Monday, November 24, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Response # The Shock of The New
The Shock of The New was not particularly shocking. This is most likely because it's from about 30 years ago. It seems a good rule of thumb that after 30 years anything shocking becomes mundane. Or pointless.
I did like it, and not just because there were pictures. This presents a problem for me. How am I going to write about something I like? Difficult. Difficult. Difficult.
I could just agree that the art movement has gone the way of something... old. Just as easily I could agree that the very notion of Avante Guarde is extinct. Or at least should be. Burden had himself shot, and masturbated under a gallery floor, which didn’t leave a whole lot left to do. No more shocking, SHOCKING I should say, progression.
But, what I really got a kick from was Robert Hughes acknowledging that art movements in general have very little effect on the mass of people. This of course makes sense. A very small percentage of people give a damn. And of that small percentage the majority either is practicing art in some way, or at the very least writing about it. So, as I seem to be doing a lot as of late... I’m going to focus on the internet.
Because before the internet, if I am to believe what Hughes has to say, in many cases art was being made for the masses. Sure they didn’t care, but it would be hard to say that they were not being taken into account. The internet though, has created a whole different beast. Or a hose of a different color. Or something.
Resulting from limited communication and transportation artists were previously forced to create work that engaged their locality and community. There was a desire to address this. That is if we are to look at the Constructivists, BauHaus, DaDa, they were looking towards social issues and not glancing at their twitter feed. With the arrival of the internet we can all now participate in an unpleasant array of insular systems. There are so many artists tooting each others cyber horns that not much else gets taken into account.
I am a big internet supporter. Do not get me wrong. But, when I think of all the artists making work over the internet, I have to consider that maybe something a little more genuine might get made if they stopped posting pictures of spiderman and went outside for just a second.
The Shock of The New was not particularly shocking. This is most likely because it's from about 30 years ago. It seems a good rule of thumb that after 30 years anything shocking becomes mundane. Or pointless.
I did like it, and not just because there were pictures. This presents a problem for me. How am I going to write about something I like? Difficult. Difficult. Difficult.
I could just agree that the art movement has gone the way of something... old. Just as easily I could agree that the very notion of Avante Guarde is extinct. Or at least should be. Burden had himself shot, and masturbated under a gallery floor, which didn’t leave a whole lot left to do. No more shocking, SHOCKING I should say, progression.
But, what I really got a kick from was Robert Hughes acknowledging that art movements in general have very little effect on the mass of people. This of course makes sense. A very small percentage of people give a damn. And of that small percentage the majority either is practicing art in some way, or at the very least writing about it. So, as I seem to be doing a lot as of late... I’m going to focus on the internet.
Because before the internet, if I am to believe what Hughes has to say, in many cases art was being made for the masses. Sure they didn’t care, but it would be hard to say that they were not being taken into account. The internet though, has created a whole different beast. Or a hose of a different color. Or something.
Resulting from limited communication and transportation artists were previously forced to create work that engaged their locality and community. There was a desire to address this. That is if we are to look at the Constructivists, BauHaus, DaDa, they were looking towards social issues and not glancing at their twitter feed. With the arrival of the internet we can all now participate in an unpleasant array of insular systems. There are so many artists tooting each others cyber horns that not much else gets taken into account.
I am a big internet supporter. Do not get me wrong. But, when I think of all the artists making work over the internet, I have to consider that maybe something a little more genuine might get made if they stopped posting pictures of spiderman and went outside for just a second.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Response # Scott McLoud
I have discovered that there are two problems that come with writing things down on paper. The first is that I inevitably end up writing on top of something that I would have preferred not too have writing on it. Luckily enough I have managed, mostly by accident, not to write on top of any impending bills. The second however, and apologies to Zara for this one, is that I never get around to typing anything up on my computer. Logically I have a much harder time posting anything here. Whoever invented paper seems to have forgotten a copy and paste function. I am going to turn the page on this habit. Or more appropriately, perhaps, I will not be turning any more pages. Print is dead and all that, etc. I cannot dismiss the Scott McCloud reading that were, in fact, printed.
As of late I have become increasingly interested in models. The kind you would snap together with small colored bricks, not the ones with the arms, legs, torso and other human accouterments.
Here’s where my year log western lit class did me well. Because, Descartes was concerned with this as well. He used it to prove the existence of god if I remember correctly. We as a species are unable to draw a perfect circle, unable to experience one in nature, and yet we can superimpose the idea of the PERFECT circle onto that which we can create. Descartes called this God. Clearly he was something of a romantic. What he says in less than two pages illuminates to a frightening degree. I do not take this to be God, but it does lend itself to a kind of faith.
I may have just had a religious moment here. Thinking about the Cartesian proof of God. No booming voice, but i have become and am right now, as I am typing, enamored with this idea. Like I was clipped by a bicycle messenger. I cannot and do not agree with Descartes, but in his indoctrinating way he may have actually stumbled on something larger than himself. We don’t need to create perfection because we have evolved to see it. We as a species, on the whole, everyone, is capable of imposing perfection over each and every object, situation, they see. Intuition allows us to make a jump that is incalculably farther than achievement.
I think at their worst artists desire to function as some sort of creator. A roll which has already been taken by the participant. Art in its best, most whole hearted functioning allows for this. The gap between artist and viewer is, in the end, never bridged by artist. Look at that giant bean Anish Kapoor made. It literally superimposes the viewer over the top of its self. It is invisible. I believe he got a holiday for it.
I need to go to Chicago.
----------
Scott McCloud is a more practical Descartes, I think he’s got the idea right. Certainly he elaborates in a less abrasive way. Abstraction, inaccuracy, allows for “closure”. We fill in what the briefest of hints allude to. The human head we see in the smily face is the same as the circle Descartes saw in the wagon wheel. Where McCloud goes that Descartes does not is inconsistency. Humans lack a steadiness in this skill. Hand in hand with the uncanny valley, the more realistic something becomes the less universal it becomes. Until, I guess, it becomes perfect. Descartes might disagree here. Whatever. The point is abstraction lends itself to universality. This is where I get really interested.
Because McCloud covers comics, which is essentially a two-dimensional, rigid, medium, and Descartes covers God, which is the exact opposite, their ideas tend to cling to the polar ends of representations range. McCloud works within sequential narration and Descartes trying to work almost entirely in theory. Myself, I am interested in scale. You abstact far enough, you scale far enough, you do not need sequencing for narration. We should be looking to create experiences that self narrate. The viewer should be imposing themselves over the work. Kapoor let Chicago narrate through reflection. Cool.
I have discovered that there are two problems that come with writing things down on paper. The first is that I inevitably end up writing on top of something that I would have preferred not too have writing on it. Luckily enough I have managed, mostly by accident, not to write on top of any impending bills. The second however, and apologies to Zara for this one, is that I never get around to typing anything up on my computer. Logically I have a much harder time posting anything here. Whoever invented paper seems to have forgotten a copy and paste function. I am going to turn the page on this habit. Or more appropriately, perhaps, I will not be turning any more pages. Print is dead and all that, etc. I cannot dismiss the Scott McCloud reading that were, in fact, printed.
As of late I have become increasingly interested in models. The kind you would snap together with small colored bricks, not the ones with the arms, legs, torso and other human accouterments.
Here’s where my year log western lit class did me well. Because, Descartes was concerned with this as well. He used it to prove the existence of god if I remember correctly. We as a species are unable to draw a perfect circle, unable to experience one in nature, and yet we can superimpose the idea of the PERFECT circle onto that which we can create. Descartes called this God. Clearly he was something of a romantic. What he says in less than two pages illuminates to a frightening degree. I do not take this to be God, but it does lend itself to a kind of faith.
I may have just had a religious moment here. Thinking about the Cartesian proof of God. No booming voice, but i have become and am right now, as I am typing, enamored with this idea. Like I was clipped by a bicycle messenger. I cannot and do not agree with Descartes, but in his indoctrinating way he may have actually stumbled on something larger than himself. We don’t need to create perfection because we have evolved to see it. We as a species, on the whole, everyone, is capable of imposing perfection over each and every object, situation, they see. Intuition allows us to make a jump that is incalculably farther than achievement.
I think at their worst artists desire to function as some sort of creator. A roll which has already been taken by the participant. Art in its best, most whole hearted functioning allows for this. The gap between artist and viewer is, in the end, never bridged by artist. Look at that giant bean Anish Kapoor made. It literally superimposes the viewer over the top of its self. It is invisible. I believe he got a holiday for it.
I need to go to Chicago.
----------
Scott McCloud is a more practical Descartes, I think he’s got the idea right. Certainly he elaborates in a less abrasive way. Abstraction, inaccuracy, allows for “closure”. We fill in what the briefest of hints allude to. The human head we see in the smily face is the same as the circle Descartes saw in the wagon wheel. Where McCloud goes that Descartes does not is inconsistency. Humans lack a steadiness in this skill. Hand in hand with the uncanny valley, the more realistic something becomes the less universal it becomes. Until, I guess, it becomes perfect. Descartes might disagree here. Whatever. The point is abstraction lends itself to universality. This is where I get really interested.
Because McCloud covers comics, which is essentially a two-dimensional, rigid, medium, and Descartes covers God, which is the exact opposite, their ideas tend to cling to the polar ends of representations range. McCloud works within sequential narration and Descartes trying to work almost entirely in theory. Myself, I am interested in scale. You abstact far enough, you scale far enough, you do not need sequencing for narration. We should be looking to create experiences that self narrate. The viewer should be imposing themselves over the work. Kapoor let Chicago narrate through reflection. Cool.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Divorce? An Efficient Removal of an Ex-Loved One's Image
I don't have any sort of Vendetta against Baudrillard, even though my previous post concerning him may have seemed that way. And this one might as well...
After having read System of Collecting, I think I've put my finger on what bothers me. Baudrillard is writing for the time. His essays simultaneously date themselves and declare their universal truth.
I find this problematic.
System of Collecting tells us that the majority of collectors are pre-pubescent or are in the throws of mid-life crises. Either way they're sex-deprived. Fifteen years after the essay is written this is false. Those small children he was writing about at the time who were collecting are still collecting. What's more is they're collecting in a much different way than he would have had us believe. Curatorial rather than set building. No one builds an entire set anymore, but instead goes for the objects that they find attractive. Collections are meant to be seen, not completed.
As always I find Baudrillard interesting to read, but a little out of tune with the present. It seems philosophizing is a little sloppy if it dates so quickly.
After having read System of Collecting, I think I've put my finger on what bothers me. Baudrillard is writing for the time. His essays simultaneously date themselves and declare their universal truth.
I find this problematic.
System of Collecting tells us that the majority of collectors are pre-pubescent or are in the throws of mid-life crises. Either way they're sex-deprived. Fifteen years after the essay is written this is false. Those small children he was writing about at the time who were collecting are still collecting. What's more is they're collecting in a much different way than he would have had us believe. Curatorial rather than set building. No one builds an entire set anymore, but instead goes for the objects that they find attractive. Collections are meant to be seen, not completed.
As always I find Baudrillard interesting to read, but a little out of tune with the present. It seems philosophizing is a little sloppy if it dates so quickly.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Patterns!
Over the course of the last couple weeks I have ended up riding the amtrak bus several times. It is much nicer than the greyhound bus. However, they all seem to beupholstered with the remnants of late 90s movie theater carpeting.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Catching Up: How To Deal With Shoeboxes
Response 3
I love that Gropius believes that “art for arts sake” came about from the ideas of cold hard business. That would be like a bookcase giving birth to a unicorn. How funny is that? Why would that come from that. Unless cave men came home from their long day out at the mammoth hunt and proceeded to draw pictures on the wall. You see Grack we need to grab about 37 percent of the mammoth market and I think our chance for that is here, in the tusks.
The issues that Gropius and the Bauhaus were dealing with themselves, during the transition from hand crafts into an age of mass production seems remarkably similar to the one we are going through now. That is the transition from an age without the internet to this fantastic one that does. How the Bauhaus got anything done without it I cannot understand.
There are many things taking place on the internet that seem to invert many of the ideals of the Bauhaus. “Goods and buildings specifically designed for industrial production”. But, these mass produced objects no longer truly have to be capable of being machined into multiples. It takes only a digital camera and, as evidenced by myself, a remarkably small amount of knowledge as to how the internet works. The majority of those who experience an object now do it through image and video.
Could it be then that this is the way in which the piece is meant to be viewed? Works responding to it are not built in the same school, but can literally come from anywhere on earth. These works too are presented by way two dimensionality. Many dialogues taking place between artists and makers have nothing to do with the actual object. And it seems to me that there is some sort of amazing freedom in this. It is something of a true democratization of process, you need not be monetarily rich to see an object, or even locational rich and located in a city. You just need the internet.
I always felt that “Information Age” sounded like the stupidest name for anything I had ever heard. Ever. But, in a sense it is right on, data not physical objects is where thing are at. Excluding of course those (lucky?) enough to be in the minority.
This transition has done something though, shifting away from the organization of the Haus and its standard types. Goods conceptualized on an equal playing field are going to be impossible to squeeze into standard types. If a million different people design a chair they will not be able to pick just one for everyone to agree on. And why should they? I see absolutely no reason, when a jpeg requires none of the difficulty of mass production and we have the hands of a million creators to churn out just about anything.
I love that Gropius believes that “art for arts sake” came about from the ideas of cold hard business. That would be like a bookcase giving birth to a unicorn. How funny is that? Why would that come from that. Unless cave men came home from their long day out at the mammoth hunt and proceeded to draw pictures on the wall. You see Grack we need to grab about 37 percent of the mammoth market and I think our chance for that is here, in the tusks.
The issues that Gropius and the Bauhaus were dealing with themselves, during the transition from hand crafts into an age of mass production seems remarkably similar to the one we are going through now. That is the transition from an age without the internet to this fantastic one that does. How the Bauhaus got anything done without it I cannot understand.
There are many things taking place on the internet that seem to invert many of the ideals of the Bauhaus. “Goods and buildings specifically designed for industrial production”. But, these mass produced objects no longer truly have to be capable of being machined into multiples. It takes only a digital camera and, as evidenced by myself, a remarkably small amount of knowledge as to how the internet works. The majority of those who experience an object now do it through image and video.
Could it be then that this is the way in which the piece is meant to be viewed? Works responding to it are not built in the same school, but can literally come from anywhere on earth. These works too are presented by way two dimensionality. Many dialogues taking place between artists and makers have nothing to do with the actual object. And it seems to me that there is some sort of amazing freedom in this. It is something of a true democratization of process, you need not be monetarily rich to see an object, or even locational rich and located in a city. You just need the internet.
I always felt that “Information Age” sounded like the stupidest name for anything I had ever heard. Ever. But, in a sense it is right on, data not physical objects is where thing are at. Excluding of course those (lucky?) enough to be in the minority.
This transition has done something though, shifting away from the organization of the Haus and its standard types. Goods conceptualized on an equal playing field are going to be impossible to squeeze into standard types. If a million different people design a chair they will not be able to pick just one for everyone to agree on. And why should they? I see absolutely no reason, when a jpeg requires none of the difficulty of mass production and we have the hands of a million creators to churn out just about anything.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Improvisation Book Design.
While I was writing the other day I typed up a paragraph that ended with “shit”. I then went back, scanned the rest, and realizing it also started with “shit,” I changed the second one to “crap”. I then thought to myself, Mackenzie you are a fantastic writer and the internet is better off with you in it.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Observational Layouts
If you stand in a line with two other people at PNCA you're automatically in an elevator.
Men's Urinal?
Just how is Hugh Jackman defying expectations?
Our Hard Earned Craft
How Craft was thrown a Huckleberry Finn funeral and the crowd made a fool of itself...
I was at a lecture last night declaring the death of Craft. So begin with a metaphor that is not my own, the cruise ship S.S. Craft has sunken into the briny depths. The critics, academics, and gallerists drilled at the hull until it was the nautical equivalent of swiss cheese. And now the voyage is over and what a stuffy, pretentious, cruise it must have been. Good riddance.
Last night it was said that “Design does not need art for voracity,” well Craft does not need academia for voracity. Better it function without, than be attached to shuffling elderly feet. What the academics and businessmen are dealing with is the removal of the reins from their hands. Craft is not what has died. The critics, academics, and gallerists have. It was the internet that killed them. Etsy, Make, Instructables, Craft, all present a much more logical venue for making. And the kicker is that they all do it better than art. Much better.
Art came late to the scene, and has dragged its critics, galleries, time tables, and incessant fears of copyright along for its digital ride. If only it could have been declared dead instead. But, Craft networks with their openness have all been able to create a collective community that is self supporting. The individual is in charge of the work and everyone shows in the same venue. Most importantly any of the “art envy” that occurred in the gallery world immediately dries up when removed from that hostile environment. No longer going head to head with art, there is much more investment in the making.
The ideal has finally been reached just in time for the critics to declare it dead.
I was at a lecture last night declaring the death of Craft. So begin with a metaphor that is not my own, the cruise ship S.S. Craft has sunken into the briny depths. The critics, academics, and gallerists drilled at the hull until it was the nautical equivalent of swiss cheese. And now the voyage is over and what a stuffy, pretentious, cruise it must have been. Good riddance.
Last night it was said that “Design does not need art for voracity,” well Craft does not need academia for voracity. Better it function without, than be attached to shuffling elderly feet. What the academics and businessmen are dealing with is the removal of the reins from their hands. Craft is not what has died. The critics, academics, and gallerists have. It was the internet that killed them. Etsy, Make, Instructables, Craft, all present a much more logical venue for making. And the kicker is that they all do it better than art. Much better.
Art came late to the scene, and has dragged its critics, galleries, time tables, and incessant fears of copyright along for its digital ride. If only it could have been declared dead instead. But, Craft networks with their openness have all been able to create a collective community that is self supporting. The individual is in charge of the work and everyone shows in the same venue. Most importantly any of the “art envy” that occurred in the gallery world immediately dries up when removed from that hostile environment. No longer going head to head with art, there is much more investment in the making.
The ideal has finally been reached just in time for the critics to declare it dead.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Binding on a Budget
ust phoned my utility company yesterday. By means of deduction through hold music I would have to guess they are located in Sherwood Forest. Oh, Robin Hood, in this time of economic recession if even you are reduced to dolling out electricity through a third party middleman, what chance is there for the rest of us?
My TV seems to receive an unconventional number of gospel and static themed networks. Anyhow, last night number 22, gospel not static, was having some sort of pledge drive. It felt very much like the ones on OPB, except rather than withholding the second half of Red and Green they withhold your eternal salvation. If OPB had that kind of leverage they wouldn’t have to feign enthusiasm for totes.
The drive was not without its mystery. Scrolling across the bottom of the screen along a thin, black bar, hiding the inappropriate portion of the program, were the following words... 100 dollars plants 500 trees. 200 Dollars Plants a 1000 trees. Accompanied by a phone number. I like to think that “trees” is slang for something else. Perhaps by “planting” they mean converting the citizens of Nepal. A demographic of whose viewership they seemed particularly proud. Something is fishy about this tree business. And it isn’t stuck to the backs of their American luxury sedans.
While I’m on this media kick I only got two of my Netflix movies today, not three. I was flipping through my mail on the elevator ride up to my apartment when I became aware. It was supposed to be there, not just Boston Legal Season 3: Disc 1, but Disc 2 as well. Thank god it was Disc 1 that showed up and not just Disc 2. Then I would have know whether or not James Spader slept with Murphy Brown, but would have missed all of the suspense leading up to the moment... or lack of moment as it may be.
My TV seems to receive an unconventional number of gospel and static themed networks. Anyhow, last night number 22, gospel not static, was having some sort of pledge drive. It felt very much like the ones on OPB, except rather than withholding the second half of Red and Green they withhold your eternal salvation. If OPB had that kind of leverage they wouldn’t have to feign enthusiasm for totes.
The drive was not without its mystery. Scrolling across the bottom of the screen along a thin, black bar, hiding the inappropriate portion of the program, were the following words... 100 dollars plants 500 trees. 200 Dollars Plants a 1000 trees. Accompanied by a phone number. I like to think that “trees” is slang for something else. Perhaps by “planting” they mean converting the citizens of Nepal. A demographic of whose viewership they seemed particularly proud. Something is fishy about this tree business. And it isn’t stuck to the backs of their American luxury sedans.
While I’m on this media kick I only got two of my Netflix movies today, not three. I was flipping through my mail on the elevator ride up to my apartment when I became aware. It was supposed to be there, not just Boston Legal Season 3: Disc 1, but Disc 2 as well. Thank god it was Disc 1 that showed up and not just Disc 2. Then I would have know whether or not James Spader slept with Murphy Brown, but would have missed all of the suspense leading up to the moment... or lack of moment as it may be.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
The Cats and Dogs of the Scrapbooking World
This is Spoon.
She is staying with me at the moment. All she does is sleep, eat, go to the bathroom, and drop things on my head while I'm sleeping early in the morning. She's alright.
Also I am tired of designers taking pictures of their posters while holding them in front of their faces. Get a new thing already everybody.
She is staying with me at the moment. All she does is sleep, eat, go to the bathroom, and drop things on my head while I'm sleeping early in the morning. She's alright.
Also I am tired of designers taking pictures of their posters while holding them in front of their faces. Get a new thing already everybody.
Stamp Collecting: An Aside
I was watching America's Funnies Home Videos the other night and they played the clip of the skateboarding dog from youTube. That’s like having an internet connection that loads pages five years after you type in the address.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Scrapbooking with Grandma: A Multigenerational Affair
Contemporary Design: Response #2
The more I re-read this section of Baudrillard’s America the more I am reminded of the unfortunate time that I read Chromophobia. The over-analysis of a non-academic field through the eyes of an academic is absurd. Like trying to listen to music with a pair of binoculars.
The computer, the “video screen”, are not ideas in themselves but tools. And yet Baudriallard has divined meaning. Certainly a feat, but one usually reserved for those walking the streets with sandwich boards predicting apocalypse. Maybe he would be right at home in such a situation...
I feel like I’m falling down a rambling nihilistic chasm every time I read that.
In general Baudrillard treats old processes, updated with electronic means, as you would a typewriter that had somehow contracted a venereal disease. He refers to the academic “grappling with” a computer as engaging in “interminable psychoanalysis”. Baudrillard himself writes with what I can only assume is a stone tablet and chisel. Thoughts are carved down and he just keeps going. Looking back is no sort of option for the true philosopher. His publishers must have hated that.
Also... the “teenager / and his Walkman”? I know he was older when he wrote America, but this is about the most stereotypical thing he could have said, ever... Those teenagers and there newfangled Walkmen always desublimating their thoughts. On the whole Baudrillard sounds more alienated than objective. I have never found writings from an outside perspective particularly enlightening.
Regardless of what I just said, I found the idea of Polaroids as “ecstatic membranes” interesting. Instantaneous duplicate images are essentially brand new (last fifty years? thirty? eh). I don’t know what to think of that. In fact what I find remarkably interesting is that new technology can be considered ecstatic. I do not believe I have been able to experience this. No matter how fast technology sprints along I have not witnessed the development of something that changes our way of observing. I would like to.
The more I re-read this section of Baudrillard’s America the more I am reminded of the unfortunate time that I read Chromophobia. The over-analysis of a non-academic field through the eyes of an academic is absurd. Like trying to listen to music with a pair of binoculars.
The computer, the “video screen”, are not ideas in themselves but tools. And yet Baudriallard has divined meaning. Certainly a feat, but one usually reserved for those walking the streets with sandwich boards predicting apocalypse. Maybe he would be right at home in such a situation...
“[V]ideo or stereo culture is not a narcissistic imaginary, but an effect of frantic self-referentiality, a short-circuit which immediately hooks up like with like, and, in so doing, emphasizes their surface intensity and deeper meaninglessness.”
I feel like I’m falling down a rambling nihilistic chasm every time I read that.
In general Baudrillard treats old processes, updated with electronic means, as you would a typewriter that had somehow contracted a venereal disease. He refers to the academic “grappling with” a computer as engaging in “interminable psychoanalysis”. Baudrillard himself writes with what I can only assume is a stone tablet and chisel. Thoughts are carved down and he just keeps going. Looking back is no sort of option for the true philosopher. His publishers must have hated that.
Also... the “teenager / and his Walkman”? I know he was older when he wrote America, but this is about the most stereotypical thing he could have said, ever... Those teenagers and there newfangled Walkmen always desublimating their thoughts. On the whole Baudrillard sounds more alienated than objective. I have never found writings from an outside perspective particularly enlightening.
Regardless of what I just said, I found the idea of Polaroids as “ecstatic membranes” interesting. Instantaneous duplicate images are essentially brand new (last fifty years? thirty? eh). I don’t know what to think of that. In fact what I find remarkably interesting is that new technology can be considered ecstatic. I do not believe I have been able to experience this. No matter how fast technology sprints along I have not witnessed the development of something that changes our way of observing. I would like to.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Where Have All The Good Papers Gone?
I've been following manystuff.org for awhile now. I like it when I am linked to things like this. I'm not really sure what's going, because I don't really speak the language, but still, nice.
Blogging. The New American Scrapbook or Disastrous Moral Compromise
[This is the thingy for contemporary design]
During the lecture I was attending several hours ago, part of a film was shown on the Nine Evenings performances that took place in the sixties. The most notable part of this was Steve Paxton’s hands, which are like two birds panicking in their cage at the first sight of a cat. An evolution in gesturing.
Beyond the flailing digits I found a remarkable consistency between art/technology in the sixties and current practices of today. Past and present are both characterized by an unfaltering exploration of new media. And most striking is that the work being done by Rauschenburg, Stella, Paxton, etc. would not have seemed out of place today. Despite differences in technology the end results have a marked similarity. FM instead of bluetooth. Incandescents rather than of LEDs. Why is it that satisfaction in the creation of a “new” work seems to lie in exactly the same place it did almost fifty years ago? Primary motivation remains a fanatical exploration of technology. And newly introduced technologies lead effortlessly towards hardware-centric works. Results remain similar.
I would be off-base in this generalization were I not to admit that changes are afoot (or perhaps “at hand” as Paxton might prefer). And have been for a bit. Because, the constancy in this exploratory new media over the last half century has been accompanied by inconsistent access to the technology. It would not be possible for all of us to tour scientific facilities like Irwin. But, right now, and over the course of the last couple of years a drastic change has occurred in accessibility. Coding has become simpler, hardware easier to manipulate, and most importantly things are cheap to the point of drawing materials. Cheaper than printmaking, painting (at least fancy painting), sculpture, and about anything else associated with the field of fine art. God knows its certainly cheaper than photography. And when this is accompanied by, say, the internet, it becomes remarkably easy to establish a wide base of interested persons.
This brings up a point from the lecture that the film accompanied... Dana Plautz, relating her own experiences, felt that many artists working with new media were, in a sense, isolationists. Disinclined to admit the influences at play within their own work. Like the reluctant fathers on Maury who worry that one or all of their children might have come from someone else’s “seed”. And so, using a rather crude metaphor, the internet when combined with cheap hardware has created an environment where everyone is contaminating everyone else’s work. And that seems like the best place for everyone to be in order to move on past this whole technology as motive thing.
During the lecture I was attending several hours ago, part of a film was shown on the Nine Evenings performances that took place in the sixties. The most notable part of this was Steve Paxton’s hands, which are like two birds panicking in their cage at the first sight of a cat. An evolution in gesturing.
Beyond the flailing digits I found a remarkable consistency between art/technology in the sixties and current practices of today. Past and present are both characterized by an unfaltering exploration of new media. And most striking is that the work being done by Rauschenburg, Stella, Paxton, etc. would not have seemed out of place today. Despite differences in technology the end results have a marked similarity. FM instead of bluetooth. Incandescents rather than of LEDs. Why is it that satisfaction in the creation of a “new” work seems to lie in exactly the same place it did almost fifty years ago? Primary motivation remains a fanatical exploration of technology. And newly introduced technologies lead effortlessly towards hardware-centric works. Results remain similar.
I would be off-base in this generalization were I not to admit that changes are afoot (or perhaps “at hand” as Paxton might prefer). And have been for a bit. Because, the constancy in this exploratory new media over the last half century has been accompanied by inconsistent access to the technology. It would not be possible for all of us to tour scientific facilities like Irwin. But, right now, and over the course of the last couple of years a drastic change has occurred in accessibility. Coding has become simpler, hardware easier to manipulate, and most importantly things are cheap to the point of drawing materials. Cheaper than printmaking, painting (at least fancy painting), sculpture, and about anything else associated with the field of fine art. God knows its certainly cheaper than photography. And when this is accompanied by, say, the internet, it becomes remarkably easy to establish a wide base of interested persons.
This brings up a point from the lecture that the film accompanied... Dana Plautz, relating her own experiences, felt that many artists working with new media were, in a sense, isolationists. Disinclined to admit the influences at play within their own work. Like the reluctant fathers on Maury who worry that one or all of their children might have come from someone else’s “seed”. And so, using a rather crude metaphor, the internet when combined with cheap hardware has created an environment where everyone is contaminating everyone else’s work. And that seems like the best place for everyone to be in order to move on past this whole technology as motive thing.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Adult Scrapbooking: An Evil Best Kept Out of The American Home
How the paths of art and nuclear physics cross. Apparently the artist Robert Irwin spent several days with touring science facilities with Dr. Richard Feynman. Let us be thankful that Irwin's work did not cross over into realm of the atom bomb.
An as it turns out, after very little research, Feynman was himself an amateur painter. How unfair is it that while Robert Irwin is unable to dabble in quantum physics, Feynman is perfectly free to paint his heart out. What an unjust world.
An as it turns out, after very little research, Feynman was himself an amateur painter. How unfair is it that while Robert Irwin is unable to dabble in quantum physics, Feynman is perfectly free to paint his heart out. What an unjust world.
Work and Home Scrapbooking... Should They Be Kept Seperate?
Today marks the start of a new trend in my blogging activities, that is to say actually writing something. Look out internet here I come!
Friday, June 27, 2008
How to scrapbook on a tightened budget after your child costs you an arm and a leg talking to their 27 year old "partner" in alaska.
On a routine exploration of Seattle (via google maps) I discovered the nexus point of another universe. It's only a matter of time before it births a hairy multi-tentacled beast. Watch out Seattle.
If it's anything like that trailer for hellboy 2 you're going to have your hands full.
If it's anything like that trailer for hellboy 2 you're going to have your hands full.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
That First New Page or Strategies For The Ill Prepared.
I have a show opening tomorrow night in Portland. There is at least one sculpture involved, that I know of, and at least one photograph. It is something of a collaboration between myself and Charlie Olson, whom I have know for quite awhile now. It looks like this...
That is if you cover up the left half and extrapolate what's there already five, maybe seven, fold. Still there's certainly something up our collective sleeve that you have yet to see. With the exception of Caitlin and Brennan and of course everyone who has walked by the gallery over the course of the last week. I would give you the address, but given the astronomically low chance of anyone who hasn't already been invited reading this in the next 24 hours I'm not going to bother.
I saw something in the store that I've seen a lot of recently and was surprised as to what exactly the pressing demand for such an object was. Funny.
That is if you cover up the left half and extrapolate what's there already five, maybe seven, fold. Still there's certainly something up our collective sleeve that you have yet to see. With the exception of Caitlin and Brennan and of course everyone who has walked by the gallery over the course of the last week. I would give you the address, but given the astronomically low chance of anyone who hasn't already been invited reading this in the next 24 hours I'm not going to bother.
I saw something in the store that I've seen a lot of recently and was surprised as to what exactly the pressing demand for such an object was. Funny.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Floral Integration Methods (final)
Final Day
I ended the trip at Coney Island, falling into the Atlantic Ocean. Which apparently comes as a surprise to just about no one. Thank god it was out on a rock jetty and not on the beach where I could have been unlucky enough to fall on some of the sand mixed in with the broken glass. This is where I fell in.
I really liked New York. It was not a bad time.
I ended the trip at Coney Island, falling into the Atlantic Ocean. Which apparently comes as a surprise to just about no one. Thank god it was out on a rock jetty and not on the beach where I could have been unlucky enough to fall on some of the sand mixed in with the broken glass. This is where I fell in.
I really liked New York. It was not a bad time.
A List of the New Essentials (Day 6)
The Armory Show
I liked a lot of the work at the Armory Show. I did not like the Armory Show. It felt a like my idea of Wall Street--which I did not see in New York. People were predicting where the market was going, talking off the cuff about exorbitant amounts of money, and you know... wearing suits. As if business had been driving along, seen the art sticking its thumb out on the edge of the interstate and decided it would make for a good story if they gave it a lift. On a side note I pulled a huge faux pas when in an attempt to take my sweatshirt off I pulled off my regular shirt. All the way. There were nipples and embarrassment flying all over the place, like glass during a head on car crash. About the actual fair/show/whatever, here are some great Holzer pieces...
Also there was a large Ryan McGuiness that was pretty fancy,
and a Barry McGee,
and this illustration.
I liked a lot of the work at the Armory Show. I did not like the Armory Show. It felt a like my idea of Wall Street--which I did not see in New York. People were predicting where the market was going, talking off the cuff about exorbitant amounts of money, and you know... wearing suits. As if business had been driving along, seen the art sticking its thumb out on the edge of the interstate and decided it would make for a good story if they gave it a lift. On a side note I pulled a huge faux pas when in an attempt to take my sweatshirt off I pulled off my regular shirt. All the way. There were nipples and embarrassment flying all over the place, like glass during a head on car crash. About the actual fair/show/whatever, here are some great Holzer pieces...
Also there was a large Ryan McGuiness that was pretty fancy,
and a Barry McGee,
and this illustration.
The Hidden Dangers of Making Your Own Paper (Day 5)
Sculpture Center Tom Burr
The general consensus seemed to be that Tom Burr’s work was impressive due to the level of thought behind each and every one of his decisions. After some of my own thinking I believe this to be incorrect. Or perhaps correct, but not super important. It might be more fitting to say that the decisions he is making are blatant. So much so that it’s like Tom Burr is standing in the room with you, slapping you in the face.
Now I like that. I like that a lot more than just thinking Burr was careful with his choices and that he thought long and hard about all of them. He’s a well known artist, working conceptually and should damn well be thinking about his choices. I almost feel it’s more important that his work feels constructed than why he’s making the choices. That somehow having to make these choices is important in process only, and the development of a theatrical environment.
Wack! (P.S.1)
In the stylings of Sherrie Levine I’m just going to link you to what Caitlin wrote... http://cburkhart.blogspot.com/2008/03/ps-1.html.
The general consensus seemed to be that Tom Burr’s work was impressive due to the level of thought behind each and every one of his decisions. After some of my own thinking I believe this to be incorrect. Or perhaps correct, but not super important. It might be more fitting to say that the decisions he is making are blatant. So much so that it’s like Tom Burr is standing in the room with you, slapping you in the face.
Now I like that. I like that a lot more than just thinking Burr was careful with his choices and that he thought long and hard about all of them. He’s a well known artist, working conceptually and should damn well be thinking about his choices. I almost feel it’s more important that his work feels constructed than why he’s making the choices. That somehow having to make these choices is important in process only, and the development of a theatrical environment.
Wack! (P.S.1)
In the stylings of Sherrie Levine I’m just going to link you to what Caitlin wrote... http://cburkhart.blogspot.com/2008/03/ps-1.html.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Is the Coptic Stitch Right For You? (Day 4)
MOMA (color chart)
I like color. It would appear that many artists also like color. Our interests are so in tune with one another that I think I may just have to friend them on facebook. I’m going to “poke” you Baldessari!
I’m always amazed at the discussion that goes on over color being under-represented. David Batchelor’s Chromophobia heatedly argues an existing prejudice against color. The MOMA exhibition is in a way antithetical to this view. Color has been used, liberally even, for a long time when it comes to, not just art, but design as well. Color has not been put on the sideline in favor of some monochromatic dystopian future. But, rather finds its way into almost all work at some level, and only when conceptually necessary is it omitted.
Whitney Biennial
The Whitney Biennial was curated to showcase the lesser known and the up and coming. It was, coincidentally, awful. There were several exceptions to this rule. Along with a pants poopingly good film by Omer Fast, there was a great series of sculptures by Walead Beshty. Like a glove over an aquarium, multiple Fed Ex boxes were fitted over glass cubes, which were then shipped to the Whitney. The cracking, splintering, and subsequent buckling of the glass cubes chronicled their trek through the shipping system. I feel that these were likely chosen for material reasons. The simplicity and relatively cheap/simple construction of the work played into the idea of new artworks, as if the curator wanted to be positive that those who visited the Whitney knew exactly what they were looking at.
I like color. It would appear that many artists also like color. Our interests are so in tune with one another that I think I may just have to friend them on facebook. I’m going to “poke” you Baldessari!
I’m always amazed at the discussion that goes on over color being under-represented. David Batchelor’s Chromophobia heatedly argues an existing prejudice against color. The MOMA exhibition is in a way antithetical to this view. Color has been used, liberally even, for a long time when it comes to, not just art, but design as well. Color has not been put on the sideline in favor of some monochromatic dystopian future. But, rather finds its way into almost all work at some level, and only when conceptually necessary is it omitted.
Whitney Biennial
The Whitney Biennial was curated to showcase the lesser known and the up and coming. It was, coincidentally, awful. There were several exceptions to this rule. Along with a pants poopingly good film by Omer Fast, there was a great series of sculptures by Walead Beshty. Like a glove over an aquarium, multiple Fed Ex boxes were fitted over glass cubes, which were then shipped to the Whitney. The cracking, splintering, and subsequent buckling of the glass cubes chronicled their trek through the shipping system. I feel that these were likely chosen for material reasons. The simplicity and relatively cheap/simple construction of the work played into the idea of new artworks, as if the curator wanted to be positive that those who visited the Whitney knew exactly what they were looking at.
Ten Collage Don'ts and Three Collage Do's! (Day 3)
Chelsea is so hip that even the buildings have gradients applied to them. Chelsea? More like Chelsea 2.0.
Marcel Dzama
If I had the same first name as Ducamp I’d probably make some referential artwork as well. Though I might make it a little more in line with the other work I was showing in the same room. Dzama, who is clearly diorama crazy, went with a series of found objects over his typically fabricated ones to use behind his peepholed door. I thought this was a strange choice, and I have to wonder if it would have been stronger were it a re-interpretation of Duchamp’s piece using the language Dzama has already developed. Beyond this though I would have to say that I liked the piece. I’m not sure of the level of intention behind it, but the wood adjacent to the peephole was stained with what I assumed was disgusting face grease. Fearing acne this made me very careful not to put my eye right up against the door. The idea of this door being a shared experience, one where the imprint of the viewers leaves a physical imprint on the piece is... nice.
Installations
I was genuinely surprised by the amount of installation work in Chelsea. This being very much the opposite of what I would have expected inside of a gallery. Both of these pieces were clearly constructed for the site (or at the very least adapted for the site).
This one is hilarious.
Brian Jungen
I think what Jungen had on display in Chelsea, the football jerseys woven into Native American Blankets, was great conceptually. Unfortunately they were very similar to his well known masks made from appropriated Air Jordans. Even his whale skeleton constructed of plastic lawn chairs. I think the problem I’m having is that he has managed to make such visually arresting objects, which are, at the same time rock solid conceptually. Not really a problem, but when he makes something with the same concept, that he has used in previous work, but which is now stronger than the physical execution of a piece... is misleading? Maybe the pieces are strong in a different way, his understating of the physical in the work contributing to something. Or maybe I am just not a huge blanket fan.
DiVa Containers
The DiVa containers were a series of cargo containers that were supposed to be showcasing “new media art,” whatever the hell that is. Judging from most of the work shown it just means video on an LCD screen. Which I don’t have a problem with. It’s just that I’m not sure if I would classify this as “new media”. For that matter I would prefer not to classify anything as “new media”. I thought the whole categorizing fad had finally blown over.
There were of course exceptions... There is a pink Chinese lion in the middle of one of the DiVa containers in Chelsea. The head rotates 360 degrees projecting a mirrored video of a symphony orchestra from it’s eyes. Now the connections here wasn’t entirely clear to me at first. In fact the connection is still not clear to me. But, after thinking on it several times over a period of hours It might have something to do with reflection hiding the individual. The orchestra is obscured and distorted through the reflection, but the lion missing its partner is easy to examine as an individual object. Maybe this is a sort of cultural reflection where one culture views another as a continuously reflected entity. Like the reverse of one individual standing between two mirrors and being perceived as a crowd.
Thread Count In Book Cloth. Important? (Day 1)
Jasper Johns Grey (The Metropolitan Museum)
I had problems with this show. Presumably because the whole thing was Jasper Johns pounding on one idea over and over, just like my neighbors playing Rock Band at four in the morning. I get it. Grey. It’s fantastic you’re trying to purge color from your work. Good going Johns, this is about as grey as it gets. Could you maybe do it on a hundred more canvases and a couple drawers? Perfect. Done.
What I’m really trying to get at though is this. If I had a friend working on a novel and he, we’ll say is on his tenth draft, and feels it’s time to show it around to people. So, he comes to me and tosses down a tall stack of paper, classic triple at Wendy’s thick. And I’m like hey buddy, what’re all these? And he’s like, they’re my ten drafts, I want you to understand my process. Now, being a good friend I decide to play along and I read the first draft and I bite, it’s fantastic. I’m amazed, how’d you think of this? So, excited, I get to the second draft and realized that nothing is really that different. The grammar and spelling are a little better, a character has a different name. As the good friend I previously specified myself, I read the rest of the drafts. And they’re all the same thing... small grammar changes, word choice things, chapter titles are now just numbers. And after a lot of reading I, finally, put down the tenth draft which is largely unchanged from the first that I loved so much. But, this time when I put down the draft I hate it, I don’t want to read it again. In fact I don’t even like the first draft anymore.
The Jasper Johns Grey show is reading the same novel ten times in a row, expecting a great revelation with each new beginning. Just like my friend’s novel there are great moments within it, but they feel like a series of paintings that was not meant to be shown like... that. Were I to look at them on an individual level though...
Separating color from his methods allows Johns to lean heavily on the text he is using within his paintings, they become representations of objects that exist theoretically somewhere else. Of course it being Jasper Johns they probably do exist somewhere else. What’s particularly amusing about this though is that a grey painting thought of in terms of color wouldn’t be interpreted as the existing color version. Take “False Start” and “Jubilee”, in “False Start” words describe colors but are themselves painted in a color that they are not (blue is orange for example), but the type in “Jubilee” is greyscale. We imagine the colors that are being described without the confusion present in the original painting.
Violence in Cai Guo-Qiang (Guggenheim)
Despite the large percentage of the surfaces within the Guggenheim that were pierced by arrows I found Cai Guo-Qiang works non-violent. I didn’t even find them psuedo-violent or Tom and Jerry violent. They were Disney theatrical, Disney ice capades theatrical executed in such a way that I would be as likely to be startled by the unused toilet paper under my bathroom sink. Even the “exploding” car rocketing up the middle of the museum starts and finishes with a car sitting safely on the ground. More so, the wires that support the cars look so rock steady that the whole thing looks like less of a series of frozen moments and more like changing snow tires at Les Schwabb.
That said I really enjoyed the exhibit. Guo-Qiang appears to have the tennis balls to keep materials materials. Because resting immediately behind his vast series of illusions is their origins in normalcy. There is a distillation of the spectacle in his work. As if Cai had spent his career in an Appalachian pig farmer’s back field with a series of tubes, funnels, and boilers, ending up with a clear liquid that will get you shit-faced ten seconds before you drink it. We were all lucky not to have gone blind.
I had problems with this show. Presumably because the whole thing was Jasper Johns pounding on one idea over and over, just like my neighbors playing Rock Band at four in the morning. I get it. Grey. It’s fantastic you’re trying to purge color from your work. Good going Johns, this is about as grey as it gets. Could you maybe do it on a hundred more canvases and a couple drawers? Perfect. Done.
What I’m really trying to get at though is this. If I had a friend working on a novel and he, we’ll say is on his tenth draft, and feels it’s time to show it around to people. So, he comes to me and tosses down a tall stack of paper, classic triple at Wendy’s thick. And I’m like hey buddy, what’re all these? And he’s like, they’re my ten drafts, I want you to understand my process. Now, being a good friend I decide to play along and I read the first draft and I bite, it’s fantastic. I’m amazed, how’d you think of this? So, excited, I get to the second draft and realized that nothing is really that different. The grammar and spelling are a little better, a character has a different name. As the good friend I previously specified myself, I read the rest of the drafts. And they’re all the same thing... small grammar changes, word choice things, chapter titles are now just numbers. And after a lot of reading I, finally, put down the tenth draft which is largely unchanged from the first that I loved so much. But, this time when I put down the draft I hate it, I don’t want to read it again. In fact I don’t even like the first draft anymore.
The Jasper Johns Grey show is reading the same novel ten times in a row, expecting a great revelation with each new beginning. Just like my friend’s novel there are great moments within it, but they feel like a series of paintings that was not meant to be shown like... that. Were I to look at them on an individual level though...
Separating color from his methods allows Johns to lean heavily on the text he is using within his paintings, they become representations of objects that exist theoretically somewhere else. Of course it being Jasper Johns they probably do exist somewhere else. What’s particularly amusing about this though is that a grey painting thought of in terms of color wouldn’t be interpreted as the existing color version. Take “False Start” and “Jubilee”, in “False Start” words describe colors but are themselves painted in a color that they are not (blue is orange for example), but the type in “Jubilee” is greyscale. We imagine the colors that are being described without the confusion present in the original painting.
Violence in Cai Guo-Qiang (Guggenheim)
Despite the large percentage of the surfaces within the Guggenheim that were pierced by arrows I found Cai Guo-Qiang works non-violent. I didn’t even find them psuedo-violent or Tom and Jerry violent. They were Disney theatrical, Disney ice capades theatrical executed in such a way that I would be as likely to be startled by the unused toilet paper under my bathroom sink. Even the “exploding” car rocketing up the middle of the museum starts and finishes with a car sitting safely on the ground. More so, the wires that support the cars look so rock steady that the whole thing looks like less of a series of frozen moments and more like changing snow tires at Les Schwabb.
That said I really enjoyed the exhibit. Guo-Qiang appears to have the tennis balls to keep materials materials. Because resting immediately behind his vast series of illusions is their origins in normalcy. There is a distillation of the spectacle in his work. As if Cai had spent his career in an Appalachian pig farmer’s back field with a series of tubes, funnels, and boilers, ending up with a clear liquid that will get you shit-faced ten seconds before you drink it. We were all lucky not to have gone blind.
Monday, March 24, 2008
davey board time savers (Day 2)
We went to the Dia: Beacon today. I would describe it as a museum with an unusual amount of windows. My attention was caught in the basement, where there was a series of cast bronze hands by Bruce Nauman. The castings were of two hands; one coming up out of a pedestal and a second resting on top of it cut off just above the wrist, both hands meeting at the fingers. The perched hand was left open at the wrist so that you could peer inside the hollow bronze casting to which there were still traces of ceramic mold clinging. The outer surface of the hands were left raw after the initial sandblasting of the bronze, seams running the length of finger and hands. Each hand split hemispherically, divided by equatorial seams.
In this way the construction is an echo of the hands’ gesture. The meeting of fingers and the meetings of molds. The roughness of the gestures and the rough unfinished construction. As viewers, we ourselves meet with the sculptures. Again, this is not a seamless meeting. There is a sense of intrusion when faced with the two implied persons who are already meeting. In my own work I have become increasingly interested in the means of execution reflecting the concept. I feel this a prime example.
I would have taken pictures, but such things were not allowed. Lest we steal the art works soul. In substitute for photos here is the Dia’s logo.
You know it’s good because it’s Helvetica. And then here's the pathway outside.
Here are some more things I have found out of doors.
When dogs fly.
Judith Supine. And changing gears...
I was worried when I saw this. Did I need to throw my sandwich wrapper on the ground before I threw it away?
In this way the construction is an echo of the hands’ gesture. The meeting of fingers and the meetings of molds. The roughness of the gestures and the rough unfinished construction. As viewers, we ourselves meet with the sculptures. Again, this is not a seamless meeting. There is a sense of intrusion when faced with the two implied persons who are already meeting. In my own work I have become increasingly interested in the means of execution reflecting the concept. I feel this a prime example.
I would have taken pictures, but such things were not allowed. Lest we steal the art works soul. In substitute for photos here is the Dia’s logo.
You know it’s good because it’s Helvetica. And then here's the pathway outside.
Here are some more things I have found out of doors.
When dogs fly.
Judith Supine. And changing gears...
I was worried when I saw this. Did I need to throw my sandwich wrapper on the ground before I threw it away?
Sunday, March 23, 2008
paper clip faux pas
I am currently sleeping in Williamsburg in Broklyn where everyone is so hip that my pants size is somehow the largest you can buy in the store and in restaurants people loudly discuss the wikipedia definition of American as it concerns motherhood.
Our loft is very nice. It has a spiral staircase. I feel that it is very New York. Something I would expect to see on a television set. But filmed in LA.
This is the deck outside.
If you turn around a hundred and eighty degrees you can see Manhattan.
Unfortunately this is interrupted by Val Kilmer’s disrespect for property. The kind of thing I would expect from a 1985 “Real Genius” Val Kilmer, but for present day “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” Val Kilmer I’m disappointed.
Here are a couple more things I have seen on walls.
Space Invaders.
Faile.
Garlic?
Our loft is very nice. It has a spiral staircase. I feel that it is very New York. Something I would expect to see on a television set. But filmed in LA.
This is the deck outside.
If you turn around a hundred and eighty degrees you can see Manhattan.
Unfortunately this is interrupted by Val Kilmer’s disrespect for property. The kind of thing I would expect from a 1985 “Real Genius” Val Kilmer, but for present day “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” Val Kilmer I’m disappointed.
Here are a couple more things I have seen on walls.
Space Invaders.
Faile.
Garlic?
Saturday, March 22, 2008
twelve tiny tips for catching back up after falling behind
I am in New York. I have been here for over 24 hours at this point. Caitlin and I spent the first part of the trip in SoHo.
Where there are buildings like this that make my trip look like it was to the future. Which of course... it was.
This is where we stayed our first night.
In room 424. I would liken the room to a cage.
But, only because it was. Clearly the choice of low perspective photos on their website was a conscious one.
This is not clam chowder. Just because there are chunks of potato floating in it does not make it so.
There are many nice things pasted to the walls. This is not Swoon as I originally expected, but is well carved none the less.
Where do you go as an artist after you make something like this. I like to think once you get to this point you reach some sort of pinnacle from which you need not make any more art.
Where there are buildings like this that make my trip look like it was to the future. Which of course... it was.
This is where we stayed our first night.
In room 424. I would liken the room to a cage.
But, only because it was. Clearly the choice of low perspective photos on their website was a conscious one.
This is not clam chowder. Just because there are chunks of potato floating in it does not make it so.
There are many nice things pasted to the walls. This is not Swoon as I originally expected, but is well carved none the less.
Where do you go as an artist after you make something like this. I like to think once you get to this point you reach some sort of pinnacle from which you need not make any more art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)