roxy paine
roxy paine-density polyethelene (this reminds me of detroit artist sara blakeman's new works)
posted by art blogs are fun at 2:51 PM
roxy paine-density polyethelene (this reminds me of detroit artist sara blakeman's new works)
posted by art blogs are fun at 2:51 PM
16 Comments:
When is a cliché a cliché? When you are forced to experience it over and over, rather than rely on it to represent a set of meanings for you. When you are led to realize why it was powerful enough to become a cliché to begin with...
Anyway, whatever that means, this type of poured work is now a cliche. It's been done by dozens of artists over the last forty-some years: From Linda Benglis and Cesar in 1966 to Anya Gallacio in the Freize show. Ho hum.
Excuse me,- Lynda.
The main difference here is that the pieces are the products of a sculpture building machine. You can see a photo of Paine's SCUMAK here:
http://www.grandarts.com/exhibits/RPaine.html
and here:
http://www.jamescohan.com/artists/roxypaine/
Lynda Benglis was exploring new materials with her pour work. Roxy Paine is much more involved in automation and re-creation. I think these pieces are able to work precisely because of their ability to access the cliché (or maybe prematurely force the cliché) and question the authenticity associated with the initial work.
I'm a fan.
-N
well said.
very well said...
bushwa.
Christine is absolutely right. It is a cliche. Why cant that be acknowledged?
".....their ability to access the cliché (or maybe prematurely force the cliché) and question the authenticity associated with the initial work......"
ACCESS THE CLICHE. what a fucking wasted of time. This pink poured piecs of crap is in NO WAY a constructive re-visiting, in the way that Picaso revisited Lautrec, or the way Frankenthaler revisited Pollock. They added something obvioulsly pertinent to their own unique experience and ADDED to the canon of visual dialogue.
Lynda Benglis is still the gold standard. This work is a counterfeit.
so if a machine makes the art .. it's better somehow. or different from the cliche?
benglis was playing with materials, whereas paine is playing with materials to play with materials.
british artist harold cohen developed his program and art creating computer aaron in 1973.. and it's changed the way we look at art?!
and hirst's spin paintings!! (which i like)
come on. the art either stands on its own or it plops over.
and "plop!"
pink pile of shit, this is what is coming to mocad? I feel a migraine coming on......
Isotope, lets face it, we are not living in a golden age of art.
Does one ever think that they are living in the "golden age of art"? Isn't it the future generation that turns around and says "wow, that last generation was the golden age of art... what is being made now sucks". That's just the reality of the way our species experiences and understands existence and time. Yesteryear or the future is always better than the here and now--- for some, for some reason.
"....Yesteryear or the future is always better than the here and now--- for some, for some reason."
the pink pile of melted ice cream is a good indicator of this
isotope: i think you missed my point.
I think she would have something if it were really pink poop.
observe what Devine did with a pile of poop in "Pink Flamingos"
Roxy Paine is a man.
sure, this piece references material experiments by the likes of lynda benglis & co. but the reason this is a compelling piece is that paine has built a machine that is creating the work which raises questions of originality and authorship by referencing the natural production of these types of "pouring" works by artists past.
Post a Comment
<< Home