Monday, April 23, 2007

compare/contrast/this year/last year cranbrook


this year: acrylic collage

last year: hydrocal made to look like duct tape, boxes, fluorescent colors

this year: tea cup installation

last year: tea cup sculpture

this year: art installation, double headed patriotism

last year: art installation, two work-out dudes hangin' out

this year: portrait shrine

last year: wolf shrine

this year: photography

last year: painting

this year: floor to ceiling paper blown by fans

last year: giant moving origami paper

this year: cantilevered tv

last year: cantilevered parachute

this year: glowing hanging orbs

last year: glowing wall orbs

this year: vending machine (contents: cd and dvd performance art + buttons...)

last year: coat closet (an actual coat closet downstairs) I had to go in and I still don't think this was a piece last year.

13 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is the suggestion here: that nothing is new?; or that this years graduates were highly influenced by last years graduates?; or both?

12:26 AM  
Anonymous jef said...

there's a school of/at work here, and it's helping to form some great art and artists. that's what i read by it all.

2:00 AM  
Anonymous jef said...

i lost the "r" on that last one:

there's a school of art at work here, and it's helping to form some great art and artists. that's what i read by it all.

2:02 AM  
Anonymous jef said...

Anyway, no matter what an artist does there will always be finger-pointing - over here, over there, back and forth, past and present.

An email from David Hilliard's show at Mark Moore and his photos point at Chris Motta's work at Cranbrook.

Why can't the fingers point inwards instead of always outwards?!

Motta got there first this time. Point taken.

2:18 AM  
Anonymous dude said...

Nothing negative was stated. In a "school of art" everybody influences everybody else. That's why the works have similar qualities.

I didn't see any pointed fingers. I believe this is just an observation, and an interesting one at that.

7:17 AM  
Anonymous chris m. said...

dude, anon posed a question - jef-bro answered: is the suggestion here(implied by ann's juxtapositions) that nothing is new? or everything old is new again?

and, yep, there are too many fingers to fit on one hand. a lot of pointing all the time. "oh, i've seen that before" and "everything here is so derivative" and so on and so on and ... and whatever that song was.

i do it myself, although impolite in mixed company.

at festives i overheard one of the grads complain that nothing is new anyway. i leaned in and heard him say one of the profs taught that. the resonation in me was palpable. (that one goes out to c.)

i just don't happen to agree. these artists have made everything their own, whether they use paint, photography, or media.

braque once said: i don't steal, i borrow. picasso stole it: i don't borrow, i steal.
what's the dif?! if there's good art at the end.

10:50 AM  
Anonymous m. said...

it would be really helpful if there were better citations to these images (and, in general, the images on this site). Things like titles, artists' names, dates. Are these representing works by the same artist in their 1st and 2nd years?, or works by different artists all in their 2nd years? What disciplines are they in?

I think that this juxtaposition is very interesting, and I don't feel that Ann was instigating any finger pointing. I think we just need a little more information to draw conclusions from this comparison.

Could you buy the buttons/cds et al out of the vending machine?? I guess I could just wait until I see the show next week, but I'm terribly curious! In Seattle they have Ipod Vending machines that swipe your card for $300+. You can get Ipods and any Ipod accessories. I find it really hilarious.

12:44 PM  
Anonymous jesus people said...

if you want this blog to give you every artist's name, every piece's title, and the exact look, feel, taste, smell and experience of visting the show — WHY DON'T YOU GET OFF OF YOUR ASS AND GO TO THE SHOW?

1:46 PM  
Anonymous m. said...

BECAUSE I LIVE IN SEATTLE.

But, for the record, if you are posting other people's work it is the minimum to have appropriate citations. Even on a blog.

4:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't know that blogging had rules.

5:01 PM  
Anonymous dude said...

These attacks on m. are frivilous and naive and should end because she/he provides a quality perspective. Extra info would help. It's not necessary beyond what is readily available in the actual exhibition, but it would help.

And I agree with chris m., although I think that "derivitive" is thrown around too carelessly ( I know/think you weren't refering to this work as derivitive). It NEVER applies when the only similarity between the works at hand is the material and/or its use.

PS. Let's see if anyone agrees with this: Ideas are new, relations between ideas are new and the use of different materials to express the ideas can be new.

6:30 PM  
Anonymous um said...

F.Y.I.
if you take a look at the previous post
about this year's show, MOST of the artists names are under the pieces...

3:00 PM  
Anonymous m. (is for Melissa, she) : said...

fyi: yes, but that doesn't give us the information we need to compare/contrast the images in this post, covering last years' show as well. also, most is not all. also (anon) a public blog is a form of electronic publishing and falls into the domain of those "rules". also, if the blogger wants to be taken seriously as a critic/reviewer or whatever, citing is of a basic importance and should go without saying, issues of copyright aside. as an artist herself, i assume she would not want her work posted with no reference back to her, not even a name someone could google, right?

Now, before you start jumping down my throat please know that I do appreciate the selflessness of blogging, the investment of time that it takes, and that Ann does this in her free time, etc., etc., etc.

dude: I can't agree with your statement, too many absolutes. :-) SOME ideas are new (mostly surrounding changes in technology, not thought, thus you could say the subject of the idea is new but the thought itself is always recycled), relations between ideas CAN BE new and the use of different materials to express the ideas can be new. So i agree with the last line and modification of the precursers.

But if a reused idea is presented to an audience who are seeing it for the first time (not having seen the earlier incarnations) THEN is it new? With the tree in the woods that falls with no one around to hear the sound... like in music when you hear the cover, then dig up the obscure original, but in your mind the cover is always the original, to you. thanks for the defense. :-)

4:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home