Thursday, April 30, 2009

The Great Back and Forth

Chewing all that, shall we say, shit may not be a skilled activity, but the dedication it takes to do it might be considered a skill. Does skill necessarily make ones work art? I know plenty of welders, but few would consider what they do/create/work on art. So maybe it is the concept that really matters. For instance Cherry Makita was poorly constructed but that was part of its message/charm/draw/appeal.

Although I have to say I am hesitant to think that concept is all that matters. I could post a piece of blank paper and say that I have a concept of a bunny rabbit painted on it. However at that point I would beg that while the concept is there the work is not communicating.

On the other hand, look at the shapes of the two chewed blocks. Whether it is conscience or unconscience they develop interestingly and complement each other in a very aesthetic way. I think that while it was rudimentary skill that shaped them I do think it required some sort of skill. Eating is a skill you know.

Monday, March 30, 2009

Yes, it’s all about sex and chocolate! Duchamp has been quoted as saying to the art historian Lawrence Steelfel, “I want to grasp things with the mind the way the penis is grasped by the vagina.” Sexuality was a primary element for artists at the beginning of the twentieth century as well as pushing the boundaries of what is art. One of the main connections between Bride stripped bare in Duchamp’s work and the gnawed chocolate Janine Antoni is the REAL lack of artistic skill needed to execute these works. Duchamp ushered in a new era of what is considered Art. There’s no skills needed by the artists, the visual experience isn’t that important either, it’s only the conceptual that matters. The art world needs a revolution! Artists with skill united!

It takes all kinds

Aw, honey
You know it is always about sex. Who's doin who is what makes the world go round!Or atleast that is what makes it fun. I have tried to understand what that Duchamp fella was gettin at with his bride scuplture and am just not sure I get it. My cousin who is an artist is the one who took me over to see it and he said it has to do with the men at the bottom lookin up at the lady(or maybe lookin up her nightgown) and just wantin her to beat the band. He also says there is a chocolate grinder in there but I was not sure which part that was or what exactly a chocolate grinder does sept grind up some chocolate. I think that would have helped out Miss Janine with all that gnawin. I think that is just really gross and would be the last person to buy from her line of lipsticks. I like red lipstick,mind you, I am sure I should be rewarded for how much money I send those lipstick folk, but I would not use any kind that someone had chewed up and spit out! As for the chocolate chewin--well honey! we all have those days! I like to do my chewin in a hot tub while readin a trashy novel and poppin the midol---Maybe that could be your next piece!


Again, with the sex. Is that all you artists have to talk about? Duchamp is so deeply troubled by his obsession with his mother that he must immortalize his fixation in the most complicated interpretation of the male/female relationship I have heard in my years of analysis. He most definitely needs to lie on my couch; we have lots of work to do!

As far as the female artist, Janine Antoni, she claims as many references as there are available – feminism, art history, the body, desire, daily activities, body image, process, commercial culture and packaging. The work seems to be trying to say something, but more over it seems that she is trying to fit academic theory to the work, and in the end seems shallow and pedantic, as illustrated by her quote:

“It seemed to embody desire for the viewer, and what happens if you succumb to that desire? You get fat.”

Audio Program excerpt _Janine Antoni,
MoMA2000: Open Ends (1960–2000),

I must agree with the earlier post, that the size of the audience becomes very narrow indeed when presented with just the objects themselves. I wonder how many people would take the time to free-associate in order to bring some understanding. I will be glad to help with that … for a small fee.


Sunday, March 29, 2009

Strength and audience?

Is an article in a medical journal not a good one if I don’t happen to understand the concepts behind it? Was Galileo wrong, because the Roman Catholic church didn’t know or accept the premise he was working on? No, those are false statements. It is strong in the concept of the image in conveyed. If you do not know the concept and are unable to interpret it you are either not paying enough attention to the image or you are not in the intended audience of the artist and are therefore excluded from the work.
Duchamp works with many influences in his creative process. The fact that he uses word plays and jokes in his visual formation creates a small set of optimal viewers in his audience. This works against the ability to have a universal of the work. This allows for the viewer to create a more personal story on the basis of the title and the abstract imagery.
On the other hand, Janine Antoni works with a process and materials that are familiar to everyone and leads to the concept in a not to obtuse manner. If the show does not mention how the secondary products have been produces or what they were specifically produced from the earlier objects, then becomes the obscuring of the lines of the strong piece, but that might become an issue with presentation.
The question to me is the size of the audience that the artist is looking for. What is too general and what is too specific for the viewer so that they have interest in the piece and they are still able to relate to it.
Do these two works stand on their own if the viewer does not know the concept or intent of the artist? I also have to ask, if this were not a piece of artwork by Duchamp would I like it as much?
Yes and no.
I like Duchamps work in general and like this piece but on a purely visual level. My opinion of the piece is not inhanced at all by knowing the concept behind it. Did Duchamp really intend for the viewer to understand his representation of attraction and desire(or lack there of as labeled by critics and historians), or did he title the piece for us (as viewers and critics) to add meaning to a piece he simply enjoyed creating?

I am intrigued by the concept of Gnaw and find it interesting, but am left numb by the installation itself (visually).
If I walked into a gallery as this piece was being produced/performed, and could watch Janine Antoni gnawing and spitting out lard I may find the process interesting...then again I could gag and find it a bit repulsive and loose interest in the concept altogether.

Art for arts sake? When a conceptual piece of work stands only on knowing the concept to appreciate it, is it still a strong piece of work? Is this putting too much of the work in the hands of the viewer?


ivanhoe game 2#

Some folks call artists idea creators,
I call 'em object makers, mmm-humf.