Artist you just don't "get"

[shoeless]

I enjoy a good mr. smith debate.
Always reminds me of this scene:

[mistersmith]

Little know. Fact: I do, in fact, blow goats. Pewter has proof.

[dskdaniel]

Type of art I don't get: Florey's 1/1s, Whalen's Bust'ds, whoever the drymount else does that same exact boring fudge.

[plaink]

There's a theme running through this conversation about associating value with "time spent" on art or other physical expenditure (size, media). Why is that important? Why are those transparent characteristics of art still at the forefront of critical opinion?

I did this I guess, was more countering an assertion that Rothko's work was conceived as an end-run around an inability to do good work. This is an argument you hear a lot about A/E or conceptual art, and it can be true, but I just don't think it's fair to guys like Rothko who actually progressed from skilled painting in one school to the point of painting these controversial museum pieces. I was just pointing out that even if you agree with Andy Rooney, Rothko should fit at least on the edge of the pedestal he reserves for Picasso.

http://youtu.be/bsfX6xqCBks (evergreen Rooney)

[ricv64]

There's a theme running through this conversation about associating value with "time spent" on art or other physical expenditure (size, media). Why is that important? Why are those transparent characteristics of art still at the forefront of critical opinion?

I did this I guess, was more countering an assertion that Rothko's work was conceived as an end-run around an inability to do good work. This is an argument you hear a lot about A/E or conceptual art, and it can be true, but I just don't think it's fair to guys like Rothko who actually progressed from skilled painting in one school to the point of painting these controversial museum pieces. I was just pointing out that even if you agree with Andy Rooney, Rothko should fit at least on the edge of the pedestal he reserves for Picasso.

http://youtu.be/bsfX6xqCBks (evergreen Rooney)

Rosenberg http://www.pooter.net/intermedia/readings/06.html

I could imagine this on the side of a building today





I 'm surprised in 2014 people want to argue on a movement from the 40's and 50's . Robert Hughes put on 2 good shows /books , Shock of the New and American Visions . Well worth reading or viewing

[Florey]

Type of art I don't get: Florey's 1/1s, Whalen's Bust'ds, whoever the drymount else does that same exact boring fudge.

Fair enough if you don't like them. Interesting to me that you see the two as the same thing though.
I got compared to Whalen by some other guy the other day too (for something completely different).
I don't really see it...

[DeadHand]

Type of art I don't get: Florey's 1/1s, Whalen's Bust'ds, whoever the drymount else does that same exact boring fudge.

Fair enough if you don't like them. Interesting to me that you see the two as the same thing though.
I got compared to Whalen by some other guy the other day too (for something completely different).
I don't really see it...

Portraits of famous pop characters in a more "cartoon-y" style, I guess? Considering he specified the 1/1s and Bust'ds.

[Florey]

Type of art I don't get: Florey's 1/1s, Whalen's Bust'ds, whoever the drymount else does that same exact boring fudge.

Fair enough if you don't like them. Interesting to me that you see the two as the same thing though.
I got compared to Whalen by some other guy the other day too (for something completely different).
I don't really see it...

Portraits of famous pop characters in a more "cartoon-y" style, I guess? Considering he specified the 1/1s and Bust'ds.

Yeah maybe. You could lump in almost any artist with that though.
Fun fact: I also had a series called 'Busted' a year or so ago.
Maybe we are the same...

[churdiales]

A work of its time/place and only of its time/place is or can still be art to me. Or at least artlike (arty?). I mean, if something...let's just say that is done purposely and with forethought for effect, whatever it is- yogurt cups glued to the center of each of four bare walls or taking a ride to the artist's mother's house for tea (I can't find a link)- puts me in a different headspace I'm cool with calling art. Doesn't make it a Velazquez of course.

This kind of thing: without an artist statement, that's just candy on the floor. The idea is artistic, and if you want to give them full credit the piece is maybe art adjacent, but homey: that's a pile of candy on the floor. Ain't nobody made nothin'.

http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/152961

smith, I agree with some parts of what you state here, but somebody did something on that candy installation you refer to above.

The candy on the floor is part visual art, part literary, part performance. If we adhere to your "nobody made nothin'" statement about the candy on the floor because the artist didn't make the candy pieces, then we also have to put in that arena those artists who don't make the paint/ink they use, and/or create their own canvas/paper before they put their ideas on them.

Whether the materials were created from scratch (or not), whether we need the artist to provide us with context, whether the amount of skills needed should be taken into consideration, those are all different arguments. The candy installation has a reason, a purpose, and a goal; as well as (some might argue) a literary and performance component. That, in itself, is sufficient to prove that the artist "made (created) something."

like fredo mentions, if something puts me in a different place, I'm cool with calling it art.

[ksn]

If someone can explain Stik to me, that would be appreciated.

[opalis121]

A work of its time/place and only of its time/place is or can still be art to me. Or at least artlike (arty?). I mean, if something...let's just say that is done purposely and with forethought for effect, whatever it is- yogurt cups glued to the center of each of four bare walls or taking a ride to the artist's mother's house for tea (I can't find a link)- puts me in a different headspace I'm cool with calling art. Doesn't make it a Velazquez of course.

This kind of thing: without an artist statement, that's just candy on the floor. The idea is artistic, and if you want to give them full credit the piece is maybe art adjacent, but homey: that's a pile of candy on the floor. Ain't nobody made nothin'.

http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/152961

Are you arguing that all conceptual art doesn't have merit? I would say that the art production is located at the nexus between engaging with a topic and conceptualizing how to visually represent that topic in an impactful and meaningful way--essentially the locus of production has changed.

As for Gonzalez-Torres' work: that piece is considered incredibly important within contemporary art history. Torres was one of the first artists to address AIDS within the Latino population and do so in a way that made the viewer complicit in the epidemic, by literally contributing to the whittling away of his partner. Candy was understandable and approachable--he "made" a visual display that made an incredibly difficult subject easily digestible. He doesn't have to produce the candy to make the piece a work of art. I would also argue that he is using the tools of his time--those landscape paintings and portraits that are often lauded as having more artistic merit: those were often just tools for expressing conceptual art (i.e. the way people wanted to envision the new world, a covert way to speak out against colonization etc...). People who painted these works were just using the tools available to them conceptually, legally and politically. Our parameters have just changed over time.

[Superfro33]

Yeah maybe. You could lump in almost any artist with that though.

Don't worry about it too much. By definition alone "I don't get it" is an issue with the viewer, not the creator or anyone else who does "get it".

[mistersmith]

A work of its time/place and only of its time/place is or can still be art to me. Or at least artlike (arty?). I mean, if something...let's just say that is done purposely and with forethought for effect, whatever it is- yogurt cups glued to the center of each of four bare walls or taking a ride to the artist's mother's house for tea (I can't find a link)- puts me in a different headspace I'm cool with calling art. Doesn't make it a Velazquez of course.

This kind of thing: without an artist statement, that's just candy on the floor. The idea is artistic, and if you want to give them full credit the piece is maybe art adjacent, but homey: that's a pile of candy on the floor. Ain't nobody made nothin'.

http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/152961

Are you arguing that all conceptual art doesn't have merit? I would say that the art production is located at the nexus between engaging with a topic and conceptualizing how to visually represent that topic in an impactful and meaningful way--essentially the locus of production has changed.

As for Gonzalez-Torres' work: that piece is considered incredibly important within contemporary art history. Torres was one of the first artists to address AIDS within the Latino population and do so in a way that made the viewer complicit in the epidemic, by literally contributing to the whittling away of his partner. Candy was understandable and approachable--he "made" a visual display that made an incredibly difficult subject easily digestible. He doesn't have to produce the candy to make the piece a work of art. I would also argue that he is using the tools of his time--those landscape paintings and portraits that are often lauded as having more artistic merit: those were often just tools for expressing conceptual art (i.e. the way people wanted to envision the new world, a covert way to speak out against colonization etc...). People who painted these works were just using the tools available to them conceptually, legally and politically. Our parameters have just changed over time.

Yeah, I get that bolded part, and that's a valid concern to want to address, but when you're talking about "producing the candy" you missed my point. That's just a pile of candy on the floor, period, and without a piece of paper in your hand or a card on the wall that tells you what to think about what you're seeing, you will never, ever, ever make the connection the artist intended.

Art shouldn't need a third party's involvement in order for it to mean anything. If the candy piler's intent was to communicate that AIDS was a bad thing for a very specific reason, he failed at that, because unless you were handed his pamphlet your only thought when looking at his work is, "hey, free floor candy."

The underlying conceit of conceptual art appears to be an artist saying, "this is a valid metaphor because I said so." Well, that's not how metaphors and communication and ideas work.

[GmidD]

If someone can explain Stik to me, that would be appreciated.

That's one I don't really get either. The prices Snik prints fetch seem crazy.

[danielrolnik]

Myself.

Who am I?

haha!