Ugh,Venice; wow, Art department store!

Usually department stores or malls displayed what is popular and what is hot for consumers to buy. Do International Biennales like as Venice Biennale function as department stores for art? Do curators in such exhibtions pick what is popular art or who is the hot artist in different countries? Some people only believe in products selected and guaranteed by the department store system, while others don't. Similarly, some people only believe in Arts selected and guaranteed by famous curators, while others don't. I am usually the latter.

The Kind Memorial

This debate concerning wheter or not a Chinese sculptor can accurately depict and African American historical hero is ridiculous. I think this is exactly the kind of narrow mindedness that makes racism continue to be such a large issue in the first place. Going along with these peoples' reasoning I should never write a report or make a painting of Martin Luther King Jr. because I'm not African American and therefore I can not depict him accurately. I'm very offeneded by that because I may not be African American but that does not mean I have no respect or admiration for Martin Luther King Jr. That does not mean that couldn't portray that admiration and respect in a painting.
I realize this is a memorial, and as such it is a very important piece of artwork and there are a lot of emotions tied to it. However, isn't having a Chinese artist work on the sculpture the very embodiment of what Martin Luther King Jr. stood for? Besides that, he was chosen for his talent and his experience, regardless of his race or social and political beliefs.

PURELY POLITICAL!

Back and forth arguments such as the one over whether or not Chinese sculptor Lei Yixin can accurately depict Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. positively infuriate me. There is absolutely no reason why Lei Yixin should not be able to sculpt/depict an African American. To propose that it must be an African American artist in order for it to be an accurate depiction of Dr. King is absolutely ridiculous! Yixin was chosen for his skill in carving granite- END OF DISCUSSION! As a professional artist I am sure Lei Yixin studied ample amounts of reference material in order to ensure the most accurate depiction of Dr. King as possible. It seems to me as though the foundation searched for someone who was well qualified for the job; qualifications for carving an image from granite have nothing to do with political beliefs, ideology, race, or ethnicity. Those individuals that insist on having an African American artist create the memorial may be missing the boat here. After all, Dr. King emphasized equality for everyone. By claiming that only an African American artist can depict an African American you create a sense of isolation or segregation, as if only those with direct ties to the African American community can understand and appreciate all that Dr. King stood for.

Interview with Steve Kurtz

For anyone following the bioterrorism investigation of Critical Art Ensemble artist Steve Kurtz, R U Sirius just did an interview with him. Check it out here: http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/09/26/art-or-bioterrorism-who-cares/

Mona Hatoum Lecture

Mona Hatoum will be presenting a lecture this Friday, September 28, at 7 pm at Carnegie Mellon in the McConomy Auditorium. Hatoum creates poetic and political work in a wide range of media including installations, sculpture, video, and and photography, and her work has been shown in the Venice Biennale and the Turner Prize exhibition. More info on her can be found at http://lectureseri.es. Should be a great lecture - definitely try to make it if you can.

A car will be heading from IUP to Pittsburgh for the lecture - check with Rob David and Omkar for more info.

Art presentation

I also think that the biennial system of shows is out of date. There needs to be a better way to show of the works that have been brought tougher, that promotes a longer and repeated viewing of the works. You should see works more then once to get a good look and understanding of them. The biennials are almost like the parties that they have in Hollywood were everyone gets tougher, but forgets about the reason that they are there is to view the works that are presented.

Steve Kurtz movie showing through Thursday

Hi all,
Strange Culture is a documentary film about my former professor Steven Kurtz of Critical Art Ensemble. It is showing only through Thursday night at the Regent Square Theater in Pittsburgh. A short blurb about the film: "The surreal nightmare of former CMU professor Steve Kurtz, an internationally-acclaimed artist, began when his wife Hope died in her sleep of heart failure. Police arrived, became suspicious of Kurtz’s art, and called the FBI. Within hours the artist was detained as a suspected “bio-terrorist” as agents in haz-mat suits sifted through his work and impounded his computers, manuscripts, books, his cat, and even his wife’s body. Today Kurtz and his long-time collaborator Robert Ferrell, former Chair of the Genetics Department at Pitt’s Graduate School of Public Health, await a trial date."

Showtimes: http://pghfilmmakers.org/exhibition/showtimes.html
Critical Art Ensemble website: http://www.critical-art.net/

"Is is Art Yet? And Who Decides?"

In the case of Christoph Buchel's incompleted "Training Ground for Democracy" I don't think it is art yet. I agree with Roberta Smith completely when she says that part of an artists freedom is "the right to say, ' This is not a work of art unless I say so'." This is because whether it is paid for by the artist or the museum, whether it is made by the artist or the artist and a group of workers, it is still the artist's original ideas. Ideas are property just like anything else these days and that is especially important to an artist.
I hope that the museum in question learns its lesson from this experience. They requested Buchel's work. Whether or not it exceeded the budget is beside the point; it is Buchels art and they do not have the right to do anything with it until he gives them permission.

Is it art yet..

I have an issue with the way art is now being displayed at many museums and I think the time has come to make a clear delineation between ART and ARTIFACT. Too often any little thing that has been graced by the artists touch is deemed art. I'm sorry, but sketchbooks are not art and to see Picasso's sketchbooks on display for the 50th time is tantamount to a gang-rape. We have to reserve the right to edit what goes out into the world with our names on it. Now, if a museum wants to display Picasso's sketchbooks and Monet's brush and Pollacks paint splattered shoes- fine...but they are ARTIFACTS only. If Mass MOCA wants to show the Buchel piece they need to show it as an exhibition of the process of creating a show, or actually make the show about the scandal- they'll probably get their asses sued off and they probably deserve it but at least there would be some honesty about what is really going on.

Air Guitar

I think that the Essay that we read had a lot of interesting information and ideas in it. I think that what he said about the different meanings of art and purposes of art made a good point. I think that the favorite thing that was in the article was about the value of art and how we put a value on artwork by how we like it individually, and not weather its good or not.

Biennials-outmoded?

Biennials may be outmoded in terms of format--by that I mean both how they are organized/programmed and how artwork is viewed/presented at a biennial. As Saltz writes there are many more opportunities for artists to exhibit work arising each and every day. In many cases these opportunities provide specific advantages for particular artists or artworks. The main advantage being a more intimate contact between the artwork and viewer. It seems as though something is lost at a biennial because of the mass viewing so commonly associated with them. On the other hand, biennials do allow a large amount of work to be presented to a large portion of the viewing public. Perhaps the most important role of a biennial relates more directly to the commodification of art. It seems as though biennials play an important role in art industry and marketing, they play an important role in awareness, or more specifically networking. For that purpose maybe they are still necessary, necessary until they can be replaced with a more effective large scale exhibition.

Art yet? Who decides?-Artist?

I believe that every individual decides almost instantly upon viewing an object whether or not it is a work of art. To ask if the Buchel project is art yet seems, in a way, ridiculous. Anyone can proclaim that they have created a work of art or that something is a work of art, including a museum. How are we (as a viewer) to decide if it is in fact a work of art? We have no choice but to accept what we are told or conversely reject what we are told, in that case its classification is merely based on our own opinion. Everyone's opinion may differ greatly. However, I strongly believe that the artist should hold all rights in regards to when and in what form his/her own creation is presented to the public. In that way the artist controls our ability to form an opinion. It is important that viewers have the opportunity to form opinions based on what the artist wants them to see. An artist uses work to communicate, if it is not communicating what the artist desires (at least to an acceptable degree on behalf of the artist) than it is NOT done, complete, or finished. Certainly an artist has the right and should have the freedom to say, "This is not a work of art unless I say so."

right-thinking people

I wanted to hate Dave Hickey. How dare he not be outraged, how dare he claim art should be recognized as merely a frivolous pastime! But then I would be one of them. The problem with rising up over perceived insults is that you get so busy yelling and screaming that you can't hear the debate over the noise. Isn't this what art is all about- the debate? Why make things unless they can spur an interesting discussion. Let's face it, art will never cure cancer and probably never lead to world peace-even a shoe manufacturer and a roofer hold a more important place in the realm of human survival. But the arts (everything "frivolous") express a deeper human need for more. We've mastered the day to day survival, so now what? I like to be mad about something, I like my blood to boil a little everyday- it's that kind of righteous indignation that keeps life interesting. So maybe art is a little frivolous, but when we start drawing those lines we limit ourselves. It's better to think of everything as a little frivolous and make your choices from there.

Hydroponic Solar Garden

I came across this interesting project by Amy Youngs (in collaboration with Ken Rinaldo) called the Hydroponic Solar Garden. I wanted to share this especially with the undergrads as they are working on their Sustainability projects. http://hypernatural.com/hydropon.html

Free show at the Planetarium

Hi all,
I'm posting this in case anyone is interested:

Ken Coles says: I am presenting a free show in the IUP Planetarium on Thursday, Sept. 20, 2007 at 7:00 P.M. The show will be "We are not alone: Space programs of other nations." The launch of the Selene spacecraft by Japan this week emphasizes that several nations have plans for space missions. I will also present the ever-popular look at the current stars and planets in the sky. The show is open to the public and I expect the show to run about 40 minutes. If the weather permits, after the show we will take a small telescope outside for viewing of the sky. The poster also lists the public shows planned for the rest of the academic year. The planetarium is in the east side of Weyandt Hall (the side away from the Oak Grove). Doors open at 6:45 P.M.

The Emperor's New Clothes

In our age, there are variety medium people can apply to make arts, ex:
digitial camara and showing works on internet is so convenient. It is
not so hard to attract some people to be your viewer. Even if there is
only one viewer appreciating your idea, you are so called "artist." It
looks like a game which only needs two person, one artist and one
viewer, then the game could start and continue. By the way, this
article, especially"the art world" reminded me an old story "The Emperor's New Clothes." If you believe, anything can be the truth, even the emperor's new clothes, you still can appreicate it through your interpretation.

Air Guitar

When reading this passage I was almost immediately caught up in Hickey's reference to the "art community." Hickey asks that we stop thinking of the art world as a "world," "community," or "market." He asks that we treat the art world as a "semi-public, semi-mercantile, semi-institutional agora--an intermediate institution of civil society..." likening to professional sports. It seems as though this relates directly to the question of why an artist makes art. If our goal as artists are to communicate with others, to explore and present new information should we not do so in a way that makes it available to as many people as possible? When you treat the "art world" as its own little community sectioned off in some corner of the world it is as though you wish to withold information from those not directly connected to art practice.

Why indeed...

I suppose that why I make art has several facets to it. Of course, when I started making art as a wee little child, I made art because it was fun to make stuff. Many year later, it is still fun to make stuff, so of course this is part of the answer. It is exciting to lose myself in a project, to be so involved with what I am doing that time disappears for awhile. It is exciting to stand back and look at something I've just made and realize that Hey! I made that! At the bottom of it all is the simple satisfaction of being a human being making things.

But of course that's not all. It has also serves as a tool that I use to try to understand the world. Why do people do the things they do? What do people want? Art is what happens while I am pondering, reading, researching. When I send objects or installations out into the world, seeing how people react and how they choose to relate to them is another terrific learning experience about my fellow human beings....

And of course, it is also my way of getting my two cents in the grand conversation about What it Means to Be Alive in the World Now.

It's been great reading the posts on this and learning about everyone else's thoughts on this.

public_forum

I'm involved with art to throw my two cents into the mix.

communication

In reading all of the posts I find one common goal- communication. Whether it is a specific idea, an emotive quality, critique of society, or some sense of each artist's own personality it seems as though all artists have one very common but important drive-- to communicate with others. What I don't believe can be answered, at least in a universal sense, is why an artist chooses to communicate in a visual way rather than with words, either spoken or written. Personally, I believe that in my own case it relates to the fact that I am a visual person. Often I need to see something in order to understand it. My work is a way of creating an understanding, at the fairly least it poses questions for viewers to then seek out answers. Not everyone "thinks visually", by that I mean some have a harder time accepting visual images or objects as a form of dialogue, research, etc. What is it then that makes an artist so comfortable with the idea?

Why dose Yi make art?

Why do I make art? I think it is a way to deliver my thinking, a different way from speaking and writing (whatever the language is Chinese or English). Through my work, I can express myself freely. The process is usually perplexed but it attracts me so much.

Necessity

I believe that art is a necessity just as much as plumbers or heart surgeons or teachers. I guess it comes down to our meaning of existence (which I have no answer to). We are constantly striving for something- more, better, best. I think art satisfies our longing for conversation, it satisfies a need for a strong connection to something- acts as a mirror of society. History texts can be changed with the times, but often the arts- literature, music, visual/ performance arts- are the true testament of the times.
Personally I make art because I want to make conversations. Art often opens up doors to personal, theoretical and historical connotations and everyone will have different views. Without debate and conversation we are society at loss.

Why do I make art?

This is a question that is very simple for me. I make are because I enjoy creating things that didn't exist before. I like creating things I consider to be beautiful and hopefully others do as well. I love nature and the graceful forms found in nature and I like to let them inspire me when I'm making art. I suppose that the main reason, however, is that it helps me communicate with people in a way that I never could with words. I'm usually a very shy and quiet person. I don't generally strike up conversations with people, even people I've known for years. But art forces me to come out of my shell. It gives me a subject that is safe and comfortable for me to discuss with other people. Actually, art is what has made me more outgoing over the years. I have my artwork to thank for all the friends I have made since leaving the safety of my established highschool friendships.
So I suppose it was a more complicated reason that I first realized.

art and why?

Why do i make art?
Because I love the things people say. When someone looks at something I make, they usually tell me something. Not just like hey whats up, or hey buddy, or hows it goin? Its actaully something very genuine and real. No matter what. People just seem to respond to art in a that way. It makes people tell you stories. Fantasies or what have you. It is a wonderful thing. Sometimes its an art theory. But they always seem to have something to say. It makes me very happy to see that i can spur such interesting conversation. In fact this is why i like art as a whole. It makes so much mystery and creativity in peoples lives. It brings joy and love to places where there is none. It can change an entire period of history. Look at Martin Luther and his voayage around europe to destroy art. I just love what happens in the response of people to art work that it dirves me to do more and more. The second people stop responding. I may possibly just stop making art... make nothing. Just enjoy the images I create in my head by myself.

Why do I make art? It is often asked, and difficult to answer in many cases. For myself, primarily because I have always loved to work with my own two hands, to have a direct relationship with materials and thus be an important part of an end result or product. I was led into the art making world at a young age, my interest formed around the importance of spatial relationships and unique forms. I feel as though I have always had this knack for seeing the unseen in everyday objects and settings. I use art to express my interest in those "interesting visuals", the hidden art forms that surround us. Many times I may express my interest in negative space by emulating negative space that I had originally seen in a landscape formed by trees, in a household product such as a blender, or in something rather industrial like train tracks cutting through a field. Lately I have taken interest in expressing my concern for our effect on our natural surroundings. I hope to include more natural materials and focus on both our destruction of nature and what we can do to reverse some of humankind's past misdeeds. So, why do I make art?--messaging--in order to communicate with out words. I make art to provide others with a view to the world that they may not have come across otherwise.

The Skull

Why do you make art?

Let's take it down to the bare bones: As opposed to all of the other things you could be doing with your life, why do you make art?

$4,000 Ashtrays and the value of Damien Hirst

I have been thinking more and more lately about how the value of a piece of art is determined and have come to the conclusion that the commodity in the equation is not the piece of art but rather the artist. Artist as celebrity or art as accessory. At this point it seems as though Hirst can create value out of anything. Ashtrays from his now-defunct restaurant just sold for $4,000 a piece. Hirst has become a commodity and an artifact all in one.
While I love his work I also question whether it is only death he speaks of. When i look at the work and hear the latest figures on what it cost for his little factory to turn out another piece I wonder if he is also making a sly commentary on what we value- and maybe that is the way we ward off death. If he keep making and the world keeps collecting and his name gets in the paper 10 times a week it creates a false sense of immortality- both for himself and the collector.
If it sells for his asking price of $100 million it will then be the single most expensive piece of contemporary art...what we buy says a lot about what we value. In this case it is not the meaning we value but the sensationalism. When people become consumers of art they finish the circle- by assessing value, they assess meaning which is what Hirst's art has become all about.

How much of Damien Hirst's "For the love of God" is really a continuation of his treatment of death and how much of it is purely a money making name game to gain even more notoriety? I see this piece as much more of an investment in his (and others) financial future than a work of art. -denk