Re: For Love or Money

by andfalling (02.08.09 10:00 pm)

The day Jerry Saltz can say “art” without saying “world” is the day we all get back on track.

And, of course, Chuck came more than close.

Re: For Love or Money

by CAP (02.12.09 06:33 pm)

I like to think I come more than close, but accomplices disagree.

I agree with Jerry about art here though - the world follows. That bimbo confuses price with value.

Re: For Love or Money

by dopplebock (02.12.09 11:43 pm)

If this is all the art world has to talk about then I question the value. My recomendation is a STRONG SELL.

Let em run on the bank. Rome SHOULD burn.

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (02.13.09 05:34 pm)

..if you cant paint make DADA for MOMA

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (02.15.09 04:22 pm)

Its a bit tuff to read the whole thing in one sitting...so “as rome burned larry played” over and over week after week

Re: For Love or Money

by dopplebock (02.15.09 04:31 pm)

yeah. I like reading the minutes of the ethics committee. Sorry for your loss and all that. Could be a bit clearer - even murkier than Ashebury, who is a bit full of himself if you ask me.

it almost reads as parody but then it would have to be funny.

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (02.15.09 08:04 pm)

It seems “they” removed the previous comment? strange?

ANYWAY BOYS
the one silver lining was that so far, Contemporary Art Photography seems to be holding in well.
What? I thought that photo sold a few years ago for what ?700,000.$ or something like that or did it seem like 7 now that everything is in the Billions

modernartobsession.blogs.com/modern_art_obsession/
Andreas Gursky

Prada III (1989) Color coupler print mounted on Diesec in wooden artist frame.

Presale Estimate : 180,000 - 220,000 British Pound Sterling

Actual Hammer price : 225,000 Sterling + Auction House Premium

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (02.17.09 08:50 am)

“The Real Housewives of New York City” continues to feel especially yucky in this regard — and fraudulently offensive to a certain kind of New Yorker who would never actually envy someone like Jack.

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (02.17.09 03:44 pm)

Thanks Ill try it....and by the way “they” keep removing some of the more arty postings you know the ones that seem like they were written by a paranoid on coke Whats up with that ? I like trying to figure out what the fool is saying

Re: For Love or Money

by suggestreading (02.17.09 06:08 pm)

Ah, “din-din”, she said with bells, skirt swing and flounce, her stockings literally holy, bow-tied for whiskers, though he growled, showing her his clock, a shiny, flat reflection of her own desire in that hot stretch of claws.

Tide w/ vinegar rinse.

We must go shopping for shoes. Who learns to administer first? You've got to be kidding...God, i'd be there, but that vertical, cold iron thang...keeps me here.

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (02.17.09 08:34 pm)

Cool ..this ones a little more Henry Miller...and what happen to the other posting? the one about how to make your own Gursky's in photoshop

Re: For Love or Money

by dopplebock (02.18.09 02:05 am)

Weird. I thought I was being extremely clear on that one.

I'm assuming someone took offense that Gursky could even think of using software to compose his images.

Otherwise why take the post down?

I;d complain, but like Schjeldahl, it bores me.

Re: For Love or Money

by dopplebock (02.18.09 02:06 am)

Gursky sucks. Gursky is a sham. Gursky. Ha. Gursky. Bollocks.

Re: For Love or Money

by CAP (02.18.09 02:30 am)

I've just been looking at a big show of Gurskys - they were all really big.

There is PSD editing in there - I was especially interesting in finally seeing one of those Bahrain F1 racetrack ones up-close. Lots of little discrepancies in perspective and direction of shadows tell you someone's been a-clipping pathing and a-layer masking. Looks like we've got us a Cubist on our hands, boys. Really slick shit though.

The feed lots, F1 pit crews, Tour de France mountain slopes. I dig the Olympian perspective and the big money wooden frames. Gonna get me one of them thar digi tal camerookas.

Re: For Love or Money

by dopplebock (02.18.09 06:39 pm)

yeah, thats the point

filter>artistic>cutout

I;ve knwo about for a long time

And photostitch is on the iphone now. WHo cares.

Gursky = obsolete. But nice photos, nonetheless. Still, i wouldnt pay more than 10 to 20 grand for one would you?

nothing wrong with revealing artistic process right? In all its self reflexive glory?

We are all looking through cameras of some sort or another.

SOme people are looking through pinholes. Others, gaping maws.

Re: For Love or Money

by CAP (02.19.09 02:42 pm)

Well, not all filters = art.

But yeah who sees everything, everytime? Take off all the filters and you're blinded by the light.

The more they fiddle with cameras and collage though, the more you wonder why not just paint?

Gursky has his German social program (ze masses...) but it still smacks of surveillance.

Re: For Love or Money

by studiodapore (02.21.09 05:44 pm)

Art is a expression of love. Weather it be photography, paintings or Music its inner most passion of a person. Money is something that to me has corrupted the love of art. Yes, we do have to make a living, but we don't need to be so distracted that we lose ourselves and love for the arts.

Jessica
www.originalabstractart.net

Re: For Love or Money

by dopplebock (02.21.09 09:48 pm)

I hate love...but I love money.

Re: For Love or Money

by suggestreading (02.22.09 01:23 pm)

i know i keep putting my two cents in but Dude keeps kicking penny off with, “no more damn loafers” to see fit to place even a ‘funny’ smell (who can blame soul) and everybody knows no one can take his girlfriend and talk at the same time when even time erupts for that fool to explain he canno’ see his way through flame when ‘whole hillside tries miss ‘im’.

Listen: i know Vesuvius calls but that phone canno' ring. It just does not ring, Dude.

It does not ring even when little girls cry (in THEIR LOUDEST VOICE) that she wants her fairy to put peanuts in the pizza (rather—it's one or the other she says: than steal her teeth from under a pillow).

Re: For Love or Money

by suggestreading (02.22.09 05:03 pm)

If Dude is drinking...it's because he's had his insulin.

Enough of too much TSH, okay bro? Yeah, yeah...i hear ye laughing, but just to...to liven...well, that score (up they say, but what do they know)...and not to mention that fun card you carry around as if some cherry-picker is gonna ask ye to pencil in some dance...i mean...sure it's got holes (but i was not the one requesting the punch).

THAT POEM MADE ME HAPPY AS HELL AND I WILL NOT FORGET IT.

' don't care if it is about a dream catcher or soul thing (if damnation is convex, that bugger is concave) AND if your bigness gets rounded out, suspended by a jet of H2O, i will simply hold light higher (though it bends there, Bing).

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (02.23.09 10:23 pm)

I think you shot your wad...to early

Re: For Love or Money

by suggestreading (02.24.09 10:22 am)

Expenditure is (a tax) and where's my property (at toll while fix my price as hire accompanies a coldness)?

*laugh* this body is still human.

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (02.24.09 01:30 pm)

^Sounds^/reads +more+ like a (BAILOUT)

Re: For Love or Money

by suggestreading (02.24.09 03:04 pm)

Yup. ' still want to publish Gravity's Proportion.

There is simply too much work to do on Heliotropes (the book, that is). I don't want to publish Heliotropes because it needs a lot of revision. Whole sections should be reworked.

Right now, it's about GP. GP is finished—requires only that sober, strict eye for perfection.

A sober eye is not a problem. There has to be a buyer, some interest shown...this is all. It's been slow publishing because while some have done their utmost, others have ignored it altogether.

i can wind “my watch” by it.

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (02.24.09 03:24 pm)

I suggest listening to Barry Adamson I think you'll find your answers in “something wicked”

Re: For Love or Money

by suggestreading (02.24.09 04:50 pm)

Okay: ricochet, though “The Zombies” precede Barry Adamson w/ “Spooky”, Boo?

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (02.26.09 08:28 am)

Why do these painting look “hip” at least by the standards of Chelsea's Art Galleries?

www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/arts/design/26abroad.html?ref=design

Re: For Love or Money

by suggestreading (02.28.09 08:32 am)

He's just shouldering the burden in his shiny way.

Re: For Love or Money

by suggestreading (02.28.09 04:15 pm)

Shiny Dude.

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (02.28.09 07:40 pm)

OK This could be good news for LA but are we going to get more of the silly goofy and dumb art that Ive seen so much of in the last 15 years?

This is good news for Los Angeles,” said Hammer director Ann Philbin. “They are two of the most talented curators working in contemporary art today, and they are excited about the city. Both of them have a lot of connections here. They know they want to be here and why.”

Re: For Love or Money

by dopplebock (03.01.09 02:16 am)

Dude, why are you dudin; all of a sudden?

i see three strains of art - some of it associated with the left coast, but those kinds of geogrpahical distinctions dont make much sense anymore.

1) Graphic design inspired eye candy - imported into the art world it becomes a low to high culture deal - not much of interest there but the best is good design

2) Good student art historical narrativism. Need a car crash? And exploded home? Self reflexive materialism? A photo of a photo?

3) Bad art. Either because of lack of skill or as a statemtent or both.

4) Good art. Tasteful art that would hang well in any modern home and looks expensive.

5) Trash art. Art that is trash, but is also art.

6) Socially useful art. Arguably not possible.

7) Art that is alchemy but also investigates phenomena. Usually pretentious and boring.

8) Language art. Where writers get to be artists. Usually visually boring.

Not an exhaustive list, but it's a start. Are these kinds of taxonomies usefull? I don't know, but it does make art more banal, and thus less desireable (or more I guess).

Change is good.

Re: For Love or Money

by jameschute (03.01.09 09:51 am)

Regarding contrasting strains of art, I recommend Helen Molesworth's piece in the just-dropped ish of the print mag.
If only the rest of the Artforum gang could write as well as she.

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (03.01.09 01:20 pm)

#6 made me Laugh out-loud and true.... anyway it looks like the snowball effect with Barry Adamson for me today. Things are going well and back to work

Re: For Love or Money

by suggestreading (03.01.09 01:29 pm)

Cool.

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (03.04.09 07:41 am)

Why is this question such a sacred cow at Artforum?

OK Ill try again Lets see how long the powers that be at Artforum will leave this question up
Why is a site specific sculpture a good idea when a painting made for above the couch considered a sell out? Doesn't both modes require one to take in information(adjustments) that could be a compromise to the art object?
IN PRACTICE
SCULPTURE CENTER
44 - 19 Purves Street
January 11–March 22
www.artforum.com/picks/section=nyc&mode=current
In this series of installations commissioned for the institution’s basement space, artists offer disparate interpretations of site specificity.

Re: For Love or Money

by dopplebock (03.04.09 12:57 pm)

Well you know the answer. Linda Benglis didn't use a double dong to be no middle class objet d'art. No, and in the same way we dont display art behind a mediation of a couch or sofa, if you prefer.

And I must say, though most people display their art in apalling conditions, it behooves us to remember that not everyone has a private gallery to illuminate their good taste with.

I myself lack a clip light, which would make my life easier, but look at Goya - he painted some of his best paintings in the dark.

No, in the final analysis, loking with out eyes, and listenign with out ears, we see that the sofa is no big deal, everybody has one, after all, right?

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (03.04.09 01:45 pm)

OK I see your point BUT Im talking about the ARTIST and the object not the collector or curator.

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (03.04.09 04:32 pm)

P.S. actually thats not true “WE” display art behind a couch or sofa all the time “WE” just dont take in consideration of color , size and style. So how does site specific escape this handicap?

and in the same way we dont display art behind a mediation of a couch or sofa,

Re: For Love or Money

by dopplebock (03.11.09 02:37 am)

Well yeah, site specificity is often a way of raping an art object of meaning as much as it can be used to enhance its meaning.

I agree.

Just as any artist wouldnt want to be curated into a show that obscured or altered their conceptual program, if any.

Hey, I stumbled on a brouhaha - yet another attempt to brand someone as a “programmer.”

Is there soem special cashet with being a programmer/artist as opposed to being a video editor/artist?

I suppose - is it that an artist can't hire a programmer? No

Is it because programming is difficult? Exotic?

Fill me in.

Is datamoshing an Afpac land grab?

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (03.12.09 06:04 pm)

I have a radical idea ! why not go to a gallery ? sorry guys I dont know why your bugging me so much these days I love reading your Blog and all that but ....it just seems like the art scene is built on a lot of strange premisses and BS

“We love Art Fairs with solo shows..it's one of the best ways to get to know the work on a new artist in our not so humble opinion”.

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (03.13.09 03:19 pm)

But in many ways she has met — at least for the moment — the basic requirements of artistic importance. Her work is singular, consistent and relevant RS

Yes it looks exactly the way art should look with all the correct influences ....at least for the art establishment (and it always did)
www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/arts/design/13holz.html?pagewanted=2&ref=arts

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (03.19.09 05:05 pm)

Matthew slow down Matisse wasn't understood in 1917 and really had very little to do with 1917 outside of making a painting from inside his car. Matisse is one tuff painter and you have to be smart visually to get him.It was true then and is still true now DONT be depressed you been looking at so much bad art you cant even find your pecker But your TV program is great fun..thanks
www.artinfo.com/news/story/30312/the-conceptual-art-father/?page=3

the whole conceptual tradition, including Pierre Huyghe, offers exactly that. It’s not that Matisse and Gorky, etc., can tell us only about 1917 or 1939. They offer magnificent lookatability, not just beauty but beauty full of mind and feeling — emotion that transcends its own moment. But we are frankly baffled by the tradition of aestheticism that Matisse represents.

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (03.20.09 02:23 pm)

Could one say this is a “dated idea”?

Some art-boom heroes (Lisa Yuskavage) feel suddenly dated. Others (Rudolf Stingel) are perfectly present.
By Jerry Saltz

Re: For Love or Money

by Back Talk (03.21.09 09:07 pm)

Back to Site Specific
www.newsweek.com/id/189228

Frederick Ilchman, a curator at Boston's Museum of Fine Arts, believes it was the Venetian artist Titian and a couple of rival painters, Tintoretto and Veronese, who—about 450 years ago—really invented modern painting. That is, Ilchman says, if your definition is his: “oil on canvas, not done for any specific site, and with the artist, not the patron, choosing the subject matter.”