mark your calendars!
Just when you thought the gallery circuit was slowing down for the summer, Gallery Project saved a great all-star show for the early summer season! It is jam packed with names you know and a lot of artists you might not know as well. I love the mix there because sometimes in the detroit area it seems like you see the same old group of artists showing over and over again! I was starting to think there was some club to join to get into shows around here...or maybe I am not sleeping with the right person! Anyway...make the trip to Ann Arbor this friday June 23, 6-9. Ann Arbor in the summer is quite lovely...get some dinner make a night of it!
PRESS RELEASE: EXPERIMENTS: GALLERY PROJECT'S FIRST ANNIVERSARY EXHIBIT
Gallery Project presents Experiments, a multi-media exhibit in celebration of its first anniversary. The exhibit runs from June 21 through July 30. The opening reception is Friday, June 23, 6-9.
This exhibit features experimental work, new directions, and challenging departures by collaborators and outstanding artists from among 95 local, regional, and national artists who participated in Gallery Project's first year.
Returning artists include: Michelle Bowers, graphics; Ken Brown, wood sculpture; Bobby Campbell, oil painting; Jim Cogswell, oil painting; Ed Fraga, oil painting; Dan Gay, painting and sculpture; Dick Goody, oil painting; Matt Gordon, oil painting; Brian Nelson, assemblage; Renata Palubinskas, oil painting; Zachary Shafer, oil painting; and Peter Williams, water colors. Participating collaborators include: Kristin Beaver, oil painting; Rocco De Pietro, mixed media; Jennifer Locke, drawing and installation; Gloria Pritschet, unaltered 35mm photography; Mike Richison, sculpture and drawing; Lisa Steichmann, photography; and Jack Summers, digital imaging.
posted by art blogs are fun at 10:40 PM
12 Comments:
to continue a recent dialogue on other threads, as to what makes anything art anymore and who decides, this story was in the news this week:
this story hit the news this week:
David Hensel, a sculptor from Sussex England, submitted to the Royal Academy summer exhibition a piece that consisted of a large bronze laughing head mounted on a pedestal of slate and kept in place by a support shaped like a bone.
In unpacking, the laughing head had been misplaced and Hensel was represented in the exhibition by what looked like a dog's toy (the support) on a paving stone (the slate pedestal).
The Hensel event tops most as proof that art historians would believe that a fart was art if a man in a bow tie told them it was (a reference to Graham Beal?).
David Mach, a juror for the summer show, was even on record praising the "minimalist" qualities of the bone-on-slab display.
And as the faces of traditionalists aped the roaring mouth of Hensel's missing head they were given even more cause to cackle when it turned out that the bronze head had not simply been left behind in a storeroom but had gone before the selectors as a separate art-work and been rejected.
Yet another bone thrown to the anti-contemporary dogs is the fact that the pedestal with the bit on top is now expected to sell for far more than the original price of the whole combination.
And then there was this one.
At the time of the opening of Tate Modern - London's temple to contemporary art - a story swept the press. A visitor had reportedly dropped his wallet in a gallery. Realizing this, he went back into the room to find a crowd gathered admiringly round the leather rectangle. When he stooped to retrieve his possession, an attendant rebuked him for touching an exhibit.
Whether or not it happened, this anecdote fast became the sardonic gospel of the enemies of modern art, filed alongside similar legends of gallery cleaners accidentally chucking out what they assumed to be rubbish on the building floor but was in fact the famous Turner-shortlisted work Garbage.
There's this other famous example. But what does all this mean? That contemporar art is stupid or people are?
Duchamp's snow shovel, IN ADVANCE OF THE BROKEN ARM, had never been used, and still, he wanted us to see it as art. Actually, it has been used once. When Duchamp's exhibition went on tour in 1945, a janitor, in a Minnesota museum found the shovel sitting in a corner and used it to remove a snowdrift.
"bone-on-slab display"....jeeze sounds like a personal problem i used to have in highschool.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5081744.stm?ls
anonymouses always sound like their still in highschool. i am and we talk more about art than most these guys.
btw in detroit it's the timlin goody cope club. ann arbor seems more open to evaluating the art without requiring social connections
for the club: timlin's group is aging fast; goody is still an open club i think; and well for cope - without integrity, no man can have positive word of mouth.
Yeah, yeah and yeah. Club Ded....But what about art and Hensel's pedestal? I used to go antiquing at Saline for pieces to go in my sculptures -- and often I'd scan something that was really beautiful as an object, only to get closer and realize it was part of the building.
I guess I'm wondering if art can be crap, and still be art. And plain crap too. One doesn't necessarily elevate the other. Does it?
And don't throw in Manzoni's crap, because that was something different altogether. I'm talking found on the street crap, and tracked into the gallery/museum.
What makes that art? What makes Hensel's pedestal art? If there's intention, does that make it art? But what if no one is aware of the intention?
And getting quotes from someone else doesn't make anything so.
Some of the questions that underlie many of these threads, and art criticism in general, include these: What is the standard of evaluation for art? What criteria do we use to judge art? Must these be consistent? If not, then is the judgment of art necessarily subjective? In other words, is beauty/truth/art merely in the eye of the beholder? Is intention enough to make it art? (I don’t think so, because we still have to judge the good from the not so good art.) Is art significant in that it matters in our lives in an essential way, or is it essentially a pleasure for the elite? Can there be great art? How do you tell it from good art? What about populism as a criterion? Jef’s post is important because it asks questions about the future. Are the arts important to culture and the future of our species? If so, then how is it that we sometimes mistake art for garbage, or a last minute substitute, or a chimp painting, etc.?
infinites upon infinites
many faces from he-man, member him
describe to me fully and completely your relationship to your mother.
what are the rules
how do we decide what to eat
each and every only, and some memories
skeptics and mystics co-exsist
be a kid, wide your eyes and try.
love
is it any suprise that fans, janitors, museum employees, etc... make mistakes when attempting to negotiate the complexities of our freedom and vision. they should fumble occasionaly - it does not imply fraud because the "other end" doesn't find us correctly.
drank up
hoes down
Art is everything or life. This thread seems to be more a question about how do we price it?
I feel the money aspect has hurt art making and intesifies x 50 the spinning of questions such as "what is art" anymore.
Post a Comment
<< Home