Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
the novelty of the new
I am delighted that I can still be delighted by seeing an image of an artwork I have never known, like this piece by Degas. Only exhibited 13 times in its existence (and only 1 of those in Paris), I certainly have not had much opportunity to come across it. At any rate, perhaps someone else's eyes will also appreciate this fresh, slightly bizarre little feast.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
sophistication requires receptivity
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Plus ça change...

Sunday, October 17, 2010
I was there


Sitting on the floor on the Turbine Hall at the Tate Modern last week I felt overwhelmed. Ai Weiwei's new installation, Sunflower Seeds, part of the Tate's Unilever Series, features millions of hand-painted, hand-crafted porcelain sunflower seeds. The artist's intentions for the work are multi-faceted and wide-ranging, from communism and mass-production. Though these ideas are certainly communicated, Weiwei's original vision for the project conveys a more hopeful, positive sensation than these topics might suggest. My view was the photo on top as I sat amidst these myriad seeds. Like sand, they conformed to my weight, comfortable but not forgettable. Around me, people were sitting, standing, laying, walking, generally interacting with the artwork(s). This was Weiwei's desire and the result was communal, peaceful, a breakdown of that art/audience barrier. Circumstances beyond his control, however, have ensured that going forward the bottom photo will be the public's view. I fear that the heavier messages of the work will inevitably overshadow the hope that was intended: go see it, but remember this. In the end, this is one of the rare instances I am proud to say 'I was there,' and, hey, how did that seed get in my pocket? ;)
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
détruit
Today I have considered the notion of the destruction of artworks. Many of the artists with whom I have become intimate have several, if not a great many, paintings or sculptures which they themselves chose to destroy. Happily, some remnants survive in sketch form or are described by contemporary critics but this is not always the case. Common reasons cited for committing such acts include a complete stylistic shift, scathing reviews in the press, or random bouts of fury. This is a mentality I cannot grasp. Why would someone want to obliterate their past? Perhaps I am too sentimental; perhaps they were without hope of better days to come in which they could look back and see their lives' progression.
Over a century and a half later these works have been forgotten while other pieces -pastels, maquettes, sketches - live on in gilded frames on hallowed walls. Would my dear artists consider this a success? Would they regret their past destruction seeing now how it could have added to our modern understanding? Would they embrace modern, temporary art which is designed to eventually disappear?
Monday, July 12, 2010
the value of art
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
out-courbeted
Friday, July 2, 2010
you and your space

