Project Willow wrote:My bed is empty, and my feet are not rubbed.
That's perfectly put. Know the feeling exactly. Even I won't get into my bed anymore.
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Project Willow wrote:My bed is empty, and my feet are not rubbed.
Project Willow wrote:*Sigh*
I only know sound for empty forests. I thrash and scream and wail, but just the dust and air respond because they have no will. My art is perpetually emerging. My loves are all unrequited. My bed is empty, and my feet are not rubbed. My system is not integrated, my largely unaided escape inevitably incomplete.
Does the universe respond to nothing but violation? Is the sweet song of a heart the most powerless thing there ever was?
MacCruiskeen wrote:Dear Willow, I would love to rub your system and integrate your feet. Surely that is what art is for, if anything.
MacCruiskeen wrote:Unfortunately I have been a) busy, and b) intimidated by your gauntlet*,
MacCruiskeen wrote:
Q. What is Art?
A. Hmmm.
MacCruiskeen wrote:What's it doing, if it can include her, Bach, Jane Austen, Vincent van Gogh, Bertolt Brecht, Jimi Hendrix, Liberace and Dante? What's it for? What distinction does it signify? What kind of a worker is an artist, exactly?
MacCruiskeen wrote:Could it be because they are essentially courtiers, i.e., servants of power, and welcomed by the powerful? It might be worth looking into.
MacCruiskeen wrote:More to the point: when a former widget factory becomes an Art Factory (because it's cheaper to produce widgets in SE Asia), my appreciation of the (increasingly-abstract**) art in that Art Factory is somewhat coloured by my awareness that 10-year-olds in Indonesia are making the widgets that make it possible for me to attend that Art Event.
MacCruiskeen wrote:This is all deeply boring, I know. I also know that it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual creation of an actual artwork. I know what it means to be completely absorbed in (or by) the making of something that will never feed or house anyone, to be selfless in it. I am not vilifying art.
MacCruiskeen wrote:*Is it OK if I imagine your gauntlet as a white silk opera glove? (I've done it already.)
MacCruiskeen wrote:**Why is that?
Project Willow wrote:*Sigh*
I only know sound for empty forests.
I thrash and scream and wail,
but just the dust and air
respond because they have no will.
My art is perpetually emerging.
My loves are all unrequited.
My bed is empty,
and my feet are not rubbed.
My system is not integrated,
my largely unaided
escape inevitably incomplete.
Does the universe respond
to nothing but violation?
Is the sweet song of a heart
the most powerless thing there ever was?
vanlose kid wrote:thought you might like this.
Project Willow wrote:^
27 March 2012 Last updated at 13:43
Julian Spalding attacks Damien Hirst 'con art'
Art critic and former curator Julian Spalding has predicted the conceptual work of artists like Damien Hirst will soon become "worthless".
Writing in the Independent, Spalding described Hirst's work as "the sub-prime of the art world" and advised owners of his work to sell quickly.
Hirst, best known for his animals in formaldehyde, has been at the forefront of the British conceptual art movement.
Arts journalist Georgina Adam said Spalding's condemnation was "unfair".
"He is probably right about later Damien Hirsts, which are more like luxury goods than art," she told the BBC...
But Spalding told the Independent: "The emperor has nothing on. When the penny drops that these are not art, it's all going to collapse. Hirst should not be in the Tate."
Spalding said he coined the term "con art" which is "short for contemporary conceptual art and for art that cons people". [Catchy! ]
Spalding, who was director of galleries in Sheffield, Manchester and Glasgow, where he promoted artists including LS Lowry and Beryl Cook, added: "It's often been proposed, seriously, that Damien Hirst is a greater artist than Michelangelo because he had the idea for a shark in a tank whereas Michelangelo didn't have the idea for his David.
"What separates Michelangelo from Hirst is that Michelangelo was an artist and Hirst isn't."
Simon Todd, from online auction website ArtNet, told the BBC he disagreed that the art bubble would soon burst: "The contemporary art market is very strong at the moment both in terms of the domestic, international and growth markets."
He said ArtNet "has been approached by financial organisations regarding arts investment despite the majority of the art funds collapsing back in 2009.
"The credit crunch seems to have made little impact and the auctions that suffered in the two years post-credit crunch are not feeling the comparative ill effects now."
Spalding's latest book, Con Art - Why You Ought to Sell Your Damien Hirst While You Can - is published next month.
Hirst first came to public attention in London in 1988 when he created the Freeze exhibition in a disused warehouse, showing his work and that of his fellow students at Goldsmiths College.
His exhibition opens at Tate Modern on 4 April and runs until 9 September.
Hirst's shark in formaldehyde - titled The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, 1991 - will be on display, alongside other famous work including 1990's A Thousand Years, 1992's Pharmacy and a £50m diamond-encrusted skull, For the Love of God.
Hirst's sale figures dropped considerably between 2008 and 2009 although this fall coincided with the collapse of Lehman Brothers bank in the US.
Last year, one of his spot paintings - of which there are over 1,000 - sold for £1.8m.
The Tate Modern and Damien Hirst's company Science declined to comment on Spalding's claims.
Hirst's public gallery in south London, which is being developed to display his personal art collection, will open in 2014.
Project Willow wrote:Did you know that Goya's original Saturn had an erection and that when the piece was moved, it was painted out? This really upsets me. I imagine the piece would be just that much stronger if the phallus had remained.
JackRiddler wrote:Project Willow wrote:Did you know that Goya's original Saturn had an erection and that when the piece was moved, it was painted out? This really upsets me. I imagine the piece would be just that much stronger if the phallus had remained.
No, I did not!
MacCruiskeen wrote:Willow, here's a new book that somebody brought to my attention:
The Art Kettle, by Sinéad Murphy
I haven't read it, and I have no idea if it's any good, but it is at least further evidence that more than a few people are at least a wee bit uneasy about what Art means, and is, in the year 2012.
MacCruiskeen wrote:PS I don't think I've ever said this before, but I should say it because it's true: I admire your paintings. I'll leave it at that, because I don't want it to look as if I'm trying to ingratiate myself in the middle of an argument. But whatever I argue (and my argument has been minimal and piss-poor so far), I am not arguing against people creating real works of art. It would be like arguing against breathing. What bothers me is Art, both the word (whether capitalised or not) and the enormously powerful and heavily-mediated and hugely influential contemporary institution that it signifies, and what it does to people's heads, not to mention their hearts and the rest of their bodies and therefore to their lives.
Return to The Lounge & Member News
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests