New York Waterfalls

[Varian P]

Sure it's art. It refreshes the eyes with which you view the world. That makes it art.

It's quite clever, really. Putting it under the bridge gives it a kind of obscene intimacy, like you're seeing the bridge using the toilet. (Or makes you feel like the bridge is drooling.) But I think mostly what he's trying to do is transpose the libidinous and natural feeling of the rain forest onto the hard-edged rigidity of the urban jungle. It's like hanging vines and moss from the Empire State Building.

This is fabulous. I hereby dub the $15,000,000 waterfall:

Obscene Libidinous Toilet

 

[Varian P]

As for Rothko mentioned above......just let me get out a tin of paint and a plain wall, and a 6inch brush and I'll give you Rothko. Fucker.

See, with Rothko, I actually kind of get it.

Artists like Rothko and Mondrian were, as I understand it, making a kind of critique of, or calling out, the limitations of paint as a medium for expression reality, the whole cannon of representational painting with depth and perspective and light and shadow that endeavored to realistically portray the real world.

Abstract art was self-referential: it's just pigment on a surface.

In my book, insight, critique, problematizing what's taken for granted are all valid aspects of art, at least as important as virtuosity with the chosen medium.

As to stories mentioned above, I'd say that I've written a few, but they fall short of being literature.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

See, with Rothko, I actually kind of get it.

Artists like Rothko and Mondrian were, as I understand it, making a kind of critique of, or calling out, the limitations of paint as a medium for expression reality, the whole cannon of representational painting with depth and perspective and light and shadow that endeavored to realistically portray the real world.

Abstract art was self-referential: it's just pigment on a surface.

In my book, insight, critique, problematizing what's taken for granted are all valid aspects of art, at least as important as virtuosity with the chosen medium.

As to stories mentioned above, I'd say that I've written a few, but they fall short of being literature.

There you go. That's conceptual art. The very concept of the frame. Of a label that imbues objects with a special meaning beyond the everyday.

You find this ability to transform in a few places: art, religion (the idea of the holy or sacred), the theater (the ability of the stage to transform anything into drama)

 

[jomar]

Sure it's art. It refreshes the eyes with which you view the world. That makes it art.

It's quite clever, really. Putting it under the bridge gives it a kind of obscene intimacy, like you're seeing the bridge using the toilet. (Or makes you feel like the bridge is drooling.) But I think mostly what he's trying to do is transpose the libidinous and natural feeling of the rain forest onto the hard-edged rigidity of the urban jungle. It's like hanging vines and moss from the Empire State Building.

You would have had fun in that auteur directors film class I took.

I see where the four "Waterfalls" cost over $15,000,000. You know, you could run a presidential campaign in New York for a week with that kind of money.

Or pay for a few tanks of gas for the city vehicles.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

You would have had fun in that auteur directors film class I took.

\

Oh, I would! I'm great at this stuff. I used to hang around with all these sculptors, and they could justify anything.

Marcel DuChamp is one of my favorite all-time artists. For a Paris show in the 20's, he hung a urinal on the wall and signed it "A. Mutt". Then he played chess for the rest of his life.

We were just talking about the Shaggs, the girl band from the 60's who used to play Conceptual Music. That is, music without the actual harmony and melody and rhythm that gets in the way of all that noise. They were great.

 

[neonlyte]

Christ, I hate it when I sound like one of those people who gazed on a Rothko painting and cackled, "That's NOT art!"

But, here again, I'm in need of the audio tour. Just to explain to the slow girl why this is art. Not to say I doubt the truth of it, I just need to be helped out in making the connections. It's a critique of man overwriting nature with his urban superstructures? Or perhaps Doc is on the right track: it's an exploration of art's visceral impact on those who encounter it?

Mab's comments only miss context, imho. If I understand the artist correctly, part of his purpose was to create the sound of water in a place where the water is generally placid. The placement, under bridges, adds an invisible water sound for people using the bridges disrupting the visual context of placid water. Quite how that works in practice I'd love to see (or hear).

There is a sensationalist element to the installation, like Cristo's wrapped buildings, though less obvious... obviously. Artists reach for sensationalism occasionally in recognition that to attract funding and media attention, there is a need to step beyond conventional boundaries. In a real sense, sensationalism is being true to the history of art, most memorable art has broached the boundary of what was acceptable. My wife's current installation comprising 800kg of oranges does the same job. There is nothing unconventional about water, or oranges, using either in an unconventional way provokes reaction, in this case favourable for both the Danish artist and my wife, she has received national acclaim for her installation, and provoked a good 'ol fashioned argument about conceptual art in the process. Anything that causes the public and media to discuss art is good, as far as I am concerned.

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Mab's comments only miss context, imho. If I understand the artist correctly, part of his purpose was to create the sound of water in a place where the water is generally placid. The placement, under bridges, adds an invisible water sound for people using the bridges disrupting the visual context of placid water. Quite how that works in practice I'd love to see (or hear).

That makes infinitely more sense.

 

[Guest]

Oh, I would! I'm great at this stuff. I used to hang around with all these sculptors, and they could justify anything.

Marcel DuChamp is one of my favorite all-time artists. For a Paris show in the 20's, he hung a urinal on the wall and signed it "A. Mutt". Then he played chess for the rest of his life.

We were just talking about the Shaggs, the girl band from the 60's who used to play Conceptual Music. That is, music without the actual harmony and melody and rhythm that gets in the way of all that noise. They were great.

Ah, yes, The Shaggs.

Conceptual music.

Apparently rhythm was optional.

(and talent, too)

 

[Belegon]

Doc, we share an appreciation of DuChamp's irreverence, at the very least.

The only thing that annoys me about "modern art" is the nature of some involved to dismiss anyone pursuing a more traditional approach as unimportant. A key example of this was an art history teacher who felt that Wyeth was useless because he was not doing anything that had not been done before.

To me, that argument could be applied everywhere. Henry Moore does a sculpture of a woman. So what? It's been done before. After all, if you are going to dismiss the personal style of the artist, what matter how non-traditional or traditional the representation is?

I mean, come on... it's not like Monet was the first man to ever paint a picture of Notre Dame.

 

[neonlyte]

Doc, we share an appreciation of DuChamp's irreverence, at the very least.

The only thing that annoys me about "modern art" is the nature of some involved to dismiss anyone pursuing a more traditional approach as unimportant. A key example of this was an art history teacher who felt that Wyeth was useless because he was not doing anything that had not been done before.

To me, that argument could be applied everywhere. Henry Moore does a sculpture of a woman. So what? It's been done before. After all, if you are going to dismiss the personal style of the artist, what matter how non-traditional or traditional the representation is?

I mean, come on... it's not like Monet was the first man to ever paint a picture of Notre Dame.

Any modern artist worth their salt has probably studied 'the Masters' and determined their own path in part from a desire to improve upon previous work. Leaving to one side personal taste, I haven't yet met a working (exhibiting) artist who cannot reference their work to former artists. It is a question of interpretation, even in traditionally styled work, to bring something fresh to the canvas or sculpture, and there are a million ways to do it. Anthony Gormley's proposal to use 2400 people as 'live sculptures' for a plinth in Trafalgar Square, London, each occupying the plinth for an hour over 100 days challenges the idea of public sculpture in the way of Warhol's 15 minutes of fame... nothing new, just interpretation.

 

[Belegon]

Any modern artist worth their salt has probably studied 'the Masters' and determined their own path in part from a desire to improve upon previous work. Leaving to one side personal taste, I haven't yet met a working (exhibiting) artist who cannot reference their work to former artists. It is a question of interpretation, even in traditionally styled work, to bring something fresh to the canvas or sculpture, and there are a million ways to do it. Anthony Gormley's proposal to use 2400 people as 'live sculptures' for a plinth in Trafalgar Square, London, each occupying the plinth for an hour over 100 days challenges the idea of public sculpture in the way of Warhol's 15 minutes of fame... nothing new, just interpretation.

I agree... the attitude I object to is far more common among the critics and public than it is among artists themselves. I'm not saying it is unheard of in those circles, just far less common.

 

[Varian P]

If I understand the artist correctly, part of his purpose was to create the sound of water in a place where the water is generally placid. The placement, under bridges, adds an invisible water sound for people using the bridges disrupting the visual context of placid water.

OK, I'll buy that. Not for $15,000,000 (for my $15,000,000, I at least want to see a little human excrement on a holy relic, you know?), but sure, OK.

Thanks for providing a version of that audio tour of which I'm always so desperately in need.

 

[neonlyte]

OK, I'll buy that. Not for $15,000,000 (for my $15,000,000, I at least want to see a little human excrement on a holy relic, you know?), but sure, OK.

Thanks for providing a version of that audio tour of which I'm always so desperately in need.

I find the $15,000,000 price close to immoral... particularly as I wasn't his agent.

Having helped organise a number of international arts programmes, the price tag for the New York installation is astonishing even allowing the difficulty of installing the work. The current programme in which my wife is a participant involves 40 artists, performers, and several venues across the Algarve. Many of the participants are international names in the art world. The cost €1,000,000, about $500,000.

 

[matriarch]

Mab's comments only miss context, imho. If I understand the artist correctly, part of his purpose was to create the sound of water in a place where the water is generally placid. The placement, under bridges, adds an invisible water sound for people using the bridges disrupting the visual context of placid water. Quite how that works in practice I'd love to see (or hear).

There is a sensationalist element to the installation, like Cristo's wrapped buildings, though less obvious... obviously. Artists reach for sensationalism occasionally in recognition that to attract funding and media attention, there is a need to step beyond conventional boundaries. In a real sense, sensationalism is being true to the history of art, most memorable art has broached the boundary of what was acceptable. My wife's current installation comprising 800kg of oranges does the same job. There is nothing unconventional about water, or oranges, using either in an unconventional way provokes reaction, in this case favourable for both the Danish artist and my wife, she has received national acclaim for her installation, and provoked a good 'ol fashioned argument about conceptual art in the process. Anything that causes the public and media to discuss art is good, as far as I am concerned.

Thank you for that. I kind of get it now......and when do we get to see the wife's orangescape??

 

[neonlyte]

Thank you for that. I kind of get it now......and when do we get to see the wife's orangescape??

Sent you a PM with a link.

 

[Guest]

Sent you a PM with a link.

Send me one, too?

 

[Equinoxe]

Sure it's art. It refreshes the eyes with which you view the world. That makes it art.

Interesting! Were Einstein's Annus Mirabilis Papers art?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Doc, we share an appreciation of DuChamp's irreverence, at the very least.

The only thing that annoys me about "modern art" is the nature of some involved to dismiss anyone pursuing a more traditional approach as unimportant. A key example of this was an art history teacher who felt that Wyeth was useless because he was not doing anything that had not been done before.

To me, that argument could be applied everywhere. Henry Moore does a sculpture of a woman. So what? It's been done before. After all, if you are going to dismiss the personal style of the artist, what matter how non-traditional or traditional the representation is?

I mean, come on... it's not like Monet was the first man to ever paint a picture of Notre Dame.

I know what you're saying, but to the contemporary artist, it's more like a matter of craft. Wyeth was basically an illustrator, not that much different than Normal Rockwell, painting pictures that told a story and letting the story convey some emotion. That's a very sentimental type of art. He was working with nineteenth-century tools.

It's as if a modern novelist were writing like Dickens. No matter how good his stuff, he'd be a gimmick, and he wouldn't get the attention of someone who breaks the mold and finds a new way of describing things and sets writing free.

In fact, you get the same kind of disdain in Literature. People ask, "What's wrong with Stephen King? Why isn't he Great Literature?", and what the critics will say is, he's a very good writer, but he's not saying anything new about the human condition. He's not bringing any insights to human history. Not like a Pynchon or a Bellow. King is an entertainer, analogous to a decorative painter, and entertainment and decoration are fine, but they're not really high art.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Interesting! Were Einstein's Annus Mirabilis Papers art?

To physicists and mathematicians they sure were. Still are.

 

[neonlyte]

<hijack> Nice Davies quote, Mab. Under-rated I've always thought.</hijack>

 

[matriarch]

Sent you a PM with a link.

Thank you.