All right,
let's hear it. Start commenting on the book ASAP. This will be your class participation grade. You have to comment on the book whenever I ask on the blog for your points throughout the semester.
Also, start working on your artist cards(they can be 3-d BTW, did I mention that? or video) The book shoud give you some artist to start chasing down an alley.
LAter,
mikewindy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Im not sure how I feel about the book so far. I find it a little bit tricky to follow what the author is talking about. The parts I did understand were interesting. I liked how Collings described the "myths" of artists using Warhol, Pollack and Picasso as examples. I also found the part where Collings described the "abstract-sublime hospital doors" paintings by Gary Hume. The connection he made with Minimalism being empty, death is empty, hospitals have death. I like how he stated that "meaning bounced of the magnolia if you wanted it to...you dont have to torture it out though".
ReplyDeleteI agree with Megan, that parts of the book are somewhat difficult to follow. I thought that there were some interesting thoughts on the hype and myths that surround artists today. Collings mentioned that artists are expected to be "larger than life individuals." I feel like this sometimes when I am making art, like I have to come up with some genius idea for my artwork to be legitimate, which is frustrating and can limit creativity.
ReplyDeleteI also like how when talking about modern art, he said: "the art must be unconventional but the galleries must be conventional so you can tell it's really art in them and not just something left over from a party or a murder." I thought this was funny and pretty accurate way of describing modern art.
Totally agree with both of you. It's hard to follow what the author is trying to say. I feel like I don't speak "art" and therefore I don't understand. I feel like sometimes the author assumes that his audience has knowledge about certain things that they may not.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, as like how the book is set up. I like the chapters (I am a Genius, Shock and Horror, etc) and I'm hoping to learn more as I read on in the book.
I must retract the statement I made in class about the book. The book is not terrible. The introduction and the first chapter were, but after that, I was actually able to pay attention instead of my eyes following the lines of words yet my brain not processing it. Perhaps it was because the first two artists the author wrote about in the 2nd chapter were Damien Hirst and Goya. I had never really thought about Goya's work in the same train of thought as Modern art. That just opens up a whole new slew of ideas.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'll keep reading it...
Wow,
ReplyDeleteA public retraction!!! Well done Defective Product. Bonus points for saying "slew". It is cool to think of all the characters in the past connecting to what we are doing right now. Art History is sometimes proposed to us in a way that movements happened like really clean shifts but really things overlap or continue in a much messier way that's difficult to record. Think about how people go on wearing clothes even if they are out of style. A lot of people just keep on making the art they make regardless of art world trends. Sometimes they are in style and sometimes they are not. Some figure out how to always be in style. It's not luck. They never ever sleep and work really hard and network/smooze alot. We'll remember them though.
I had a hard time following what he was trying to say about “myth”. I get the Picasso, Pollock, and Warhol bit but the Gilbert and George part as well as the Joseph Beuys schizophrenic ranting art connection or disconnection is where he lost me. All great artists but that was quite a rabbit trail of an explanation. The part about appropriation in chapter one really got me thinking. He connected The Chapman brothers to the Godfather of shock-art, Goya. Collings’ explanation of the difference between appropriation and influence is great insight.
ReplyDeleteI also agree it was a bit hard to follow in the beginning, however, It is an interesting read once I started understanding what was going on. I really liked how the author talked about the myths of Picasso, Jackson Pollock and Andy Warhol and how they affected modern art. I also liked when he mentioned that mythologizing is now sometimes a part of what a Modern artist does-whether it be having an "act" like Gilbert and George, or a "story" like Beuys. Perhaps I'll have my own story...hmmm...
ReplyDeleteThis Line made me think:
"Meaning itself is only a part of art. We object to there not being any but when there is some it's often not all that interest."
The signature plate by Jeff Koons really bothers me for some reason, but I actually find the dirty mattress, aka Au naturel to be really intriguing and beautiful, funny and just weird. And I love that Sarah Lucas name her sculpture of a packet of kippers and two melons in a string bag- Bitch. ha
hey sorry i wrote a whole lot of wonderful thoughts but i had to make a blogger thing and it all got deleted... so sorry if this is not that fantastic i just dont fell like it!
ReplyDeleteok to start off with; just like everbody and their mother i found the text a little hard to comprehend at first. i just felt like he was trying to make me feel like i was this big (i'm holding my fingers about 2 in. apart) anyway after i got over his hoy toy attitude i really like the content. the author speaks a lot on theory and not as much about form. I'm tired of art history so a little less formalist theory and a little more of a feminist point of view is entertaining. at lest thats my point of view. so far so good!