February 2007, 12 posts, 234 lines
Groupers--
On the topic of critics/criticism/who the hell do you think you are...Does anyone get Harpers magazine? Not Harpers Bazaar, just Harpers. Great review and article about Susan Sontag and her latest book. Almost comes to her explanation of what and why she has been doing criticism and theory for the last 150 years. Actually she isn't that old, just seems like it. Very insightful and might be just what a couple of you are looking for.
Leonard Pants
" On the topic of critics/criticism/who the hell do you think you
I think I am a fairy princess dancing tra-la-la through the glen.
uh oh check your space heater -- do you have one of those carbon monoxide detectors?
Barbara Koenen Director - Chicago Artists Resource Cultural Planning Division Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs 78 E. Washington, Chicago IL 60602 312-744-7649 barbara.koenen at cityofchicago.org www.chicagoartistsresource.org
I think I am a fairy princess dancing tra-la-la through the glen.
Perhaps you know of a good quote about art collecting, Barbara?
What originally drew me to this list was a (failed) search for a quote from Vincent Price on collecting art (from his days purchasing for Sears). What I want is a quote I can use to educate the art consumer (and induce a buying mood of course).
Anyone have any art collecting quotes, tips, maxims?
-- Ken [http://www.mondo] -digital.com/coffinjoe.html
I can quote a funny line by Vincent Price when he had a brief late career as a syndicated newspaper art "critic". He was reviewing an exhibition of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood paintings...I forget where the show was; the review was in the late 1960's. He sternly wrote: "I could never understand why these painters called themselves the pre-Raphaelites when they came 400 years after Raphael". (The Pre-Raphaelites took the name to indicate their admiration of Renaissance painting up to Raphael). I can't imagine why anyone would want to quote Vincent Price except lines from his movies when he was pretending to be someone else.
William Conger
--- gageken at aim.com wrote:
> Perhaps you know of a good quote about art > collecting, Barbara?
> What originally drew me to this list was a (failed) > search for a quote from Vincent Price on collecting > art (from his days purchasing for Sears). What I > want is a quote I can use to educate the art > consumer (and induce a buying mood of course).
> Anyone have any art collecting quotes, tips, maxims?
> -- Ken > [http://www.mondo] -digital.com/coffinjoe.html
"Anyone have any art collecting quotes, tips, maxims?"
Don't buy larger than your doorframe. (as an ex-art handler, I saw this or heard about this much more often than it should have occurred.)
"uh oh check your space heater -- do you have one of those carbon
monoxide detectors?"
It is all of the lead paint I have been inhaling lately.
see if this helps. [http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/] ?id=110007145
On 2/10/07, gageken at aim.com > Perhaps you know of a good quote about art collecting, Barbara?
> What originally drew me to this list was a (failed) search for a quote
> from Vincent Price on collecting art (from his days purchasing for
> Sears). What I want is a quote I can use to educate the art consumer (and
> induce a buying mood of course).
> Anyone have any art collecting quotes, tips, maxims?
> -- Ken
> [http://www.mondo] -digital.com/coffinjoe.html
In the same issue of Harpers, there is a great article about modern art and appropriation. A New York artist used a major piece of a Susan Meiselas photograph in her own work without either contacting the artist or crediting her in an exhibition. The article has the artists' opinions then follows that with Meiselas's own rebuttal and explanations.
For me, this illustrates a particular absurdity in modern art. The artists who blindly take images from other artists and use them for their inherent power(because of the talents of the initial artist)and use them as their own. Same reason I can't stand Sherrie Levine and her Walker Evans series.
What is wonderful about this article is you have essays written by the original artist and the one who appropriated it. Very interesting.
If you can't tell, I find myself very much on the side of Susan Meiselas!
Although it didn't have the specific quote, it did have the spirit of it. Thanks for the link. Great overview by Mr. Teachout.
-- Ken
I'm all for the old concept of intellectual property rights. But, if anything, these have gotten out of hand, what with all the Mickey Mouse copyright extension acts today. Some might consider it laudable to stick up for big business interests, but I think the intent of Ben Franklin is more closely embodied in the 7 years that pharmaceutical companies are currently allowed exclusive use of (profit from) new drugs. In other words, copyright windows should be shortened, not lengthened. And recycling someone else's art into your own project is still art (creative and fair game) in my non-legally binding opinion. Asking permission is a formality.
Do you suppose Susan Meiselas' sales were hurt by this unsanctioned (mis)appropriation?
In an essay for his book The Adding Machine, William S. Burroughs said everything is up for grabs. Perhaps it's the gypsy in me (offended anyone?); I think so, too.
Now steal these words,
Ken
[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theinterzonecoffeehouse/]
Rick Gentry sedd:
Hola companeros,
I find this discussion of images very interesting. There's a special irony in the fact that B & B (Brion Gysin & William S. Burroughs) were such appropriators of word and image. Brion said "... steal everything in sight." I
mean, the lines get increasingly blurred the more deeply one investigate who owns images. And I appreciate
the fact that the image police jealously guard their offspring, rightly enough. It is there that there power
resides and they know it. Most people don't inquire into the nature of word and image; we are more or less
aware of the process, we understand that their toothpaste won't make us popular with the opposite (or same)
sex ( tho' don't neglect your hygiene!) and that their tennis shoes won't complete our self-image. They
always angle for the lowest common denominator in pursuit of their true god ($$), thereby a priori
preventing any real act of creativity. By the way, I do not intend to make light of the fact that some people feel they own images and want to get paid for them- their record for ruthlessness precedes them- but in the case of Gary's example of the museum and their "watermark," how do they intend to enforce this? The web is a gigantic area to try to police with only a few cops. But I'm rambling. What I want to ask is at what point
does an image become sufficiently changed so that it is no longer itself? For example, the animated gif of the Burroughs stamp that Jeff Klein sent: who does this image belong to? I think it was a photograph originally. Is it his or her image? Then someone made a "stamp" out of it. Is it now his image? Then someone comes along and colorizes it ala the image that Yana sent of Bill on the roof. Whose is it now? Then someone adds animation. Now what? This is an area as unclearly defined as "obscenity." Who decides and by what
standards? It is clear that pursuing the question of image-ownership leads to deeper and deeper levels of absurdity the farther one takes it. An image that someone creates- a painting for example- is composed out of the contents of one's "consciousness," which is nothing but a great image chain stretching back to birth. Or if it is a painting of a thing, a tree for example, at what point does it become the painter's? In the case of
those wonderful collages of Andrew Shachat, when do all those separate images that he appropriated and
rearranged into a combined whole, when is this his artwork? Very interesting questions to ponder. Whose now image is it? Now image, it is whose? Now is whose image, it? Whose image is it now? B & B saw that those word and image lines are what keep us bound to time and place, that the structure of our finite consciousness is literally composed of word and image. So if you don't like the image ( And I do not), cut, paste and rearrange... "Kick that man habit, man." Indeed. This leads me to comment on Foe's idea of making ridiculous
images and websites, etc. Yes.
Hi all,
I know this is not as fun as all of the critics
questions raised, but I need some legal help.
A few years back I threw a silent dance party at the
MCA (twice) and at the Chicago Cultural Center (once).
It consisted of a DJ that spun a transmission to
wireless headsets that the audience could put on and
dance to. Something like 12,000 people came to all
three.
Anyway the Chicago Loop Association is presenting a 24
hour art party called Looptopia featuring a similar
silent dance party (this one is without me).
Anyway I'm pretty sure that this party is based on
mine, so I have been in contact with them to let them
know who I am and my concerns. I thought that perhaps
if I played nice and went the route of "I'm sure you
saw the piece at the MCA and didn't realize that there
was an artist behind it," followed by "Now that you
know I'm here, just bring me on board and it will all
be OK."
They were immediately responsive, but since have
remained fairly silent and are now asking me to
propose to do this work. I feel like that is much
like putting out a press release saying you are
showing a Picasso painting and then asking Picasso to
propose to paint it.
Anyway I have been simultaneously looking for a lawyer
and am on a list for a pro bono lawyer, It's just that
I may not be able to get one until after the event in
May or the end of next week when they want proposals.
I need someone ASAP. Does anyone have any
suggestions?
Thanks
Meg