Vince Pitelka on sun 5 dec 04
> Which has been voted the single most influential work of art over
> the past 100 years?
Janet -
This was just mentioned on Clayart, and it is certainly accurate - =
Marcel=20
Duchamp's "Fountain" (a common porcelain urinal, presented as a work of=20
sculpture) is the most important single artwork of the 20th century. =
Paul=20
Lewing, who is generally "spot-on," mentioned this, and mistakenly said =
that=20
the piece was hung on the wall, but that is incorrect - it was laid flat =
on=20
it's back, with a bold black signature "R. Mutt.," one of Duchamp's=20
acronyms.
For those of us who love Dada, Fluxus, Pop, and so much other 20th =
century=20
work that challenges traditional definitions of art, this work "received =
permission" from Duchamp's "Readymades." As such, we must agree that=20
"Fountain" is the most important work of the 20th Century. Others may =
well=20
disagree, as I am sure they will.
Peace and Love -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/=20
Kathy Forer on mon 6 dec 04
On Dec 5, 2004, at 8:09 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> Duchamp's "Fountain" (a common porcelain urinal, presented as a work of
> sculpture)
The history of the exhibition and reproduction of the urinal is pretty
interesting. Either the original 'readymade' was purchased at a Beekman
Street plumbing supply company, J. L. Mott Iron Works Company, as the
story generally goes, or the porcelain design was actually a hand-made
or altered copy of a Trenton Bedfordshire prison urinal, as speculated
by Kirk Varnedoe, detailed in an article at
Shearer07.html> "Why the Hatrack is and/or is not Readymade: with
Interactive Software, Animations, and Videos for Readers to Explore,"
by Rhonda Roland Shearer with Gregory Alvarez, Robert Slawinski,
Vittorio Marchi and text box by Stephen Jay Gould. In either case, the
transitory nature of the solid object is most memorable.
Even without that rather complicated twist, the story has many twists
and turns. What you see is not always what you get: "When the Schwarz
edition of the readymades was announced, Duchamp was assailed by
critics and fellow artists for having 'sold out,' for having betrayed
the revolutionary concept that caused the readymades to come into
existence in the first place. But Duchamp was well aware of the fact
that the production of this edition was a revolutionary concept in its
own right: just as the readymade forced us to alter previous
definitions of art, the edition would automatically force us to
reconsider our altered definition. If a readymade was an object removed
from its functional context and elevated to the status of art, then the
Schwarz edition represents an inversion of this process: like
traditional sculpture, each readymade is individually hand-crafted (
particularly evident with the urinal, where modulations on its surface
reveal traces of the modeling process) and, again, as with traditional
sculpture, these objects are painstakingly accurate simulations, visual
analogues that represent a supreme achievement in the history of trompe
l'oeil illusionism."
http://www.thecityreview.com/f99scon.html
and
"On the same note, one must realize that, on a certain level, "only
after [Fountain] ceased to exist as an object did it become an
uncontested artwork""
http://arthist.binghamton.edu/duchamp/fountain.html
Kathy Forer
www.foreverink.com
Jim Murphy on tue 7 dec 04
As I view an image of Duchamp's Fountain, the changing reflected light
challenges my perceptions as I shift my head left-to-right, right-to-left,
up-down, etc.
I allow this viewing process to go on for quite a length of time to fully
capture all there is before me. This is vital in order to form an
understanding of "what 'it' all means" ... "Who am I?" ... "Why am I here?
... etc., etc., etc.
My body feels something ... has this art moved me ?
I quickly decide the artform known as Duchamp's Fountain must be a work of
art.
Something's missing though ... perhaps crushed ice ???
Would the addition of crushed ice make Duchamp's Fountain "functional art" ?
Gotta go !!!
Best wishes,
Jim Murphy
Tom Sawyer on tue 7 dec 04
Sorry Vince and the others who believe Duchamp's urinal was the most
important work of art in the 20th Century. I would put works by Matisse and
Picasso as more important. Actually, I believe the most important work of
art in the 20th Century was Einstein's E=MC2 formula.
Tom Sawyer
tsawyer@cfl.rr.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Vince Pitelka
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 8:09 PM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Re: Which single work of art?
> Which has been voted the single most influential work of art over
> the past 100 years?
Janet -
This was just mentioned on Clayart, and it is certainly accurate - Marcel
Duchamp's "Fountain" (a common porcelain urinal, presented as a work of
sculpture) is the most important single artwork of the 20th century. Paul
Lewing, who is generally "spot-on," mentioned this, and mistakenly said that
the piece was hung on the wall, but that is incorrect - it was laid flat on
it's back, with a bold black signature "R. Mutt.," one of Duchamp's
acronyms.
For those of us who love Dada, Fluxus, Pop, and so much other 20th century
work that challenges traditional definitions of art, this work "received
permission" from Duchamp's "Readymades." As such, we must agree that
"Fountain" is the most important work of the 20th Century. Others may well
disagree, as I am sure they will.
Peace and Love -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
____________________________________________________________________________
__
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.
David Martin Hershey on wed 8 dec 04
Hi Kathy & All,
I find Duchamp's ready-mades
of passing interest
in their context
but was always much more impressed
with "Nude Descending a Staircase"
http://tinyurl.com/lpp0
If Duchamp was so influential,
then why did we have to go through
Minimalism, Installation, FemmArt,
Performance, Shock, et all
again in the 70's
to endlessly hash over the
same old boring question
as to
What is Art?
(Does anyone remember that
embarrassing 70's battle cry:
Painting is Dead!)
The answer that Duchamp gave us
is that
Art is whatever the Artist says it is.
A very radical statement in 1913.
Today, we take that freedom
for granted.
But then that leads us to
the REAL question:
What is Good Art?... and why?
Best, DMH
Beautiful Hermosa Beach CA USA
where the crickets are busy
looking for
a warm dry place...
Ivor and Olive Lewis on wed 8 dec 04
Dear Jim,
It might if you coloured those Ice Cubes Yellow. But they would be
ephemeral so you might have to fake them.
Best regards,
Ivor Lewis.
Redhill,
S. Australia.
Kathy Forer on wed 8 dec 04
On Dec 7, 2004, at 8:51 PM, Tom Sawyer wrote:
> Actually, I believe the most important work of
> art in the 20th Century was Einstein's E=MC2 formula.
I keep thinking James Joyce and the Beatles, though since I have yet to
read through Ulysses much beyond the point of the Manichean moment on
the stairwell, it seems unfair to include Joyce.
Was there a single Picasso or Matisse painting beyond the rest? (some
say desmoiselles d'avignon, but that is debatable.) One leads into
another and they all interact and are extraordinary. They reach back
and forth in art and history and alter our perceptions of the world and
of art. Duchamp's objects were more specific singularities that
affected the nature of our concepts of art.
Someone once wrote how the history of 20th century art was broken into
those who followed Duchamp and those who didn't -- or did they follow
someone else? Probably too Manichean again. Duchamp's influences were
wide, evidenced even in work by those who directly reject their humor
and ideas.
Kathy Forer
kef@kforer.com
John Jensen on wed 8 dec 04
The issue isn't who we might like best. The issue was the single most
influential work of art in the twentieth century. I'm inclined to put
Cezanne as the most influential artist of the twentieth century, though =
he
died in the nineteenth century.
I went to Philadelphia to see a Cezanne exhibit and wandered into the
Duchamp wing. Wow! I was completely entranced! Such a diversity. He =
tended
not to repeat himself and more or less excused himself from the art =
world
which was begging him to come back. He lived a simple life and did the =
work
which came directly from his heart, mind and soul, living to a large =
extent
by selling the Brancussi sculptures he had bought when they were cheap.
While continuing to work secretly he disavowed art altogether. He
absolutely was not using cheap novelty to market second rate work.
He wasn't interested in marketing,or consumer culture. To suggest that
Duchamps work was grotesque, superficial, or merely a circus shows a =
lack of
understanding of the historical realities and a very narrow view of art.
And I think it is completely silly to suggest that we should use =
bushmen,
aboriginals, or five year olds as the judges of our art and culture.
John Jensen, Mudbug Pottery
John Jensen@mudbugpottery.com
http://www.toadhouse.com www://www.mudbugpottery.com
Subject: Re: Which single work of art?
Tom Sawyer wrote:
>Sorry Vince and the others who believe Duchamp's urinal was the most
>important work of art in the 20th Century. I would put works by Matisse =
and
>Picasso as more important.
>
>
I agree Tom. We are so enamored with our own time and novelty
, that it is difficult for us to know what will last. One of the
ways to test if the power of a work of art will stand the test of time,
is to play a mental game and ask what Hiroshige, Michelangelo or
Rembrandt might think of the work? To break out of our culture, we
might show the work to a Bushman or an Aboriginal person. Ask a five
year old if DuChamp's "masterpiece" is actually art, and tell me what
the wisdom of the little children has to say. ;-)
That is not to say it is not a cultural artifact or is not =
"influential."
Like a historian once said: the fall of a culture can
be marked when the love of novelty becomes the love of the
grotesque. Novelty is important in our consumer culture and is
important for marketing. We are anethesized by the circus and the
colosseum.
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on wed 8 dec 04
Hi Tom,
..."Great minds..."
Or...
That was nearly my first thought too...but...
I was thinking of 'Trinity' ( You know, old Oppie rocking
back on his heels naxt to old generalwhatshisname, like a
small town mayor, raising his chin
and saying, "...I am Lothar! king of the hill-people!' or
what ever...as Joshua Trees and Jack Rabbit carcases still
smouldered...
But then, after, I was thinking...Bikini Atoll, you know,
the ( Lithium-deuteride ) "H-Bomb"...the 'big' one...'Castle
Bravo' or whateveritwas...
...precipitated radioactive 'calcium' (from several milions
of cubic
feet of coral being vaporized) drizzleing like skuzz...over
however many thousands of square miles...all them boys on
them ships whose 'spines' fused later on in life, if they
got that far, and some did, too...
And them 1954 car and truck windshields in 'Michigan'... as
got 'mysterious'
little
voids in their glass...
Or...'Cap't Orlon' of the 'Ashtar Integallactic Command',
and
(various, many, wacky, improbable) others, speaking for the
next few decades through housewives and Truckdrivers and
('sober') river-fishermen and occasional schoolkids, saying
"You
earthlings really ought to stop this - you are making
interferences and harms you do not know you are doing but
should know, which
are effecting other's rhelms of things as well as screwing
up your own."
So...we did 'more', instead...lots more...
Too, there were other philosophical/artistic sub-texts...as
enriched all our lives...
Tchernoble, threemileisland...the (mind staggeringly
massive) legacy in general, Hanford, et multitudinously al,
( which does not seem to get much play in the news anymore,
what with
all the really 'interesting' stuff going on more or less in
Araby, or is it wallstreet? - as being more exuberant
money-makers than say, all
that clean-up would be...would have been...or will ever
be...sigh...but...)
Still...
Boyz will be boyz, yes?
"E=big$2" was more like it...for a lot of
hit-and-run-drivers, no matter the cost otherwise, to
others, in many ways...here, and, elsewhere...
But too...
Was it 'Art'?
Installation Art?
Hmmmm...
I 'spose...
But in whose Gallery?
Love,
Phil
el ve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Sawyer"
> Sorry Vince and the others who believe Duchamp's urinal
was the most
> important work of art in the 20th Century. I would put
works by Matisse and
> Picasso as more important. Actually, I believe the most
important work of
> art in the 20th Century was Einstein's E=MC2 formula.
>
> Tom Sawyer
Carol on wed 8 dec 04
Thanks, John - you said a lot of what I've been thinking. Choosing the
"Most" or "Best" of anything is essentially silly, imo, but it's
something that we seem to love to do. And then argue over the results.
I don't think the discussion should be about whose work we like best -
Picasso, Matisse, Brancussi - but about the work that challenged,
changed, INFLUENCED the art world. I don't know if Duchamp was THE
most influential, but to deny that he was of vast importance is to
narrow one's vision to see only some art. I was blown away when I
first read about and saw photos of Duchamp's work. He was daring and
original and perhaps a bit naughty... most definitely, he flung (or
flushed) most rules out of studio. Objects, when we allow ourselves to
re-focus and see them outside their primary context, can be stunning.
Beautiful. Thought-provoking. Evocative. Art. The things I see
everyday... have a beauty & artful quality which I'd never noticed
before. I think Duchamp challenged everything I'd ever learned about
art; suddenly I felt free to make work in a way I'd never dared. I
wouldn't know how to judge the BEST artist or most influential, but his
work had profound consequences in the art world... Carol Ross
On Dec 8, 2004, at 11:45 AM, John Jensen wrote:
The issue isn't who we might like best. The issue was the single most
influential work of art in the twentieth century. I'm inclined to put
Cezanne as the most influential artist of the twentieth century, though
=
he
died in the nineteenth century.
I went to Philadelphia to see a Cezanne exhibit and wandered into the
Duchamp wing. Wow! I was completely entranced! Such a diversity. He =
tended
not to repeat himself and more or less excused himself from the art =
world
which was begging him to come back. He lived a simple life and did the
=
work
which came directly from his heart, mind and soul, living to a large =
extent
by selling the Brancussi sculptures he had bought when they were cheap.
While continuing to work secretly he disavowed art altogether. He
absolutely was not using cheap novelty to market second rate work.
He wasn't interested in marketing,or consumer culture. To suggest that
Duchamps work was grotesque, superficial, or merely a circus shows a =
lack of
understanding of the historical realities and a very narrow view of art.
And I think it is completely silly to suggest that we should use =
bushmen,
aboriginals, or five year olds as the judges of our art and culture.
John Jensen, Mudbug Pottery
John Jensen@mudbugpottery.com
http://www.toadhouse.com www://www.mudbugpottery.com
Subject: Re: Which single work of art?
Tom Sawyer wrote:
> Sorry Vince and the others who believe Duchamp's urinal was the most
> important work of art in the 20th Century. I would put works by
> Matisse =
and
> Picasso as more important.
>
>
I agree Tom. We are so enamored with our own time and novelty
, that it is difficult for us to know what will last. One of the
ways to test if the power of a work of art will stand the test of time,
is to play a mental game and ask what Hiroshige, Michelangelo or
Rembrandt might think of the work? To break out of our culture, we
might show the work to a Bushman or an Aboriginal person. Ask a five
year old if DuChamp's "masterpiece" is actually art, and tell me what
the wisdom of the little children has to say. ;-)
That is not to say it is not a cultural artifact or is not =
"influential."
Like a historian once said: the fall of a culture can
be marked when the love of novelty becomes the love of the
grotesque. Novelty is important in our consumer culture and is
important for marketing. We are anethesized by the circus and the
colosseum.
________________________________________________________________________
______
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.
Tom Sawyer on thu 9 dec 04
I thought I might elicit more feedback when I said "Actually, I believe the
most important work of art in the 20th Century was Einstein's E=MC2
formula". But no one took the bait.
My wife and I often have had discussions concerning the relationship of high
end science and art.
Picasso's cubistic painting, for example, echo the scientific debate
concerning the relativism, at that time. If one could travel at the speed of
light, the front, back and sides of objects would all be visible
simultaneously; isn't this what is depicted in cubistic art?
When one thinks about the formula E=MC2 and realizes that each of these
alphanumeric figures is a symbol, the formula itself is symbolic for what
occurs in the belly of stars and for forces that formed the universe. This
symbolic representation has impacted society more than any canvas drawing in
the 20th century. Cosmologist, nuclear physicists and quantum mechanics live
in a world of symbols and are in a very real sense create "mind or thought
art". Anyway just another view.
For those interested, I would refer you to Shlain Art & Physics; this is a
brilliant discussion of these matters.
Tom Sawyer
tsawyer@cfl.rr.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.
Lee Love on thu 9 dec 04
Tom Sawyer wrote:
>Sorry Vince and the others who believe Duchamp's urinal was the most
>important work of art in the 20th Century. I would put works by Matisse and
>Picasso as more important.
>
>
I agree Tom. We are so enamored with our own time and novelty
, that it is difficult for us to know what will last. One of the
ways to test if the power of a work of art will stand the test of time,
is to play a mental game and ask what Hiroshige, Michelangelo or
Rembrandt might think of the work? To break out of our culture, we
might show the work to a Bushman or an Aboriginal person. Ask a five
year old if DuChamp's "masterpiece" is actually art, and tell me what
the wisdom of the little children has to say. ;-)
That is not to say it is not a cultural artifact or is not "influential."
Like a historian once said: the fall of a culture can
be marked when the love of novelty becomes the love of the
grotesque. Novelty is important in our consumer culture and is
important for marketing. We are anethesized by the circus and the
colosseum.
Henri de Toulouse Lautrec said:
" In our time there are many artists who do something because it is new;
they see their value and their justification in this newness. They are
deceiving themselves; novelty is seldom the essential. This has to do
with one thing only; making a subject better from its intrinsic nature."
>Actually, I believe the most important work of
>art in the 20th Century was Einstein's E=MC2 formula.
>
>
The mind has its own beauty. A Sentient
Being from Alpha Centuri might have a better chance of understanding
this than he would a 2D painting.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan http://mashiko.org
http://www.livejournal.com/users/togeika/ WEB LOG
http://public.fotki.com/togeika/ Photos!
Jim Murphy on thu 9 dec 04
on 12/9/04 7:10 AM, Tom Sawyer at tsawyer@CFL.RR.COM wrote:
> When one thinks about the formula E=MC2 and realizes that each of these
> alphanumeric figures is a symbol, the formula itself is symbolic for what
> occurs in the belly of stars and for forces that formed the universe. This
> symbolic representation has impacted society more than any canvas drawing in
> the 20th century. Cosmologist, nuclear physicists and quantum mechanics live
> in a world of symbols and are in a very real sense create "mind or thought
> art". Anyway just another view.
Hi Tom,
I'll add that I've learned also to admire some other mathematically related
"life imitating art" [or is it the other way around?] phenomena such as:
1."Phi" [aka "The Golden Mean"] proportion - especially in human facial
anatomy
2.Fibonacci and logarithmic spiral growth patterns in flowers, sprouting
seeds, growing fetuses, etc.
3.Musical scales based on some of the same above-mentioned number sequences
The list goes on & on.
Without mathematics, I wonder how an artist could manage to "coordinate" the
creation of any work of art.
But then, I think about savants ... ???
Best wishes,
Jim Murphy
Url Krueger on thu 9 dec 04
So, somebody declared that somebody's work of art
was the most influential on some others.
My first question is: Who are these "some others"?
Are they potters, painters, sculpturs, academics?
Are they your customers? Are they you?
Next question: Why does this pronouncement carry so
much weight?
What are the credentials of the pronounce-ors? Have they
earned your respect? Do you even know who they are?
Do they make art, or just talk about it? Or do they
just establish their social status by talking about art?
And the final question is: What effect has this had
on you and your customers?
Has your art changed because of this? Do you plan to
change. Are your customers buying different kinds of
art.
Earl...
--
Earl K...
Bothell WA, USA
"You may be disappointed if you fail,
but you are doomed if you don't try."
Beverly Sills (1929 - )
Helen Bates on fri 10 dec 04
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:10:57 -0500, Tom Sawyer wrote:
>I thought I might elicit more feedback when I said "Actually, I believe the
>most important work of art in the 20th Century was Einstein's E=MC2
>formula". But no one took the bait.
Tom,
I, for one, did appreciate the comment, but felt unable to add anything
cogent to your remark. Thanks for the expansion on your original suggestion.
Helen
Kathy Forer on sat 11 dec 04
On Dec 9, 2004, at 1:32 AM, David Martin Hershey wrote:
> I find Duchamp's ready-mades
> of passing interest
> in their context
> but was always much more impressed
> with "Nude Descending a Staircase"
> http://tinyurl.com/lpp0
Hi David,
There's a good discussion of Duchamp's "Temporal Perspective," as in
"Nude Descending a Staircase" at
BB_TemporalPerspective.htm>:
Whereas the cubist perspective is central, all looks and all absence
of mind being like swallowed in the object, Duchamp's work is
immediately reflexive. The subject is not an object anymore but
something like the very action of stripping off all objects: a nude
attempting to think its own movement. In Duchamp's painting, there
is a man who walks.
which leads to Giacometti's L'Homme qui Marche [The Walking Man] which
I much prefer to Duchamp's urinal, not just "aesthetically" either (if
anything else exists, indeed), but it wasn't a "seminal" work, having
Rodin's Walking Man for parentage as well.
> If Duchamp was so influential,
> then why did we have to go through
> Minimalism, Installation, FemmArt,
> Performance, Shock, et all
> again in the 70's
> to endlessly hash over the
> same old boring question
> as to
> What is Art?
We might better ask why much of the 1970s was spent rehashing the art
and politics of every other time. But certainly Minimalism,
Installation and Performance art were responding to other questions as
well and are still with us today. Duchamp's direct heirs were mostly
experimenting with ways to integrate art and life, and liberate
themselves from the "myth" that aesthetics are dependent on the artist:
However, despite the Dadaists' (and the Surrealists') attempts to
dissolve distinctions between life and poetry, the institution of
art's position within life did not shift closer to center. The
proposed marriage lacked prerequisite reciprocity. Life, after all,
did not ask to be integrated with art.
...Duchamp would leave behind a legacy
that continued to deeply affect our waning century and which,
barring unforeseen circumstances, promises to continue its impact on
the next. In fact one could easily go so far as to insist that it is
difficult, if not impossible, to imagine the direction that the arts
of our own period would have taken without his influence. He would
serve as mentor to the composer John Cage (and through him
to a new generation of artists including Ray Johnson, Allan Kaprow,
and Dick Higgins); would deeply influence Merce Cunningham, Terry
Atkinson and the Art-Language group, Jasper Johns, Robert
Rauschenberg (the precursors to American Pop) and Claes Oldenburg,
Richard Hamilton and the British Independent Group, Robert Morris
and other Minimalists, the Situationist International, George
Maciunas and other Fluxus people, among a host of others. I would
posit that one cannot speak of eternal networks, process aesthetics,
or any of the other art actions that maintain as their conceptual
armature a purported insistence upon the inseparableness of art and
life without hearing the echo of Duchamp's voice. It would be naive
of us to assume, however, that he would have unconditionally
approved of these contemporary manifestations of the Duchampian
legacy.
Alternative Traditions in the Contemporary Arts: Process Aesthetics
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/atca/subjugated/one_3.htm
While "Nude" was a concrete, specific work of art, the Readymades took
the process of making art into other areas, opening it up to
explorations of content, aesthetics and material that are still very
much with us today. This might well have happened without Duchamp's
"Fountain," but he was the lead and the object was specifically
representative. Not every exploration since has been fruitful or even
fun, but sometimes things need to be done one way or another.
Kathy Forer
www.kforer.com
David Martin Hershey on mon 13 dec 04
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for the link to Process Aesthetics.
Surprising (or not) how well some of that
Seventies writing holds up.
I'm a fan of Giacometti too.
Rodin was also a big influence-
I make a point to visit his studio
every time I'm in Paris.
It's funny though,
I didn't get him until
after Henry Moore and A.Calder.
Is it true that Rodin was
the first Art SuperStar
in the modern sense?
On Duchamp and the Academy,
I find it rather ironic that
the Academy that Duchamp
spawned today, is even more
rigid and boring than the French
Academy of old...
As far as Warhol goes,
I see him as the first Television Artist.
Andy was a hugely talented graphic artist-
he just didn't have much to say.
I love graphics, I like his work,
and I thank him for giving us
the multiple image.
But like television,
he was all style and very little content.
A "personality" of the TV persuasion.
Unfortunately, his spawn
was a generation of Kellys and Koonses.
And the Art World still doesn't realize
that the Kings are wearing
no clothes.
Maybe they never will...
Oh well, it keeps the Art Masses
occupied. ;-)
Best, DMH
Beautiful Hermosa Beach CA USA
where my eyes are blurry
from looking at
waaay too many catalogs
| |
|
