http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/ New York art news and reviews. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:20:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/comment-page-1/#comment-842 Sean Capone Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:28:28 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/#comment-842 I didn't finish this thought clearly, "Art had to constantly defend itself and its viability"... What I meant to express was that as government funding was slashed, the NEA stopped giving personal grants, and artists of my generation were told that the 'art for art's sake' gravy train was over, and their works would have to prove themselves in the market. Simultaneously, a highly speculative and well-financed art market emerged around the say-so of a ridiculously small number of cultural gate-keepers. There were always 'Art Stars', but what fed the cult-of-personality phenomena was in fact the success of conceptually driven practices that arose in the 50s and 60s in the US. The act of creating a singular, closed 'art object' became besides the point, in a way. So, the way I see it, the environment of art creation, exhibition and purchase that we are currently in is following exactly the trajectory that the art world has charted for itself since the 60s, and crystallized during the 80s & 90s due to the social & economic context of culture-at-large. Artists are, for better or worse, products & participants of the fabric of the culture they are educated in and operate in... I didn’t finish this thought clearly, “Art had to constantly defend itself and its viability”…
What I meant to express was that as government funding was slashed, the NEA stopped giving personal grants, and artists of my generation were told that the ‘art for art’s sake’ gravy train was over, and their works would have to prove themselves in the market. Simultaneously, a highly speculative and well-financed art market emerged around the say-so of a ridiculously small number of cultural gate-keepers. There were always ‘Art Stars’, but what fed the cult-of-personality phenomena was in fact the success of conceptually driven practices that arose in the 50s and 60s in the US. The act of creating a singular, closed ‘art object’ became besides the point, in a way.
So, the way I see it, the environment of art creation, exhibition and purchase that we are currently in is following exactly the trajectory that the art world has charted for itself since the 60s, and crystallized during the 80s & 90s due to the social & economic context of culture-at-large. Artists are, for better or worse, products & participants of the fabric of the culture they are educated in and operate in…

]]> http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/comment-page-1/#comment-311750 Sean Capone Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:28:00 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/#comment-311750 I didn't finish this thought clearly, "Art had to constantly defend itself and its viability"... What I meant to express was that as government funding was slashed, the NEA stopped giving personal grants, and artists of my generation were told that the 'art for art's sake' gravy train was over, and their works would have to prove themselves in the market. Simultaneously, a highly speculative and well-financed art market emerged around the say-so of a ridiculously small number of cultural gate-keepers. There were always 'Art Stars', but what fed the cult-of-personality phenomena was in fact the success of conceptually driven practices that arose in the 50s and 60s in the US. The act of creating a singular, closed 'art object' became besides the point, in a way. So, the way I see it, the environment of art creation, exhibition and purchase that we are currently in is following exactly the trajectory that the art world has charted for itself since the 60s, and crystallized during the 80s & 90s due to the social & economic context of culture-at-large. Artists are, for better or worse, products & participants of the fabric of the culture they are educated in and operate in... I didn’t finish this thought clearly, “Art had to constantly defend itself and its viability”…
What I meant to express was that as government funding was slashed, the NEA stopped giving personal grants, and artists of my generation were told that the ‘art for art’s sake’ gravy train was over, and their works would have to prove themselves in the market. Simultaneously, a highly speculative and well-financed art market emerged around the say-so of a ridiculously small number of cultural gate-keepers. There were always ‘Art Stars’, but what fed the cult-of-personality phenomena was in fact the success of conceptually driven practices that arose in the 50s and 60s in the US. The act of creating a singular, closed ‘art object’ became besides the point, in a way.
So, the way I see it, the environment of art creation, exhibition and purchase that we are currently in is following exactly the trajectory that the art world has charted for itself since the 60s, and crystallized during the 80s & 90s due to the social & economic context of culture-at-large. Artists are, for better or worse, products & participants of the fabric of the culture they are educated in and operate in…

]]> http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/comment-page-1/#comment-311751 Sean Capone Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:28:00 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/#comment-311751 I didn't finish this thought clearly, "Art had to constantly defend itself and its viability"... What I meant to express was that as government funding was slashed, the NEA stopped giving personal grants, and artists of my generation were told that the 'art for art's sake' gravy train was over, and their works would have to prove themselves in the market. Simultaneously, a highly speculative and well-financed art market emerged around the say-so of a ridiculously small number of cultural gate-keepers. There were always 'Art Stars', but what fed the cult-of-personality phenomena was in fact the success of conceptually driven practices that arose in the 50s and 60s in the US. The act of creating a singular, closed 'art object' became besides the point, in a way. So, the way I see it, the environment of art creation, exhibition and purchase that we are currently in is following exactly the trajectory that the art world has charted for itself since the 60s, and crystallized during the 80s & 90s due to the social & economic context of culture-at-large. Artists are, for better or worse, products & participants of the fabric of the culture they are educated in and operate in... I didn’t finish this thought clearly, “Art had to constantly defend itself and its viability”…
What I meant to express was that as government funding was slashed, the NEA stopped giving personal grants, and artists of my generation were told that the ‘art for art’s sake’ gravy train was over, and their works would have to prove themselves in the market. Simultaneously, a highly speculative and well-financed art market emerged around the say-so of a ridiculously small number of cultural gate-keepers. There were always ‘Art Stars’, but what fed the cult-of-personality phenomena was in fact the success of conceptually driven practices that arose in the 50s and 60s in the US. The act of creating a singular, closed ‘art object’ became besides the point, in a way.
So, the way I see it, the environment of art creation, exhibition and purchase that we are currently in is following exactly the trajectory that the art world has charted for itself since the 60s, and crystallized during the 80s & 90s due to the social & economic context of culture-at-large. Artists are, for better or worse, products & participants of the fabric of the culture they are educated in and operate in…

]]> http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/comment-page-1/#comment-841 Sean Capone Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:11:07 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/#comment-841 After seeing this post & visiting Julie's site and Winkleman's blog, and then going out to the gallery to actually see the work, I wonder about some of Paddy's comments. I see what you're saying & seeing, but I take issue with the easy dismissal of work which is 'decorative' in any way as being kitsch and girly. I was surprised, as are most viewers, I suspect, at the small scale and delicate nature of these works. Artwork which employs patterning and ornamental language by nature *is* repetitive, the question is: what is the broader language and history being explored here, where crafty 'fine' art intersects popular culture (Milhazes' references to Tropicalia; Ryan McGinness' permutations of graphic signage and Renaissance motifs; Bridget Riley's OpArt stripes, et al; I could go on & on). In any case I like the way so-called 'women artists' have re-occupied the field of craft-art in surprising & heroic ways, take Cal Lane for instance. But the real topic here (as everywhere) is the issue of the gravity of the marketplace bending the artist's production methods; well, OK. I think it's interesting how, especially since the 80s in this country, Art had to constantly defend itself and its viability as an occupation under right-wing assaults on the art world's social values. So the market during this period inflates and keeps inflating, and Art 'proves itself' within capitalist rhetoric. The backlash against this is quite vitriolic from within the arts community, for reasons I'm not clear on, although I am puzzled by the fame of certain young, mediocre artists. So in this case, if Julie is making work she likes, and which sells, thank God she is at least doing *something*, as opposed to some other, unnamed, do-nothing Art Stars of my generation. In this culture and age of ugliness, banality & crassness it is possible that making a simple, beautiful, inspirational thing is in itself a political act. After seeing this post & visiting Julie’s site and Winkleman’s blog, and then going out to the gallery to actually see the work, I wonder about some of Paddy’s comments. I see what you’re saying & seeing, but I take issue with the easy dismissal of work which is ‘decorative’ in any way as being kitsch and girly. I was surprised, as are most viewers, I suspect, at the small scale and delicate nature of these works. Artwork which employs patterning and ornamental language by nature *is* repetitive, the question is: what is the broader language and history being explored here, where crafty ‘fine’ art intersects popular culture (Milhazes’ references to Tropicalia; Ryan McGinness’ permutations of graphic signage and Renaissance motifs; Bridget Riley’s OpArt stripes, et al; I could go on & on). In any case I like the way so-called ‘women artists’ have re-occupied the field of craft-art in surprising & heroic ways, take Cal Lane for instance.
But the real topic here (as everywhere) is the issue of the gravity of the marketplace bending the artist’s production methods; well, OK. I think it’s interesting how, especially since the 80s in this country, Art had to constantly defend itself and its viability as an occupation under right-wing assaults on the art world’s social values. So the market during this period inflates and keeps inflating, and Art ‘proves itself’ within capitalist rhetoric. The backlash against this is quite vitriolic from within the arts community, for reasons I’m not clear on, although I am puzzled by the fame of certain young, mediocre artists.
So in this case, if Julie is making work she likes, and which sells, thank God she is at least doing *something*, as opposed to some other, unnamed, do-nothing Art Stars of my generation. In this culture and age of ugliness, banality & crassness it is possible that making a simple, beautiful, inspirational thing is in itself a political act.

]]> http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/comment-page-1/#comment-311749 Sean Capone Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:11:00 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/#comment-311749 After seeing this post & visiting Julie's site and Winkleman's blog, and then going out to the gallery to actually see the work, I wonder about some of Paddy's comments. I see what you're saying & seeing, but I take issue with the easy dismissal of work which is 'decorative' in any way as being kitsch and girly. I was surprised, as are most viewers, I suspect, at the small scale and delicate nature of these works. Artwork which employs patterning and ornamental language by nature *is* repetitive, the question is: what is the broader language and history being explored here, where crafty 'fine' art intersects popular culture (Milhazes' references to Tropicalia; Ryan McGinness' permutations of graphic signage and Renaissance motifs; Bridget Riley's OpArt stripes, et al; I could go on & on). In any case I like the way so-called 'women artists' have re-occupied the field of craft-art in surprising & heroic ways, take Cal Lane for instance. But the real topic here (as everywhere) is the issue of the gravity of the marketplace bending the artist's production methods; well, OK. I think it's interesting how, especially since the 80s in this country, Art had to constantly defend itself and its viability as an occupation under right-wing assaults on the art world's social values. So the market during this period inflates and keeps inflating, and Art 'proves itself' within capitalist rhetoric. The backlash against this is quite vitriolic from within the arts community, for reasons I'm not clear on, although I am puzzled by the fame of certain young, mediocre artists. So in this case, if Julie is making work she likes, and which sells, thank God she is at least doing *something*, as opposed to some other, unnamed, do-nothing Art Stars of my generation. In this culture and age of ugliness, banality & crassness it is possible that making a simple, beautiful, inspirational thing is in itself a political act. After seeing this post & visiting Julie’s site and Winkleman’s blog, and then going out to the gallery to actually see the work, I wonder about some of Paddy’s comments. I see what you’re saying & seeing, but I take issue with the easy dismissal of work which is ‘decorative’ in any way as being kitsch and girly. I was surprised, as are most viewers, I suspect, at the small scale and delicate nature of these works. Artwork which employs patterning and ornamental language by nature *is* repetitive, the question is: what is the broader language and history being explored here, where crafty ‘fine’ art intersects popular culture (Milhazes’ references to Tropicalia; Ryan McGinness’ permutations of graphic signage and Renaissance motifs; Bridget Riley’s OpArt stripes, et al; I could go on & on). In any case I like the way so-called ‘women artists’ have re-occupied the field of craft-art in surprising & heroic ways, take Cal Lane for instance.
But the real topic here (as everywhere) is the issue of the gravity of the marketplace bending the artist’s production methods; well, OK. I think it’s interesting how, especially since the 80s in this country, Art had to constantly defend itself and its viability as an occupation under right-wing assaults on the art world’s social values. So the market during this period inflates and keeps inflating, and Art ‘proves itself’ within capitalist rhetoric. The backlash against this is quite vitriolic from within the arts community, for reasons I’m not clear on, although I am puzzled by the fame of certain young, mediocre artists.
So in this case, if Julie is making work she likes, and which sells, thank God she is at least doing *something*, as opposed to some other, unnamed, do-nothing Art Stars of my generation. In this culture and age of ugliness, banality & crassness it is possible that making a simple, beautiful, inspirational thing is in itself a political act.

]]> http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/comment-page-1/#comment-814 Art Fag City Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:40:22 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/#comment-814 Most of the work in the show has sold, which isn't necessarily an indication that the artist won't then ask these kinds of questions, but it does tend to make people a little less inclined. Artistic growth shouldn't cost anyone any money, though I've noticed it doesn't always work out that way. Most of the work in the show has sold, which isn’t necessarily an indication that the artist won’t then ask these kinds of questions, but it does tend to make people a little less inclined. Artistic growth shouldn’t cost anyone any money, though I’ve noticed it doesn’t always work out that way.

]]> http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/comment-page-1/#comment-311748 Art Fag City Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:40:00 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/#comment-311748 Most of the work in the show has sold, which isn't necessarily an indication that the artist won't then ask these kinds of questions, but it does tend to make people a little less inclined. Artistic growth shouldn't cost anyone any money, though I've noticed it doesn't always work out that way. Most of the work in the show has sold, which isn’t necessarily an indication that the artist won’t then ask these kinds of questions, but it does tend to make people a little less inclined. Artistic growth shouldn’t cost anyone any money, though I’ve noticed it doesn’t always work out that way.

]]> http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/comment-page-1/#comment-804 tom moody Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:35:33 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/#comment-804 Evans is a nice person and that might explain some of the groovy good vibes coming her way. The paintings could be tougher, that's for sure. After Pop Art, painting should have lost that fussed over surface and delicate layering but that hasn't stopped Evans and Beatriz Milhazes and countless others from doing this type of work. And by tougher I don't mean more macho but more self-critical. "OK I painted a circle but what's interesting about it? Does it need more circles around it or maybe some contrast?" Evans is a nice person and that might explain some of the groovy good vibes coming her way. The paintings could be tougher, that’s for sure. After Pop Art, painting should have lost that fussed over surface and delicate layering but that hasn’t stopped Evans and Beatriz Milhazes and countless others from doing this type of work.
And by tougher I don’t mean more macho but more self-critical. “OK I painted a circle but what’s interesting about it? Does it need more circles around it or maybe some contrast?”

]]> http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/comment-page-1/#comment-311746 tom moody Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:35:00 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/#comment-311746 Evans is a nice person and that might explain some of the groovy good vibes coming her way. The paintings could be tougher, that's for sure. After Pop Art, painting should have lost that fussed over surface and delicate layering but that hasn't stopped Evans and Beatriz Milhazes and countless others from doing this type of work. And by tougher I don't mean more macho but more self-critical. "OK I painted a circle but what's interesting about it? Does it need more circles around it or maybe some contrast?" Evans is a nice person and that might explain some of the groovy good vibes coming her way. The paintings could be tougher, that’s for sure. After Pop Art, painting should have lost that fussed over surface and delicate layering but that hasn’t stopped Evans and Beatriz Milhazes and countless others from doing this type of work.
And by tougher I don’t mean more macho but more self-critical. “OK I painted a circle but what’s interesting about it? Does it need more circles around it or maybe some contrast?”

]]> http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/comment-page-1/#comment-311747 tom moody Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:35:00 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/2007/04/19/posting-notice-and-mini-review/#comment-311747 Evans is a nice person and that might explain some of the groovy good vibes coming her way. The paintings could be tougher, that's for sure. After Pop Art, painting should have lost that fussed over surface and delicate layering but that hasn't stopped Evans and Beatriz Milhazes and countless others from doing this type of work. And by tougher I don't mean more macho but more self-critical. "OK I painted a circle but what's interesting about it? Does it need more circles around it or maybe some contrast?" Evans is a nice person and that might explain some of the groovy good vibes coming her way. The paintings could be tougher, that’s for sure. After Pop Art, painting should have lost that fussed over surface and delicate layering but that hasn’t stopped Evans and Beatriz Milhazes and countless others from doing this type of work.
And by tougher I don’t mean more macho but more self-critical. “OK I painted a circle but what’s interesting about it? Does it need more circles around it or maybe some contrast?”

]]>