re. john's post - won't quote, just reply. r.e. Riley - have to disagree with you - what she was doing was emphatically NOT a pop sensation, and she was pretty distressed to see her work become one (even tried suing when one of her paintings was copied for a window display). She thought Op Art clothes were hideous. Now I'd completely agree with your comment about her work not having any sort of 'function', but that's one reason why what she does is modernist (in the art, not mod sense) - she talks about her paintings in terms of aesthetic problems - of contrast, of colour - not in terms of meaning. The very sort of formal modernism that the prior generation had rejected for Pop and engaging with and commenting on the real world. I'd also agree that there's a big Bauhaus/Constructivist influence - but I wouldn't say it was a bastardisation of it, so much as a development. Former Bauhaus lecturer Joseph Albers called her 'his daughter' in recognition of it, rather than going 'of course, we were doing this much better in the 30s'. I think this keys in exactly to the comment made by another poster (the one that involved that post-modernism word), because I think this point (the mid 60s) is the first time you can see people looking back to modernist (20-50s) ideas after it was no longer the main fashion (in art) - to be a Modernist against modern culture. As for whether it could be followed up - I'd suggest checking out her latest work - after dealing with the 'problem' of colour through the 70s/80s, she's back into exploring contrast again with vast fields of curved shapes, but in 3 or 4 colours, rather than two. Over 30 years is a long time to pursue a trend. The fact that few artists have followed in her footsteps (in the UK at least) probably has more to do with art education and art fashion since the 1960s - some art colleges don't just believe painting is dead, but actually have a go at students who persist in continuing to paint (how dare they defy their betters!!). Then there's the emphasis of artists being able to justify their work (some 18 year old kid who has come from a purely practical painting based school art class suddenly finds she has to justify WHY she is doing what she's doing, to hold her own in art-speak, not to have their self-belief broken by the people supposed to be educating you). And if you get through college intact, you wouldn't get picked up by a gallery if you were peddling formal modernism - just so retro . . . of course, if you're Damien Hirst you can make a (very nice) 60s style dot painting, and that's allowed because he's a conceptual artist quoting 60s art. re. David Carson and 'readability' and all that - how aware are you over there of Neville Brody's work in the 80s (mostly for The Face)? The end results were quite different but the issues (how far can you push type) were similar. His aesthetic was a lot cleaner though - more influenced by Constructivism rather than late 80s 4AD sleeve designs. re: SchizoKills post > be completely overlooked. not to mention isn't the gaudy aesthetic of > >warholian pop art completely not related to the smooth pre minimalist > design And your point? Isn't Chess r'n'b or The Who completely unrelated to what Miles Davies was doing? But aren't they all great anyway? Is it possible mod might not equal modernism? Is it possible to take an opinion seriously if someone chooses a daft name for themselves? > of the late fifties and early sixties. lastly and most ?>importantly, > what about >anything post 66? >is this a completely retro movement Is it a movement? Or is it just a common interest? >or are people actually >interested in whats happening now? In art, or what? And no, artwise generally I'm not. Not that I know a lot about contemporary art, but I probably know about as much as I do about 60s art (i.e. the major artists, mostly). I can 'get it' - I'm not going to do the 'oh they can't paint' thing - but generally it leaves me cold. If I want sight gags I'll watch Police Squad. I'm sure there's probably people doing stuff I'd enjoy - I like Charles Long's stuff (which does have a concept) but I'd never have been aware of it if he hadn't worked with Stereolab, as said above I liked Bridget Riley's most recent work (though I take it that's not what you mean), I like some of my friend Rebecca's work (she has an MA from Chelsea but is FAR too 'retro' for the galleries) but there's the general problem of finding out about stuff. You could call me lazy for not looking - but I'm not interested in art enough to subscribe to Modern Painters or something. But rather than doing the traditional 'why are you all stuck in the 60s' line, why not break with tradition and start promoting the great new things you believe in - it's a far better way to convert people than having a go at them. Until you can persuade me of something more worthwhile I'll continue to do what I do. There's also the question of whether it IS a move >i was under the impression mod was about remaining educated and >>interested. Am i wrong? Yep. _________________________________________________________ Enlighten your in-box. http://www.topica.com/t/15
