Snail Scott on tue 14 nov 00
I would hesitate to call the California Funk movement and its
offshoots a breed of 'conceptual art', though it may share a
dollop of similar approach. One of the main tenets of conceptualism
is a focus on the idea itself, rather than the physical realization
of that idea as an object, which mainly exists as a vehicle for the
idea. Funk is very much involved with the object. It often communicates
ideas, but is seldom separable from the goofy, irreverent, and very
physical presence of its actualization.
I would agree that Gilhooly is not in Oldenberg's league as a Funk/Pop
practitioner, although Arneson probably is. Comparing any of them to the
likes of Giacometti or Moore, however, isn't just a comparison of artists,
but inevitably a comparison of philosophies. Funk often feels a bit trivial
by comparison, but that is, I think, the nature of the movement. It elevates
the absurd and mocks the mighty, and satire of that sort is seldom calculated
to be transcendent. When it does become profound, it opens itself up to being
the target of its own gadfly habits, and rightly so!
It may not be the wellspring of the greatest contemporary art, but it
expressed much of its era, as preceding movements could not have. Deathless
art? Maybe not. Worthy of a museum presentation? Yes! How could we fully grasp
that era and mindset if it were excluded? It continues to influence much
of the art made today, and surely a museum's role is not merely to enshrine
the past, but to offer a foundation and perspective to current understanding.
-Snail
At 09:38 AM 11/14/00 -0800, you wrote:
>The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SF MOMA) has a current exhibit of a
>private collection that includes some ceramic art. The exhibit is called
>The Anderson Collection and is the private collection of Harry W. and Mary
>Margaret Anderson. http://www.sfmoma.org
>
>I went to the exhibit last week and found some ceramic sculpture
>represented, which is exciting in itself. This includes the works of
>Voulkous, Arneson and David J. Gilhooly. Presented on an equal footing
>(amount of space and position) with Matisse, Lipschitz, Giacometti, Moore,
>David Smith and Julio Gonzalez, these works suffer greatly by comparison.
>Voulkous is definitely the best of the three, but I still have the feeling
>that the emphasis on process justified a result that is less than great in
>this particular piece.
>
>I am tempted to attend the lecture referenced below to ask Mr. Gilhooly if
>he is not embarrassed by the comparison. I won't do that as I have more
>civility. However, I have seen Claes Oldenburg's treatment of a hamburger,
>and, though technically very competent, Gilhooly's hamburger is not in the
>same league.
>
>For me, two questions arise:
>
>Do I expect too much when I look for aesthetic values of form and design in
>conceptual art or, as the promotion for Mr. Gilhooly's talk calls it, "funk
>art?"
>
>Should there be a standard by which we measure the "product" of our Museums
>and Galleries? I am reminded of a TV interview with the Director of the SF
>MOMA in which he answered a question about why a particular new acquisition
>was "great art" by stating that it had cost over $1,000,000. If monetary
>value is the artistic standard for a museum, what is it teaching the public
>about art?
>
>Wes
>___________________
> 12.13 WEDNESDAY
>
> Members' Lecture*
> Celebrating Modern Art: The Anderson Collection
> Should I Just Keep Making Frogs and Drop Dead?
> David J. Gilhooly, artist
> 7 pm
> Phyllis Wattis Theater
>
> Well known for his Funk ceramic sculptures of frogs and other
>creatures, Gilhooly in
> recent years has turned to Plexiglas and assemblage work. In this
>entertaining lecture,
> the artist introduces his Shadow Box series and defends his
>decision to leave
> amphibians behind.
>Wes Rolley
>
>"Happiness is to be fully engaged in the activity that you believe in and,
>if you are very good at it, well that's a bonus." -- Henry Moore
>
>http://www.refpub.com
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
>
Wesley C. Rolley on tue 14 nov 00
The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SF MOMA) has a current exhibit of a
private collection that includes some ceramic art. The exhibit is called
The Anderson Collection and is the private collection of Harry W. and Mary
Margaret Anderson. http://www.sfmoma.org
I went to the exhibit last week and found some ceramic sculpture
represented, which is exciting in itself. This includes the works of
Voulkous, Arneson and David J. Gilhooly. Presented on an equal footing
(amount of space and position) with Matisse, Lipschitz, Giacometti, Moore,
David Smith and Julio Gonzalez, these works suffer greatly by comparison.
Voulkous is definitely the best of the three, but I still have the feeling
that the emphasis on process justified a result that is less than great in
this particular piece.
I am tempted to attend the lecture referenced below to ask Mr. Gilhooly if
he is not embarrassed by the comparison. I won't do that as I have more
civility. However, I have seen Claes Oldenburg's treatment of a hamburger,
and, though technically very competent, Gilhooly's hamburger is not in the
same league.
For me, two questions arise:
Do I expect too much when I look for aesthetic values of form and design in
conceptual art or, as the promotion for Mr. Gilhooly's talk calls it, "funk
art?"
Should there be a standard by which we measure the "product" of our Museums
and Galleries? I am reminded of a TV interview with the Director of the SF
MOMA in which he answered a question about why a particular new acquisition
was "great art" by stating that it had cost over $1,000,000. If monetary
value is the artistic standard for a museum, what is it teaching the public
about art?
Wes
___________________
12.13 WEDNESDAY
Members' Lecture*
Celebrating Modern Art: The Anderson Collection
Should I Just Keep Making Frogs and Drop Dead?
David J. Gilhooly, artist
7 pm
Phyllis Wattis Theater
Well known for his Funk ceramic sculptures of frogs and other
creatures, Gilhooly in
recent years has turned to Plexiglas and assemblage work. In this
entertaining lecture,
the artist introduces his Shadow Box series and defends his
decision to leave
amphibians behind.
Wes Rolley
"Happiness is to be fully engaged in the activity that you believe in and,
if you are very good at it, well that's a bonus." -- Henry Moore
http://www.refpub.com
Mike Gordon on tue 14 nov 00
Hi Wes,
One thing you must keep in mind is that this is an exhibit of this
couples collection.It is in a major museum. This does not mean that
everything they collected is of the same magnitude and I don't think
that Gilhooly's work should be viewed with the same impression one would
look at a Voulkos, or an Arneson.He was a student of Arnesons.He was at
UC Davis during the "FUNK" movement and became collectable as a name in
the movement. That doesn't make it great art. Go listen to him talk, it
would be a good experience for you. Mike Gordon
| |
|
