posted by art blogs are fun at 10:44 AM
very interesting and unconventional. smart mind at work here. thanks for posting!
Looks like someone trying hard to make "art".
if curtis glenn reads this post, could he explain the premise about this work a little bit, open the door for me? It reads as an installation, but I am not sure what the theme is.I came across this blog last week by google, and am very interested. I am from Gary, Indiana, and usually can get to Chicago to look at art but havent been able to for a couple of years. Thanks
It is very difficult to talk about the work because there is no "expression" as in a feeling or emotion intended to be transmitted (I personally doubt this is possible at all let alone interesting) neither is there a message or even an overarching question.I can admit to concerns, both those in the process of making and those found in the objects after having been made.Largely the process is experimentation, as per two of the paintings in present in the show. For these I was looking at standard optical illusions (having been thinking about op art and what it would take for me to like it) and wondered what it would be to paint them badly. Would they still work? If not what would they become? Is an optical illusion made with paint op art? What is bad op art? Etc.What I found was that they did not work, at least nearly to the extent that the originals did (which I found on the internet). But what did happen, for instance with the pink one, is that the two circles which once seemed to rotate in opposite directions as one moved toward them, now merely quivered slightly. This idea excited me. Perhaps one sees a strange painting and approaches it and as one does so the image slightly quivers. Perhaps this is even unnoticed except that the viewer rubs his/her eyes a little and forgets about it. And then what is it? Some symbol extracted from any direct meaning. An open signifier which signifies almost (and the almost is the most important part) nothing.And then these ideas were elaborated on. What happens when symbol without meaning is paired with representation? What happens when an empty symbol is made into a physical object? What is the line between symbol and formalism? What if the symbol (as when presented next to a representative image) refers to or simply interacts with certain aspects of the setting, certain bar signs etc.And on and on. As for the whole of it. I neither wanted to make an installation nor ignore the setting. I wanted the work to be valued independently and relationally to almost the same extent. I felt that this would open the work up a great deal.I hate to say only what I have because I have no intention of declaring that this was the "point" of the show. There were also a great number of other possibilities of examination present (death bones and water, also ego and appropriation and others). In the end, no matter intentions, desires, what I've found, these are only objects in a space and all meaning is projected from the viewer and I like that.I hope that helps Karen. Thanks for your interest.
yes it seems this is all a result of a process of inquiry where this question leads to others during the making and staging process. And i am sure those relational aspects cannot be perceived in still shots on a computer. But still I think that if I were to see it live, many questions would pop into my head and I would ponder for a while which is good.As to the jibe in the second post, it is funny because by switching the inflection of the sentence it can be read as a compliment. I know that is not was intended. I hear this statment somtimes about my work, usually from traditional painter types, which always raises the question- "Now how is applying paint on a rectangular canvas and hanging it at the standard 60 inch center wall position NOT trying hard to make art?" It seems you assume this artist is feining unconventionality for its own sake, to be cool. But could it be that this artist arrived at these works thru years of development and self criticality? Pushing his own limits, perhaps making someting that he himself has problems with? Asking himself why he has a problem with that work or group of works? And wanting to create as situation that raises multiple questions for both himself and the viewer?And even if a work IS made out of a desire "to be cool", it doesnt matter because we are still left with something to take in and ponder.all the above - IMHO :)
Thank you, Curtis. I only wish I could see the works in person. But thanks to this blog, I will look for your work in the future
Curtis, Are you graduating next month or next year?I'm surprised that you don't have a tighter grip on the meaning/intent of your work...
Next month and thank you. That's the way I like it.
Congradulations on the show and on graduation. I wish the best for you. Good stuff.
curtis call me - come visitsweet shitoh i lost yer number thats why call mecallmeme\cal emwhenwwwwhhsweet 7347760669
Super good.Curtis, send me some pics. Then plan on a trip to NYC and kill two birds.
This wreaks of systems and trope structures that should be put to bed, but continue to find commercial value (in light of unambiguously meaningless cultural position) within fat fetid art objects like Art Forum _________. What's her name? Stockhouser?....vapid bag of money parading as content that career is. For the love of god, solipsistic (or even worse) confused object making that 'experiments'- in the certain terms of that which has already been experimented with, defined, and worst of all made tragically valuable- is just not......well it's just not anything unsuspicious. Throw in a little confessionalism, load all 6 chambers, and send a letter to Art _________. Everyone except Art-watch will thank you."and the wealthy rejoiced"
yeah curtis, i also lost your phone number 1-800-CALLME2
Totally Hot Shit
Post a Comment
View my complete profile