+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: Work of Art II 11/9 Show Discussion

  1. #11
    FORT Fogey
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,857

    Re: Work of Art II 11/9 Show Discussion

    Dusty's piece was also more suitable to be public art at the New York Times. It wasn't as tied to a specific story and it physically adapted itself better to the workplace. Newsrooms are busy places. You don't want people accidentally tripping over stacks of randomly placed newspapers, even if they are art--not good for the people or the art itself.

    I wish they'd do a challenge where they had to think about a piece of public art in terms of where it would be placed and who would be sponsoring it. We have a ArtWalk challenge here every summer. The piece which wins the popular vote--sadly, never even close to the piece I would choose--is bought by the city, but a number of other works typically end up being purchased by some group or business and placed somewhere downtown, in a park etc. Thing is, we have serious weather here--hot, humid summers; cold, snowy winters---and you really have to think about what kind of materials can stand up to that for a decent length of time. Obviously, if a group or business buys a piece, they also tend to look at the pieces in terms of who they think it relates to them and their interests/causes.

    I absolutely believe there is good, conceptual contemporary art out there. I just don't think much of it is showing up on work of art. I also think it's sad that traditional artists who work in forms that represent their cultures and the way those cultures are kinetic, not just static, never get represented or appreciated on shows like this. They're defining the art world so narrowly.

  2. #12
    FORT Fogey Dragonlady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    3,912

    Re: Work of Art II 11/9 Show Discussion

    Thank you to Critical, for describing the art.
    I may be able to paint rather well but my knowledge of art and it's terminology is really not good at all. (I think I might have slept thru those classes in college.)
    I get too emotional about it and do not express myself well, probably because I'm too invested in it.

    I should borrow Arielflies' attitude: "Anyhoo...I'm enjoying the show if not the art this season. "
    If I do that, I just might have a better time watching it because I do find a lot of the "artists" to be interesting characters....sometimes, tortured, angst-filled, ego-driven, raised in communes and/or just plain messed up....seems to be how the producers like them to be....just check out a lot of their names.

    I think I probably react viscerally because it's really hard (I think) to be an artist. It takes lots of work and everytime a new canvas is started, we all think "this one will be THE ONE." Usually it isn't but we keep trying.

    When I was in London, I went to the wrong museum and found myself confronted with lots of conceptual art, such as a dead palm tree, on the floor of a room, spray painted gold. Yes, that was all and it was featured. So was another work: a dirty rope, curled in the corner of a room. Yes, that's all there was. I left then.
    My fellow classmates and I spend hours and hours trying to create representational art, looking for our "style," our special "thing"......
    and I still wouldn't trade it for spray painting a tree.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.