Post-modern assemblage with John Murray
Aug 11& 12, 9:30-4PM
This workshop is for the adventurous artist with a need to push the image.
the old saw, Q: "how many artists does it take to change a light bulb?"
A: Does it have to be a light bulb", applies here.
Example of a Rachel Harrison piece here:
Beyond the brush stroke or even bolder application of paint lies the third dimension and the structural world of bas-relief, scultpture, installation, site art and outdoor / work in nature. This workshop attempts toexplore some of thse in an intenst 12 hour, 2 day weekend session at the New Art Center.
4 comments:
1. Rather than making art why not turn to the study of philosophy or theology for ones inquiry into the meaning of life?
2. What would Freud, Nietzsche and others say about the commodity paradox that traditional painting and sculpture present?
3. When an object works as leverage for the mind does the making of such a thing necessarily grant the maker the title “artist”?
4. Is the process of making the art object any longer a valid pursuit now that it’s separate
from information dispersal, and traditional political and theological goals; or is it more valid than ever in view of this.
5. Did Marcel Duchamp destroy art by introducing conceptual reference over retinal authority?
6. Would Duchamp’s “Fountain” been more interesting as an object, if instead of appropriating a ready-made urinal, he had made a plaster version and hand-painted it with glossy white oil paint?
7. Would you prefer to show your work in a slick, white-box gallery in a cultural metropolis, or would you consider the idea of exhibiting it as a billboard on a desolate Nebraska highway as superior?
8. What quality would the Nebraska location add to the work?
9. Do you believe in the “presence” in the art object?
10. If you answered yes to question 8, how do you feel about reproductions of art objects? Can a reproduction retain any of the original’s qualities at all?
Thanks, John Murray.
John Murray
Duchamp's idea that art could take any form shocked the art world
A white gentlemen's urinal has been named the most influential modern art work of all time.
Marcel Duchamp's Fountain came top of a poll of 500 art experts in the run-up to this year's Turner Prize which takes place on Monday.
Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (1907) was second, with Andy Warhol's Marilyn Diptych from 1962 coming third.
Duchamp shocked the art establishment when he took the urinal, signed it and put it on display in 1917.
"The choice of Duchamp's Fountain as the most influential work of modern art ahead of works by Picasso and Matisse comes as a bit of a shock," said art expert Simon Wilson.
Ahead of time
"But it reflects the dynamic nature of art today and the idea that the creative process that goes into a work of art is the most important thing - the work itself can be made of anything and can take any form."
HAVE YOUR SAY
I think it's just insulting to the other artists
Steve Wilson, England
Send us your comments
Picasso's Spanish Civil War painting, Guernica, came fourth, while Matisse's The Red Studio was fifth.
Duchamp has influenced many contemporary artists, including Tracey Emin - her unmade bed was inspired by the French artist.
An answer to one of the questions asked by John Murray:
Question: Rather than making art why not turn to the study of philosophy or theology for
ones inquiry into the meaning of life?
Answer: When most people inquire, aren’t they searching for answers? Does a person make art with hopes that the object he created will reveal the answers to the meaning of life? If so, then who will the answers be revealed to? Will the object speak to the artist alone or will it speak to all who see it? Where will the object find the answers? Is the artist asking specific questions? Does he believe someone will answer his questions? Again, where will the answers come from? What if the person or people who have the answers don't want to share them? If someone gave the artist the answers, would he believe that person? Would he even know if they were the right answers? If so, how would he know? How would he test those answers? When he finds the answers, what will be his response? What will he do differently? What if he doesn't understand the answers? What if the answers are in code? What if the artist discovers that most people have the answers and that he is one of the few who don’t have the answers? What if he were to discover that most of the people without answers are artists? Why does an artist feel it is necessary to present his attempts at finding the meaning of life to everyone who is willing to visit the location where the artist’s object is displayed? Is the artist also a missionary? Does he feel a need to give the answers to anyone willing to view his object? If finding the meaning of life is the motivation behind an artist’s creation of objects then won’t finding the answers make art irrelevant? If an artist were to finally find the meaning of life would he make the answers public, knowing that this will lead to the end of his life as an artist? Is there a progress chart that shows how close artists are to finding the meaning of life? I believe the best place for a person searching for answers to the meaning of life is in theology or in therapy.
Answer to question 2:
Is it possible to make art without knowledge of Freud, Nietzsche and others? Does knowledge of Freud, Nietzsche and others assist the artist in making art? Is the knowledge of Freud, Nietzsche and others a message to others that says the artist is intelligent and deserving of attention? What are some of the other readings that will elevate an artist to importance in the eyes of others who have read the same books? What are some of the books that identify the reader of those books as an intellectual? Isn’t it a problem if all artists read the same books? Wouldn’t this lead to artistic sameness? If a viewer did not like the work of an artist, could the reason be lack of education by the viewer?
Post a Comment