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.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
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!
xoxox
Dolly
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!
xoxox
Dolly
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.
S.F.
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.
S.F.
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.
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?
S
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?
S
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
As loyal followers of THECHOCOLATECORONER, you all know what a BIG FAN of CHOCOLATE I am. Recently, I heard about a woman who REALLY LIKES CHOCOLATE TOO! She is an artist and her name is JANINE ANTONI. Here she is as a child:
I thought: I HAVE TO SEE THIS ARTIST WHO LOVES CHOCOLATE AS MUCH AS I DO! So I went to the museum and there it was, some half-assed, half-eaten block of chocolate, and another half-assed half-eaten block of soap. Excuse me but WFT?
I was told that in order to understand the piece I had to understand Marcel Duchamp. Well WFTx2! I DO NOT UNDERSTAND Marcel Duchamp. Come on! I looked at a piece called“The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, Even”. “The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, Even”? WFTx3! What is that supposed to mean? I do not see a NAKED BRIDE anywhere! And where are these SUPPOSED BACHELORS? Sounds like some kind of fucked up GANGBANG ORGY [edited for content] but it’s just a bunch of MACHINERY! Anyway. Sorry. I get a little HOT IN THE COLLAR, if you know what I mean.
So gang, I found a solution. On RoyalBooks.Com, I can pick up THE GREEN BOX, which will supposedly explain everything. Here is the listing:
Duchamp, Marcel
from the Green Box (Signed First Edition)
New Haven, CT: The Readymade Press, 1957 Hardcover. First Edition, first printing. Fine in a Near Fine dust jacket. INSCRIBED by Duchamp to art critic Frank Trapp in the year of publication: "Cher Frank Trapp / Magician / cordialement / Marcel Duchamp / 1957." A companion book to the edition of twenty green boxes of documents published by Duchamp in 1934, and the first book issued by the Readymade Press. [Book #73478]
Price: $2,500.00
save 30%$1,750.00
You may have noticed that the pricetag, even with the 30% savings, is still WAY OVER MY BUDGET! Which is where all of you loyal supporters come in. I’m setting up a THECHOCOLATECORONER paypal account where you can send me a dollar. I figure that I have way over 17500 fans (judging by everyone who’s a registered FAN of THECHOCOLATECORONER so that if everyone sends me a dollar, I can get Duchamp’s THE GREEN BOX, and unlock all of the secrets to “The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, Even”. And, after I obtain the secrets, I will then share with you, my loyal fans. So click here and donate a buck.
Also, I plan on watching the Art:21 Season Two episode, which features Janine Antoni. Once I do, I can tell you all of HER SECRETS too!
I thought: I HAVE TO SEE THIS ARTIST WHO LOVES CHOCOLATE AS MUCH AS I DO! So I went to the museum and there it was, some half-assed, half-eaten block of chocolate, and another half-assed half-eaten block of soap. Excuse me but WFT?
I was told that in order to understand the piece I had to understand Marcel Duchamp. Well WFTx2! I DO NOT UNDERSTAND Marcel Duchamp. Come on! I looked at a piece called“The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, Even”. “The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, Even”? WFTx3! What is that supposed to mean? I do not see a NAKED BRIDE anywhere! And where are these SUPPOSED BACHELORS? Sounds like some kind of fucked up GANGBANG ORGY [edited for content] but it’s just a bunch of MACHINERY! Anyway. Sorry. I get a little HOT IN THE COLLAR, if you know what I mean.
So gang, I found a solution. On RoyalBooks.Com, I can pick up THE GREEN BOX, which will supposedly explain everything. Here is the listing:
Duchamp, Marcel
from the Green Box (Signed First Edition)
New Haven, CT: The Readymade Press, 1957 Hardcover. First Edition, first printing. Fine in a Near Fine dust jacket. INSCRIBED by Duchamp to art critic Frank Trapp in the year of publication: "Cher Frank Trapp / Magician / cordialement / Marcel Duchamp / 1957." A companion book to the edition of twenty green boxes of documents published by Duchamp in 1934, and the first book issued by the Readymade Press. [Book #73478]
Price: $2,500.00
save 30%$1,750.00
You may have noticed that the pricetag, even with the 30% savings, is still WAY OVER MY BUDGET! Which is where all of you loyal supporters come in. I’m setting up a THECHOCOLATECORONER paypal account where you can send me a dollar. I figure that I have way over 17500 fans (judging by everyone who’s a registered FAN of THECHOCOLATECORONER so that if everyone sends me a dollar, I can get Duchamp’s THE GREEN BOX, and unlock all of the secrets to “The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, Even”. And, after I obtain the secrets, I will then share with you, my loyal fans. So click here and donate a buck.
Also, I plan on watching the Art:21 Season Two episode, which features Janine Antoni. Once I do, I can tell you all of HER SECRETS too!
Monday, March 23, 2009
Gnaw vs. Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors
The second game commentary will be based on a comparison of visual works. Look at the performance piece by Janine Antoni entitled "Gnaw" and relate it to the "Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors", made by Marcel Duchamp. This will require some research about the two works. Unlike Fellini, this work will not contain a direct narrative to comment on. Base your point of view on a distinct character with a clearly discernible set of values. You do not need to tell me what those values are in a direct way. I should be able to pick up on those principles from your visual critique of the work. Let the game begin.
Neverneverland collapse
He does incorporate ideas about the life of dreams in to this film. I also strongly see the stereotype of the artist as child, or Mario as a child archetype. He is constantly in the struggle of wanting every thing and not wanting or being able to make the proper decisions. He is the director controlling the movie and holding the rest of the cast and crew in suspense over the continuation of their lives. He is secretly reveling in the power that he holds. He is doing the same thing in his private life with his wife.
At the end of the film there is the braking point were he must make the choice of what is going to happen. Everyone brakes into song and dance and the ending is happy he has reached individuation/a break through or whatever. Throughout the whole of the film the dream or fantasy sequences just emerge and so that leads to the idea that he really did just break down and that it is his imagination took us out of the film as his only way of coping with his situation.
At the end of the film there is the braking point were he must make the choice of what is going to happen. Everyone brakes into song and dance and the ending is happy he has reached individuation/a break through or whatever. Throughout the whole of the film the dream or fantasy sequences just emerge and so that leads to the idea that he really did just break down and that it is his imagination took us out of the film as his only way of coping with his situation.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
I was reading that Fellini was deep in Jungian psychoanalysis during this time. He kept a journal of drawings from his dreams, which influenced this film. 8 ½ represents Fellini’s own creative struggle and is considered autobiographical surrealism. Yes, “who needs linear narrative” for this film demolishes any preconceived ideas regarding narrative. This film is a series of dream images of one man’s creative process into the irrational subconscious mind, or could it be a LSD hallucination. Maybe we all need a little psychedelic help to get into Fellini?
-b
-b
Friday, March 20, 2009
>When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. Bless the s.o.b. hallucinating it out in old school black and white… I’ll challenge him at target practice over a few whiskeys any day. There is nothing more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of a self-reflective ether binge. Throw in a few midgets and go straight to the critic’s jugular, who needs linear narrative anyway--that’s for tie wearing film drones. To actually get paid for writing this kind of manic gibberish seems genuinely weird; like getting paid for kicking Agnew in the balls. So maybe there's hope. Or maybe Fellini’s going mad... Well, at least, I'll know I was there, neck deep in the madness, before the filming went down, and I got so high and wild that I felt like a two-ton Manta ray jumping all the way across the boot of Italy Fellini knew who I was, at that time, because I had a reputation as a writer--I did not know who he was until he passed out in my bathtub--then I noticed him. I had to have him taken away. "If you're going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or else you're going to be locked up" I told him before he was dragged off.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
OMG! this movie was crappy. why even make a move about not being able to make a movie? people in the art department make fun of the movies i like, but at least legally blonde and legally blond 2 had a positive message... and a strong female lead (OMG! i love reese witherspoon). maybe guido couldn't make his movie because he was such a woman hating, poopie pants. seriously, this movie was made in italy? where were all the hot guys? i've been to italy, and i can assure you, TOTAL HOTNESS! all of the dudes in 8 1/2 were all dusty old... i'm sure guido was all hot like half a century ago, but not so much these days. this movie was totaly like seinfeld... nothing ever happened... just a bunch of people complaining about stuff. did i mention, seinfeld is poopie too! even the really cute boy i had over to watch your movie with me left because it was so crappy!!! yawn! thanks for robbing me of a perfectly good friday night, fellini!!! ARRGH!
xoxoxox, victoria
xoxoxox, victoria
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Guido is a handsome boy. A handsome man. A handsome face.
Even when he forgets to shave.
His eyes are put in
backwards and he
pauses too long before he responds.
Dark frames
to keep his looks in--
not let them liberate to
run off with passing fancies.
They are sewn shut reflective caps.
Waiting silver corner style
soaking up
cobblestones and humidity and
chiaroscuro.
Even when he forgets to shave.
His eyes are put in
backwards and he
pauses too long before he responds.
Dark frames
to keep his looks in--
not let them liberate to
run off with passing fancies.
They are sewn shut reflective caps.
Waiting silver corner style
soaking up
cobblestones and humidity and
chiaroscuro.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Hi Guys! Hi, nice to see you again. HI! I wondered: What are the glasses Marcello Mastroianni wears in 8 1/2? Not the sunglasses, but the regular eyeglasses. They're like a lighter, more curvaceous Wayfarer almost. YEAH! I think they’re probably an ITALIAN MAKER! (Luxottica?). I've got a few vintage AMERICAN OPTICAL and RAY BAN frames from thrift shops with prescription lenses. I think they are typical frames of that era. I have about 5 pair of TERRI BROGAN and POLO frames from that era. Mine all have Prescription Lenses in them. RATS! and I do not wear them anymore. Would you like a pair? Anyway, I like his EARLIER, FUNNIER MOVIES! Why does he have to be so SERIOUS!
Anyway, GOTTA RUN! Talk to you SOON!
--W
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
