists; determining "what i=
s
> art?" More so with fiber arts, in that even if a particular potholder or
> doily is pleasing aesthetically, does that make it art? Typically, pieces
> like potholders, which just follow patterns without doing anything more, =
are
> not considered works of fiber art. Fiber art works are works of art that
> communicate some sort of message, emotion or meaning and go beyond just t=
he
> literal meaning of the materials.--
>
> What this shows is that there is a substantial basis for concluding that
> the packs of money are, in fact art. While the irritation James Freeman
> expresses here may not be a 'happy' reaction, it is certainly an emotiona=
l
> response elicited by the artistic act. And it went far beyond the
> range of emotional reaction that two packs of $10,000 each would have
> elicited.
>
> Quite a bit of modern art concerns itself with the question of just how
> much cash value inheres to the art itself. (This is kind of the main
> theme to Damian Hurst's work, for example, or at least up there with deat=
h
> and disembowlment.) In a funny way, this piece determined just exactly ho=
w
> much the 'art' element is worth. The cash was worth X, the buyer paid X
> plus so much, and the so much amount was the premium for the art.
>
> And as we all know, one of the key pieces of success in art is being able
> to raise a row over one's work. Soldner did this by taking his clothes o=
ff,
> long after anyone cared to have him shake it in public. Picasso did it b=
y
> repeatedly reinventing his style, sometimes to significantly less
> interesting and pleasant effect than he had previously obtained. Dali di=
d
> it by maintaining an absurd personal life.
>
> And J.S. Boggs did it by addressing the fundamental question of "what is
> art vs. what is money" by drawing obviously non-authentic bills (which we=
re
> money-like, and lovely) and trying to use them to buy things -- sometimes
> getting more, and sometimes less, than face value.
>
> So the question then becomes "did the artist successfully raise a row
> over his 'act of art'?"
>
> Well, based on the comments James F. made, he certianly did. Not only
> was it art, it was successful, and it raised a question (what's the premi=
um
> for 'art') and answered it ($1350 or so).
>
> Given that the vast majority of 'art' created doesn't bring in a
> cent, I'm convinced we should learn from this man, and not condemn
> him.
>
> Steve Slatin --
>
> N48.0886450
> W123.1420482
>
>
> --- On Thu, 9/8/11, James Freeman wrote:
> >
>
ivor and olive lewis on sat 10 sep 11
If those were Australian Banknotes they are not made of Paper, they are
Plastic and have been for some thirty years or so. Hence they have built in
longevity and would not, in time, be consumed by book mites or degraded ove=
r
time.
Regards,
Ivor Lewis,
REDHILL,
South Australia
Steve Slatin on sat 10 sep 11
James --
First, if you have no reaction to (1) this piece (2) seemingly all
performance art (3) most installation art, and (4) various other
things that you post about here, then why do you bother to
post about them?
What goes through that lil' head of yours? Is is "Gosh, this
is totally uninteresting, I'd better alert the media to it at
my earliest opportunity?" Somehow I doubt that.
Second, I can't deny that it's possible that I've misread each and
every one of your postings -- to me it seems unlikely, but=3D20
hardly anything's impossible -- are you amused by this act of
art? Charmed by it? Stirred to the marrow with it's dignity
and foresight? All these things might warrant a posting (as
might irritation). But they're also all emotional responses.
So if I attributed the wrong emotion to your posting, well,
I'm sorry. But it's still a reaction, and still appears
highly emotional at that.
When you react to these things, the language of your reactions is
often quite harsh, and visceral, and if you are expending your
energy in making an effort to comment on things of no interest
to you, then I have to pity you -- a life without sufficient
*real* things, *important* things to react to seems to me to be
a rather barren, sterile one.
Now, you also say that I am ascribing "thoughts and deeds" to you
with which you disagree. That would be fair enough were it true,
but it is not. I am ascribing only that you REACT to this sort
of story, over and over, and that an interesting description of=3D20
what constitutes art is one that incorporates reactions such as=3D20
yours as a primary indicator. You're still clearly quite wrought
over it, in whatever way you are wrought.
Third, you seem to be taking unto yourself the role of being
the world-wide sole arbiter of what is art.=3D20
Specifically, you say "...since you seem to
allow that my having or not having a reaction is the
arbiter of the artistic merit of this particular piece, it has plainly fail=
=3D
ed completely, so is no (sic) art."
As per the above, you reacted enough to post -- several times, as
it happens -- about it. Further, it was brought to your attention
by media reports; that is, other people reacted to it sufficiently
to believe it was news worthy. If it had failed, no one would know
of it.
Fourth, again in the same quoted comment of yours above, you have
again (we've written about this before) confused the issue of whether
something is or is not arguably art with whether it is art of merit.
Naturally, these are two wholly different things; let me construct
this comparison to make it obvious -- a 1985 Yugo with 185,000 miles
on it, a damaged head gasket, dead battery, bald tires, and=3D20
wildly loose front end has no MERIT as a car, but it is STILL A CAR.
Over and over you've thrown up this same straw man -- someone with
strong opinions like Vince P will say "you can't establish a limit
to what can be art" and your response will be something like "Yeah?=3D20
Well, if that's true that something like (named performance art)
is good art and I say it's junk!"
No doubt it sounded bad to you, and for all I know, it may have=3D20
been entirely rotten art, but that doesn't mean that Vince was wrong. =3D20
Maybe he would consider that performance as art, maybe not. Maybe he
would consider it GOOD art, maybe not. But your insertion of the straw man =
=3D
of "artistic merit" into a definition of art doesn't invalidate a definitio=
=3D
n (a Yugo's still a car) -- that never
purported to deal with the question of artistic merit.
Now, on to the fourth item -- the premium for 'art' in the context of money=
=3D
. Admittedly I was non-obvious here, as I was working in a reference to Cl=
=3D
ayArt itself -- someone used to use a tag line here about Rothko getting in=
=3D
to an argument with someone about the price of a painting,=3D20
and the price just happened to be $1350.*
For some reason (I presume fortuitous coincidence, but perhaps I am wrong**=
=3D
) the premium in this case to the buyer was $1350. Well, that's the price =
=3D
of art by the Rothko definition (good luck getting one of those canvases fo=
=3D
r the same price now) and as it happens, it's precisely the difference betw=
=3D
een what it would have cost the buyer to acquire two identical stacks of bi=
=3D
lls that (given the fungability of money) would have been interchangable wi=
=3D
th the 'art work' in utilitarian form (used for purchases).
So what's the difference between 20 grand and 21,350 identified as 'art?'
Well, one, it's $1350. But if the buyer was not a complete maniac=3D20
spending money without reason, presumably it's for the sole difference
of the one being cash and the other being art.
Last, your statements on the legality of this transaction show a fundamenta=
=3D
l misunderstanding of the concept of contracts in English common law. Gene=
=3D
rally, if you are given a payment to do something and you do that thing, do=
=3D
ing it in a way not anticipated -- but neither illegal nor specifically bar=
=3D
red by the contract -- you are entitled to the payment
called for. If you did it in a way not anticipated by the purchaser of you=
=3D
r services, but consistent with the contract, big noogies for the purchaser=
=3D
.
This artist got a grant to do a thing. As far as you have stated and my li=
=3D
mited reading on the case goes, he did that thing. Consequently, he's enti=
=3D
tled to retain the payment called for in the grant. (Grants are legal cont=
=3D
racts, as I learned in my contracting class.) This is why contracts are of=
=3D
ten written with sweeping clauses like "contractor agrees to carry out said=
=3D
activity without bringing disgrace to the blah-blah corporation, acting ou=
=3D
tside of usual norms in the location where the acivity is to take place, or=
=3D
violating any applicable laws, regulations, or codes." That way if you hi=
=3D
re a gardener to clear the weeds from a lawn he won't wait for a dry day an=
=3D
d start the Bastrop fire to clear the yard. Or if he does, you won't pay h=
=3D
im for it.
He has no obligation to return any of the money, unless he failed to perfor=
=3D
m according to the terms of the grant. I gather you have no reason to beli=
=3D
eve that this was the case, as you have shown no evidence of it.
Why you're trying to make a LEGAL case out of this aesthetic consideration =
=3D
is not entirely clear to me, but it does seem to be ... dare I say ... irri=
=3D
tation?
Steve Slatin --=3D20
*"Rothko initially wanted $1,500 but Heller had a budget of $1,000. They se=
=3D
ttled on $1,350, with Rothko arguing, "Look, it's my misery that I have to =
=3D
paint this kind of painting, it's your misery that you have to love it, and=
=3D
the price of the misery is $1,350."=3D20
**Wouldn't it be great if the buyer packaged the two bricks of bills
in, say, a plexiglass box and titled it "Homage to Rothko: The Price of Mis=
=3D
ery" and put it in another art auction? I'm tickled at the thought myself.
N48.0886450
W123.1420482
--- On Fri, 9/9/11, James Freeman wrote:
> Steve...
>=3D20
> My "irritation" was not raised by the "art" at all.=3DA0
> Thus, since you seem to
> allow
pdp1 on sun 11 sep 11
Hi Steve, all...
What fun, and, in fact, some quite interesting and sincere thoughts as well=
,
which is just that much more fun...
Below...amid...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Slatin"
> Neat idea, Phil --
>
> Though Schroedenger would probably insist that the
> box be soundproofed so you couldn't tell ...
He can make his own Box then, however he wants to do it.
> and
> you might want to tweak the title -- maybe drop the reference to the cash
> amount ... I don't know
> how to flesh it out, though.
Well, the Title is either what I am suggesting could have been done as an
alternate offering by the
Australian 'artist', or, is what I would consider to do if wishing to
reference obliquely, what he had in fact done.
> Maybe "Am you is or am you ain't my kitty ... an homage to
> Schroedenger's cat"?
Well the 'Homage to Schroedinger's Cat' in this context, is not actually an
Homage-to-Schroedinger's-Cat' at all...it is merely refererencing that as a
sort of ploy, within the larger ( to me, ) context.
Which invites one ( or, me anyway, ) to ruminate upon an Homage to
Schroedinger, in which it would be said that he is ( what is or is not )
'in' the Box...but that would be an entirely different 'work of art'...and,
probably, a different ( and in this case, larger ) Box.
> I think that bringing in the extra
> reference justifies the meow sound, without detracting
> from the 'ka-ching' (the figurative and literal payoff
> sound -- which itself becomes kind of a metonomy within
> a metaphor. Or would that be a synechdoche?*
Part of who's charm, would be how, as the Batteries slowly fade, both sound=
s
would weaken and finally cease...
> And you being a craftsman, you could make the box itself
> either stark or visually lush, adding still more layers
> of implied meaning.
I would use a small 'Shoebox' sized, regular Corrugated four-flap-fold top
and
bottom Cardboard Box, quite casually and aenemically, spray-painted
'Black'...but it would have something 'in' it...or, it would have
'something' in it.
> I believe the lit-crit crowd calls
> that aporia (a tempting appearing path that actually
> goes nowhere) and look, we've already provided a good
> part of the descriptive note that should go with a 'think
> piece.'
That ( possibly both ) would describe most of my Xs...
> Or how about "Zakritaya Karobka" (transliteration of
> the Russian for a closed box, even better would be to
> put it in Cyrillic, but I don't have cyrillic set up
> on this computer) Maybe "kleito choro" for the same
> thing in Greek (same problem with the letters).
No...
But, other projects could involve themselves in ways which might wish to
rely on elements which could employ Cyrillic...
I can imagine various 'Homages' to old 'Uncle Joe' for instance...( hell, I
see them - everyone's Homages - every day, every where I go anyway. )
> I'd personally like to see it in rosewood, but I suppose
> some people would favor a welded steel box with no
> visible opening. At any rate, a visual representation
> of a well-known philosophical problem has great potential
> for high art.**
I have always felt capable of 'High Art', but, I just never felt it were
worth the troubling sense or remourse, to do as something excised from Life=
.
If I wanted to Work with Biopsies, I would have been a Pathologist.
> With a little promo and a good New York
> gallery opening, you could afford a fabulous hospice
> facility for wounded birds. Or maybe buy some great
> old cars.
Well, maybe it is time I began to take myself seriously as an impendingly
incipient 'emerging' Artist?
What is freightening about this, is there is a part-of-me which could!!!
And, the rest-of-me...'shudders'...
Lol...
> Steve Slatin --
>
> N48.0886450
> W123.1420482
>
> *As Jeff Koons has shown, you don't have to actually
> understand an idea to refer to it and get the critics
> to swoon.
Sadly, or maybe Happily, or maybe both, by Nature and temprement, I would
prefer TO understand the idea.
Thus permitting the possibility of my forming or framing cogent or other
germain ( to whom? ) comment/gesture.
> **Your big opening will require a title as well -- I'd
> suggest "The Craftsman's Metaphors" which I think will
> bring both the critics and the chicks in. In carloads!
I think just the phrase "New Work" would do.
But, the right Agent, would be necessary...for this sort of indulgence! for
sure...
Love,
Phil
L v
logan johnson on sun 11 sep 11
I like the "Schrodinger's Cat"=3DA0 idea=3DA0 Phil !=3DA0 The "Homage to Ro=
thko" =3D
cracks me up too.=3D0A=3D0AAnother alternative would be to make a pit.=3DA0=
Peach=3D
pit,=3DA0 plum pit , Avocado pit whatever & seal the money into that !=3D0=
A=3D0A=3D
=3DA0(hee hee hee)=3DA0=3DA0 I guess a small boat would work as well.=3DA0 =
(from wh=3D
at I'm told) I don't own a boat so I can't speak from experience on that on=
=3D
e.=3DA0 I can't help it I love bad puns ;oD=3D0ALogan=3D0A=3D0A=3D0ALogan J=
ohnson =3D0A=3D
Yakima Valley Pottery & Supply719 W Nob Hill Blvd. Ste C =3D0A=3D0AYakima, =
WA 9=3D
8902=3D0A509.469.6966=3D0A=3DA0www.audeostudios.com=3D0A"Carpe Argillam!!"=
=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A=3D
________________________________=3D0AFrom: pdp1 =3D0ATo=
: Cl=3D
ayart@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG=3D0ASent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 8:35 AM=3D0ASub=
ject=3D
: Re: It's Art!=3D0A=3D0A----- Original Message -----=3D0AFrom: "Steve Slat=
in"=3D0A=3D
=3D0A> **Wouldn't it be great if the buyer packaged the two bricks of bills=
=3D
=3D0Ain, say, a plexiglass box and titled it "Homage to Rothko: The Price o=
f=3D
=3D0AMisery" and put it in another art auction?=3DA0 I'm tickled at the tho=
ught=3D
=3D0Amyself.=3D0A=3D0A=3D0AOr, claim to have put it into a Black Box, seale=
d, and, =3D
title it "$20,000.00=3D0ACash, in a Black Box - An Homage to Schroedinger's=
C=3D
at", ( but with a little=3D0ABattery powered 'Meow!' sound alternating with=
a=3D
Cash Register's=3D0A'Kuh-Ching', which occur randomly, for a while, then n=
ot=3D
at all once the=3D0ABatteries run down.)=3D0A=3D0A=3D0AAlthough, in the lo=
ng run, =3D
I probably admire 'D. B. Cooper' most of all, as=3D0Afar as performance Art=
.
Steve Slatin on sun 11 sep 11
Neat idea, Phil --=3D20
Though Schroedenger would probably insist that the
box be soundproofed so you couldn't tell ... and
you might want to tweak the title -- maybe drop=3D20
the reference to the cash amount ... I don't know
how to flesh it out, though. =3D20
Maybe "Am you is or am you ain't my kitty ... an homage to
Schroedenger's cat"? I think that bringing in the extra
reference justifies the meow sound, without detracting
from the 'ka-ching' (the figurative and literal payoff
sound -- which itself becomes kind of a metonomy within
a metaphor. Or would that be a synechdoche?*
And you being a craftsman, you could make the box itself
either stark or visually lush, adding still more layers
of implied meaning. I believe the lit-crit crowd calls
that aporia (a tempting appearing path that actually
goes nowhere) and look, we've already provided a good
part of the descriptive note that should go with a 'think
piece.' =3D20
Or how about "Zakritaya Karobka" (transliteration of
the Russian for a closed box, even better would be to
put it in Cyrillic, but I don't have cyrillic set up
on this computer) Maybe "kleito choro" for the same
thing in Greek (same problem with the letters).
I'd personally like to see it in rosewood, but I suppose
some people would favor a welded steel box with no
visible opening. At any rate, a visual representation
of a well-known philosophical problem has great potential
for high art.** With a little promo and a good New York
gallery opening, you could afford a fabulous hospice
facility for wounded birds. Or maybe buy some great
old cars.
Steve Slatin --=3D20
N48.0886450
W123.1420482
*As Jeff Koons has shown, you don't have to actually
understand an idea to refer to it and get the critics
to swoon.
**Your big opening will require a title as well -- I'd
suggest "The Craftsman's Metaphors" which I think will
bring both the critics and the chicks in. In carloads!
--- On Sun, 9/11/11, pdp1 wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Slatin"
>=3D20
> > **Wouldn't it be great if the buyer packaged the two
> bricks of bills
> in, say, a plexiglass box and titled it "Homage to Rothko:
> The Price of
> Misery" and put it in another art auction?=3DA0 I'm
> tickled at the thought
> myself.
>=3D20
>=3D20
> Or, claim to have put it into a Black Box, sealed, and,
> title it "$20,000.00
> Cash, in a Black Box - An Homage to Schroedinger's Cat", (
> but with a little
> Battery powered 'Meow!' sound alternating with a Cash
> Register's
> 'Kuh-Ching', which occur randomly, for a while, then not at
> all once the
> Batteries run down.)
>=3D20
>=3D20
> Although, in the long run, I probably admire 'D. B. Cooper'
> most of all, as
> far as performance Art.
>
pdp1 on sun 11 sep 11
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Slatin"
> **Wouldn't it be great if the buyer packaged the two bricks of bills
in, say, a plexiglass box and titled it "Homage to Rothko: The Price of
Misery" and put it in another art auction? I'm tickled at the thought
myself.
Or, claim to have put it into a Black Box, sealed, and, title it "$20,000.0=
0
Cash, in a Black Box - An Homage to Schroedinger's Cat", ( but with a littl=
e
Battery powered 'Meow!' sound alternating with a Cash Register's
'Kuh-Ching', which occur randomly, for a while, then not at all once the
Batteries run down.)
Although, in the long run, I probably admire 'D. B. Cooper' most of all, as
far as performance Art.
James Freeman on sun 11 sep 11
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Steve Slatin wrot=
e:
James --
First, if you have no reaction to (1) this piece (2) seemingly all
performance art (3) most installation art, and (4) various other
things that you post about here, then why do you bother to
post about them?
(plus a whole lot of other verbiage)
Steve..
OK, I managed to wade about halfway through your post before just giving
up. Once more, you have completely missed my point, and I shall not restat=
e
it nor belabor it. You seem to have an agenda, and I will not play your
game.
My agenda with these "stupid art" posts? Just to share a good art-related
chuckle at how silly and pointless the art world has become (in my obviousl=
y
ignorant and sterile and whatever else you called me eyes). I think
everyone but you understands this. Perhaps, though, some people take
themselves way too seriously to enjoy a laugh at obvious stupidity, so to
them I apologize.
Since you have set yourself up as the James Police (having formerly been th=
e
Lee Police, as I recall), I shall just give you what you want so we can mov=
e
on: "Mea culpa! Mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa! Forgive me, Steve, for I
have sinned! The cash pile is indeed GREAT art, right on par with the Mona
Lisa, and I, worthless James, was too stupid and blind to see it!"
Are we happy now? LOL
Oh, here's a really great piece of art. Called "May the Horse Live in Me",
a really great artist had herself transfused with horse blood, and pranced
around with hooves on her feet! Wow! Brilliant! You can read about the
wonderful piece here, and even watch it performed on video! So moving!
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-08/10/horse-blood-artist
By the way, the newspapers report on this stuff because THEY ARE LAUGHING
TOO!!!
Enjoy your day.
...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
Steve Slatin on mon 12 sep 11
Have it your way, Phil, but it's that much harder
if you insist on knowing what you're talking about!
Steve Slatin --=3D20
N48.0886450
W123.1420482
--- On Sun, 9/11/11, pdp1 wrote:
>=3D20
>=3D20
> Sadly, or maybe Happily, or maybe both,=3DA0 by Nature and
> temprement, I would
> prefer TO understand the idea.
>=3D20
Taylor Hendrix on mon 12 sep 11
Hee haw, Phil,
Actually this very thread is Schrodinger's cat-esk, and one would be
well advised to stay away lest she risk the inevitable maddening
entanglement.
anti-hee, anti-haw
Taylor, in Rockport TX
wirerabbit1 on Skype (-0600 UTC)
http://wirerabbit.blogspot.com
http://wirerabbitpots.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wirerabbit/
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:35 AM, pdp1 wrote:
...
>
> Or, claim to have put it into a Black Box, sealed, and, title it "$20,000=
.00
> Cash, in a Black Box - An Homage to Schroedinger's Cat", ( but with a lit=
tle
> Battery powered 'Meow!' sound alternating with a Cash Register's
> 'Kuh-Ching', which occur randomly, for a while, then not at all once the
> Batteries run down.)
...
pdp1 on mon 12 sep 11
Hi James,
Here is a Video clip of her a little later, once the full effects had
occurred -
I guess it worked!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DpQX6-iqfHiI
( Sorry...that was bad...Lol...)
Phil
L v
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Freeman"
> Oh, here's a really great piece of art. Called "May the Horse Live in
> Me",
> a really great artist had herself transfused with horse blood, and prance=
d
> around with hooves on her feet! Wow! Brilliant! You can read about th=
e
> wonderful piece here, and even watch it performed on video! So moving!
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-08/10/horse-blood-artist
>
> By the way, the newspapers report on this stuff because THEY ARE LAUGHING
> TOO!!!
>
> Enjoy your day.
>
> ...James
James Freeman on tue 13 sep 11
Sure, Steve. Whatever you say.
Enjoy your day.
...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 Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Steve Slatin wrote=
:
> James -- If you can't be bothered to read my post, why do you presume
> you understand it well enough to reply to it?
>
> Similarly, if you have not seen a piece of performance art, why do
> you presume you understand it well enough to mock and sneer?
>
>
| |
|
