Yes. It goes back to the readymade, at least. It might go back to primitive objects of worship, like a 'sacred' rock or river or other natural object. What makes the object art or even a sacred object is a state of mind. Art not what you do but how you regard it. Further, art is what's said about it. (Saul, Im reading An Ambition). wc
----- Original Message ---- From: saul ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, October 1, 2012 7:41:07 AM Subject: Re: today NYT Couldn't all of this (both pro and con) be saiid about Rauschenberg's silkscreen painting Sent from my iPhone Please excuse grammar and spelling errors Expect everything - fear nothing - or did I get that backwards Saul ostrow 646 528 8537 On Sep 30, 2012, at 3:14 PM, William Conger <[email protected]> wrote: > No, my point is that he's not a sculptor, no matter how a monument is made, > until someone else, a curator with status abd power, says so. The Institutional > Theory. > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, September 30, 2012 1:35:19 PM > Subject: Re: today NYT > > Today "ANYONE "can create a bronze monument, any size,of anything > in a few > weeks or months, and be called a sculptor, if he can cover the cost. > > AB > ________________________________ > From: William Conger > <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, > September 30, 2012 8:11 AM > Subject: today NYT > > Take a look at today's NYT > article on Wade Gayton. He's having a solo show at > the Whitney. He doesn't > paint or draw but makes 'paintings' by computer, > printing out images he takes > from everyday print ephemera. The curator of the > show says "Wade speaks to > the way images travel across out visual culture -- on > our computers, Iphones, > televisions and books". Please note the art-speak. > What the curator could > have said in ordinary language is, "Wade copies images > from popular culture > on his big digital printer". > > My point here is that we shouldn't blame the > artists for doing transgressive > stuff or making what seems to be silly, > vacant art. There are always artists > who are doing every sort of stuff but > we never hear about them because no one is > paying them any attention at all. > It's the gatekeepers, the curators, who pick > and choose artists through the > templates of confabulatedart-speak. When the > curator says, "Wade speaks", he > implies that Wade has a thoroughly > intellectualized or analyzed position, a > stance, from which he issues a > philosophy of culture and visuality. It's > phony. Wade himself says he never > liked drawing and thinks painting is too > hard (acting out his inner Warhol). But > admitting a slacker attitude as an > artist is exactly the key, the push-button, > to provoke intense concentration > by the curator. But Wade really simply copies > images from papers and > magazines, book endpapers and the like according to whim. > His fancy printer > can blow them up to gargantuan scale (extremism at work) and > the curator can > present this ephemera as high art (extremism of intentional > conceptual > re-contextualization). > > There's an artist here in Chicago, John Miller, who > has been doing similar > computer and big digital printer art for several > years. Few have seen this work > outside of colleague artists. No Whitney > curator has called. No big collectors > are pasting his stuff to their dining > room walls on Park Avenue. The article on > Gayton makes it pretty clear that > he has changed the course of painting! No, > the curator is trying to redefine > painting and Gayton came to his attention and > thus exemplifies what the > curator has already decided is the 'next inevitable > step' (a Greenberg > phrase, I believe). Meanwhile John Miller piles up hundreds > of huge digital > 'paintings' done before Gayton bought his first pair of trendy > red tennis > shoes, that curators ignore. The curators make art, not the artists. > The > artists and their work are merely the specimens the curatorial creativity, > the footsoldiers used by imperialist, unaccountable curators. You go, Wade! > wc
