Art Stars Guide Blindfolded Artists: Gelitin at Greene Naftali

david lachapelle in both this and the tino sehgal piece (?) increases my disinterest in both.

david lachapelle in both this and the tino sehgal piece (?) increases my disinterest in both.

david lachapelle in both this and the tino sehgal piece (?) increases my disinterest in both.

Gimmicky, but it confirms my endgame argument literally. The blind leading the blind, pointless self-isolation amongst groups and trends, etc. etc.

Why make visual art without looking at it? And as much as one might argue that this is performance art and GELITIN might call it a Happening, their stated goal is to produce a sculpture without the use of sight. Should ‘viewers’ be experiencing the piece blind as well?

I don’t know why, but the messiness and constantly changing authorship in this project reminds me of a net equivalent: http://www.drawball.com/.

Gimmicky, but it confirms my endgame argument literally. The blind leading the blind, pointless self-isolation amongst groups and trends, etc. etc.

Why make visual art without looking at it? And as much as one might argue that this is performance art and GELITIN might call it a Happening, their stated goal is to produce a sculpture without the use of sight. Should ‘viewers’ be experiencing the piece blind as well?

I don’t know why, but the messiness and constantly changing authorship in this project reminds me of a net equivalent: http://www.drawball.com/.

Gimmicky, but it confirms my endgame argument literally. The blind leading the blind, pointless self-isolation amongst groups and trends, etc. etc.

Why make visual art without looking at it? And as much as one might argue that this is performance art and GELITIN might call it a Happening, their stated goal is to produce a sculpture without the use of sight. Should ‘viewers’ be experiencing the piece blind as well?

I don’t know why, but the messiness and constantly changing authorship in this project reminds me of a net equivalent: http://www.drawball.com/.

Gimmicky, but it confirms my endgame argument literally. The blind leading the blind, pointless self-isolation amongst groups and trends, etc. etc.

Why make visual art without looking at it? And as much as one might argue that this is performance art and GELITIN might call it a Happening, their stated goal is to produce a sculpture without the use of sight. Should ‘viewers’ be experiencing the piece blind as well?

I don’t know why, but the messiness and constantly changing authorship in this project reminds me of a net equivalent: http://www.drawball.com/.

thanks paddy.
this is a symptom of something that i’ve been thinking about. i actually live with some people if i just overheard correctly, that are part of this. i call it cool art, just because hipster art is bad art, and this type of work generally has something to it, but i think the practitioners don’t realize that it’s not relevant beyond themselves. i understand the desire to create outside of conventional aesthetics, and this possibility has been opened up by other artists, mostly now famous, and many of them long dead. (the obvious place is duchamp). there is a apparent theoretical and lifestyle interest in anti-commercialism and rogue/anti-society communal/socialist-anarchic something or another. which is great and all, and possibly admirable in many cases. but to create a hermetic, purposefully elitist art for themselves and other cool people only–i don’t know how this can have “so much” credibility. it’s not easy to disguise a lack of substance. i could list a few recent things i’ve seen: Apt show last night (some of the work was decent, one piece was really interesting)–none of it terribly original, there is a style of cool art. but an effort was made to look like nobody really tried too hard, but the effort is obvious and pervades these cool art manifestation. and it is a style. it has become formulaic. –so in a certain sense, how can “anti-Art” be interesting when it has become formulaic? nd by having certainly become ubiquitous enough to be predictable and not challenging. no “art style” will ever be interesting. when it become slick (even when it purposefully looks haphazard and apathetic and indifferent to art, it can still be slick)–”When an artist learns his craft too well he makes slick art” (Sol Lewitt)… and of course i quote some old, dead, now conventional artist, and so i must be some conservative person who goes to a community space and pays $10 to draw nudes for an hour on tuesdays. but really i’m not. i don’t even particularly like Lewitt. Another example BHQF–i went to something and although i find their project in general to be impressive and relevant, what is with the effort to have everything look shitty. it is to alienate the unintiated, the uncool. what is most fascinating about art is that it is one of those few outlets where ideas can be pushed beyond limits and something new and fascinating can be discovered and experienced. i just don’t get it when cool art has become formulaic, and yet it is still cool. but it’s cool for other people, the cool people. something can be very interesting and be presented well and with care, especially when the same amount of effort is made to make it look like you don’t care. this show sounds scary, the art world is getting a bit scary, there is group think (at least in certain areas (is this the avant-garde?).. group think in art doesn’t interest me. that may be off topic. and i have seen nothing first hand to make me think that these cool artists are not independently wealthy, which is great, i’d love to be wealthy too. but it seems CRAZY to then embrace some anti-culture stance anti-commercial stance from that position. this of course does not apply to everyone… all the good art school people i know also all have the same books, theory and pleasing post WWII anti- books, of course mostly Continental, and always without the books and works that these aforementioned books are building from. rootless knowledge and a superficial understanding of what they purport to be doing. this last sentence makes this entire comment very easy to refute because of its extreme generalizing. but oh well. i trust my instincts: this “movement” is not interesting. of course there are several practitioners that are good and original, and they are obvious because their work is interesting and thoughtful. and their work is getting watered down by this undertow .this is of course vague, and i want to think it through a bit longer. again i trust my instincts, and this is not sour grapes, i just want to see something that takes more effort and thought than the effort to be like everyone else and to be cool. i still have to live here for a while, forgive the pseudonymous comment. one more example of cool art: i thought black acid co-op and it’s sister show at deitch were good, great. why? because they did something that, although looks “shitty” (in a extremely naive sense), was clearly thoughtful, coherent, perfectly executed, interesting, engrossing, thought-provoking, etc. etc. it’s possible that i will realize my current thinking to be embarrassingly ignorant and retrograde; i’m still learning. but for this to be true there would have to be, most likely, some cryptic narrative beyond what i am comprehending. because cool art is certainly NOT irritating or offensive because it is “ahead of its time.” the only possibility that i’m thinking right now would be that it is indeed anti-art and is attempting to deflate bourgeois culture, i guess from the inside–but can you do that from within bourgeois culture, formulaically, and with bourgeois culture’s tools and money and theories? maybe you can and i’m completely off base. but then why alienate so many people, unless you think you are the elite. the cool ones. an anti-aesthetic stance is uninteresting without an intellectual component. i guess this is my opinion. that it dominates a distinct sector of “cutting-edge” contemporary art, generally the academic side, is strange, and indeed irritating. i’m sure i’ve contradicted myself a few times.

thanks paddy.
this is a symptom of something that i’ve been thinking about. i actually live with some people if i just overheard correctly, that are part of this. i call it cool art, just because hipster art is bad art, and this type of work generally has something to it, but i think the practitioners don’t realize that it’s not relevant beyond themselves. i understand the desire to create outside of conventional aesthetics, and this possibility has been opened up by other artists, mostly now famous, and many of them long dead. (the obvious place is duchamp). there is a apparent theoretical and lifestyle interest in anti-commercialism and rogue/anti-society communal/socialist-anarchic something or another. which is great and all, and possibly admirable in many cases. but to create a hermetic, purposefully elitist art for themselves and other cool people only–i don’t know how this can have “so much” credibility. it’s not easy to disguise a lack of substance. i could list a few recent things i’ve seen: Apt show last night (some of the work was decent, one piece was really interesting)–none of it terribly original, there is a style of cool art. but an effort was made to look like nobody really tried too hard, but the effort is obvious and pervades these cool art manifestation. and it is a style. it has become formulaic. –so in a certain sense, how can “anti-Art” be interesting when it has become formulaic? nd by having certainly become ubiquitous enough to be predictable and not challenging. no “art style” will ever be interesting. when it become slick (even when it purposefully looks haphazard and apathetic and indifferent to art, it can still be slick)–”When an artist learns his craft too well he makes slick art” (Sol Lewitt)… and of course i quote some old, dead, now conventional artist, and so i must be some conservative person who goes to a community space and pays $10 to draw nudes for an hour on tuesdays. but really i’m not. i don’t even particularly like Lewitt. Another example BHQF–i went to something and although i find their project in general to be impressive and relevant, what is with the effort to have everything look shitty. it is to alienate the unintiated, the uncool. what is most fascinating about art is that it is one of those few outlets where ideas can be pushed beyond limits and something new and fascinating can be discovered and experienced. i just don’t get it when cool art has become formulaic, and yet it is still cool. but it’s cool for other people, the cool people. something can be very interesting and be presented well and with care, especially when the same amount of effort is made to make it look like you don’t care. this show sounds scary, the art world is getting a bit scary, there is group think (at least in certain areas (is this the avant-garde?).. group think in art doesn’t interest me. that may be off topic. and i have seen nothing first hand to make me think that these cool artists are not independently wealthy, which is great, i’d love to be wealthy too. but it seems CRAZY to then embrace some anti-culture stance anti-commercial stance from that position. this of course does not apply to everyone… all the good art school people i know also all have the same books, theory and pleasing post WWII anti- books, of course mostly Continental, and always without the books and works that these aforementioned books are building from. rootless knowledge and a superficial understanding of what they purport to be doing. this last sentence makes this entire comment very easy to refute because of its extreme generalizing. but oh well. i trust my instincts: this “movement” is not interesting. of course there are several practitioners that are good and original, and they are obvious because their work is interesting and thoughtful. and their work is getting watered down by this undertow .this is of course vague, and i want to think it through a bit longer. again i trust my instincts, and this is not sour grapes, i just want to see something that takes more effort and thought than the effort to be like everyone else and to be cool. i still have to live here for a while, forgive the pseudonymous comment. one more example of cool art: i thought black acid co-op and it’s sister show at deitch were good, great. why? because they did something that, although looks “shitty” (in a extremely naive sense), was clearly thoughtful, coherent, perfectly executed, interesting, engrossing, thought-provoking, etc. etc. it’s possible that i will realize my current thinking to be embarrassingly ignorant and retrograde; i’m still learning. but for this to be true there would have to be, most likely, some cryptic narrative beyond what i am comprehending. because cool art is certainly NOT irritating or offensive because it is “ahead of its time.” the only possibility that i’m thinking right now would be that it is indeed anti-art and is attempting to deflate bourgeois culture, i guess from the inside–but can you do that from within bourgeois culture, formulaically, and with bourgeois culture’s tools and money and theories? maybe you can and i’m completely off base. but then why alienate so many people, unless you think you are the elite. the cool ones. an anti-aesthetic stance is uninteresting without an intellectual component. i guess this is my opinion. that it dominates a distinct sector of “cutting-edge” contemporary art, generally the academic side, is strange, and indeed irritating. i’m sure i’ve contradicted myself a few times.

thanks paddy.
this is a symptom of something that i’ve been thinking about. i actually live with some people if i just overheard correctly, that are part of this. i call it cool art, just because hipster art is bad art, and this type of work generally has something to it, but i think the practitioners don’t realize that it’s not relevant beyond themselves. i understand the desire to create outside of conventional aesthetics, and this possibility has been opened up by other artists, mostly now famous, and many of them long dead. (the obvious place is duchamp). there is a apparent theoretical and lifestyle interest in anti-commercialism and rogue/anti-society communal/socialist-anarchic something or another. which is great and all, and possibly admirable in many cases. but to create a hermetic, purposefully elitist art for themselves and other cool people only–i don’t know how this can have “so much” credibility. it’s not easy to disguise a lack of substance. i could list a few recent things i’ve seen: Apt show last night (some of the work was decent, one piece was really interesting)–none of it terribly original, there is a style of cool art. but an effort was made to look like nobody really tried too hard, but the effort is obvious and pervades these cool art manifestation. and it is a style. it has become formulaic. –so in a certain sense, how can “anti-Art” be interesting when it has become formulaic? nd by having certainly become ubiquitous enough to be predictable and not challenging. no “art style” will ever be interesting. when it become slick (even when it purposefully looks haphazard and apathetic and indifferent to art, it can still be slick)–”When an artist learns his craft too well he makes slick art” (Sol Lewitt)… and of course i quote some old, dead, now conventional artist, and so i must be some conservative person who goes to a community space and pays $10 to draw nudes for an hour on tuesdays. but really i’m not. i don’t even particularly like Lewitt. Another example BHQF–i went to something and although i find their project in general to be impressive and relevant, what is with the effort to have everything look shitty. it is to alienate the unintiated, the uncool. what is most fascinating about art is that it is one of those few outlets where ideas can be pushed beyond limits and something new and fascinating can be discovered and experienced. i just don’t get it when cool art has become formulaic, and yet it is still cool. but it’s cool for other people, the cool people. something can be very interesting and be presented well and with care, especially when the same amount of effort is made to make it look like you don’t care. this show sounds scary, the art world is getting a bit scary, there is group think (at least in certain areas (is this the avant-garde?).. group think in art doesn’t interest me. that may be off topic. and i have seen nothing first hand to make me think that these cool artists are not independently wealthy, which is great, i’d love to be wealthy too. but it seems CRAZY to then embrace some anti-culture stance anti-commercial stance from that position. this of course does not apply to everyone… all the good art school people i know also all have the same books, theory and pleasing post WWII anti- books, of course mostly Continental, and always without the books and works that these aforementioned books are building from. rootless knowledge and a superficial understanding of what they purport to be doing. this last sentence makes this entire comment very easy to refute because of its extreme generalizing. but oh well. i trust my instincts: this “movement” is not interesting. of course there are several practitioners that are good and original, and they are obvious because their work is interesting and thoughtful. and their work is getting watered down by this undertow .this is of course vague, and i want to think it through a bit longer. again i trust my instincts, and this is not sour grapes, i just want to see something that takes more effort and thought than the effort to be like everyone else and to be cool. i still have to live here for a while, forgive the pseudonymous comment. one more example of cool art: i thought black acid co-op and it’s sister show at deitch were good, great. why? because they did something that, although looks “shitty” (in a extremely naive sense), was clearly thoughtful, coherent, perfectly executed, interesting, engrossing, thought-provoking, etc. etc. it’s possible that i will realize my current thinking to be embarrassingly ignorant and retrograde; i’m still learning. but for this to be true there would have to be, most likely, some cryptic narrative beyond what i am comprehending. because cool art is certainly NOT irritating or offensive because it is “ahead of its time.” the only possibility that i’m thinking right now would be that it is indeed anti-art and is attempting to deflate bourgeois culture, i guess from the inside–but can you do that from within bourgeois culture, formulaically, and with bourgeois culture’s tools and money and theories? maybe you can and i’m completely off base. but then why alienate so many people, unless you think you are the elite. the cool ones. an anti-aesthetic stance is uninteresting without an intellectual component. i guess this is my opinion. that it dominates a distinct sector of “cutting-edge” contemporary art, generally the academic side, is strange, and indeed irritating. i’m sure i’ve contradicted myself a few times.

thanks paddy.
this is a symptom of something that i’ve been thinking about. i actually live with some people if i just overheard correctly, that are part of this. i call it cool art, just because hipster art is bad art, and this type of work generally has something to it, but i think the practitioners don’t realize that it’s not relevant beyond themselves. i understand the desire to create outside of conventional aesthetics, and this possibility has been opened up by other artists, mostly now famous, and many of them long dead. (the obvious place is duchamp). there is a apparent theoretical and lifestyle interest in anti-commercialism and rogue/anti-society communal/socialist-anarchic something or another. which is great and all, and possibly admirable in many cases. but to create a hermetic, purposefully elitist art for themselves and other cool people only–i don’t know how this can have “so much” credibility. it’s not easy to disguise a lack of substance. i could list a few recent things i’ve seen: Apt show last night (some of the work was decent, one piece was really interesting)–none of it terribly original, there is a style of cool art. but an effort was made to look like nobody really tried too hard, but the effort is obvious and pervades these cool art manifestation. and it is a style. it has become formulaic. –so in a certain sense, how can “anti-Art” be interesting when it has become formulaic? nd by having certainly become ubiquitous enough to be predictable and not challenging. no “art style” will ever be interesting. when it become slick (even when it purposefully looks haphazard and apathetic and indifferent to art, it can still be slick)–”When an artist learns his craft too well he makes slick art” (Sol Lewitt)… and of course i quote some old, dead, now conventional artist, and so i must be some conservative person who goes to a community space and pays $10 to draw nudes for an hour on tuesdays. but really i’m not. i don’t even particularly like Lewitt. Another example BHQF–i went to something and although i find their project in general to be impressive and relevant, what is with the effort to have everything look shitty. it is to alienate the unintiated, the uncool. what is most fascinating about art is that it is one of those few outlets where ideas can be pushed beyond limits and something new and fascinating can be discovered and experienced. i just don’t get it when cool art has become formulaic, and yet it is still cool. but it’s cool for other people, the cool people. something can be very interesting and be presented well and with care, especially when the same amount of effort is made to make it look like you don’t care. this show sounds scary, the art world is getting a bit scary, there is group think (at least in certain areas (is this the avant-garde?).. group think in art doesn’t interest me. that may be off topic. and i have seen nothing first hand to make me think that these cool artists are not independently wealthy, which is great, i’d love to be wealthy too. but it seems CRAZY to then embrace some anti-culture stance anti-commercial stance from that position. this of course does not apply to everyone… all the good art school people i know also all have the same books, theory and pleasing post WWII anti- books, of course mostly Continental, and always without the books and works that these aforementioned books are building from. rootless knowledge and a superficial understanding of what they purport to be doing. this last sentence makes this entire comment very easy to refute because of its extreme generalizing. but oh well. i trust my instincts: this “movement” is not interesting. of course there are several practitioners that are good and original, and they are obvious because their work is interesting and thoughtful. and their work is getting watered down by this undertow .this is of course vague, and i want to think it through a bit longer. again i trust my instincts, and this is not sour grapes, i just want to see something that takes more effort and thought than the effort to be like everyone else and to be cool. i still have to live here for a while, forgive the pseudonymous comment. one more example of cool art: i thought black acid co-op and it’s sister show at deitch were good, great. why? because they did something that, although looks “shitty” (in a extremely naive sense), was clearly thoughtful, coherent, perfectly executed, interesting, engrossing, thought-provoking, etc. etc. it’s possible that i will realize my current thinking to be embarrassingly ignorant and retrograde; i’m still learning. but for this to be true there would have to be, most likely, some cryptic narrative beyond what i am comprehending. because cool art is certainly NOT irritating or offensive because it is “ahead of its time.” the only possibility that i’m thinking right now would be that it is indeed anti-art and is attempting to deflate bourgeois culture, i guess from the inside–but can you do that from within bourgeois culture, formulaically, and with bourgeois culture’s tools and money and theories? maybe you can and i’m completely off base. but then why alienate so many people, unless you think you are the elite. the cool ones. an anti-aesthetic stance is uninteresting without an intellectual component. i guess this is my opinion. that it dominates a distinct sector of “cutting-edge” contemporary art, generally the academic side, is strange, and indeed irritating. i’m sure i’ve contradicted myself a few times.

billy, ¶. ¶, billy.

I think the performative element is explicit here. I mean, it’s a stage set surrounded by bleachers.

As for the art stars, it’s basically like weekly episodes of Love Boat. Even though it’s incredibly formulaic, the special guest stars add enough novelty to keep people interested week after week. And so it’s the formula–and the main characters, Gopher et al/Gelitin–who come out ahead.

Though it sounds like they all want to be Julie the coked-out cruise director.

billy, ¶. ¶, billy.

I think the performative element is explicit here. I mean, it’s a stage set surrounded by bleachers.

As for the art stars, it’s basically like weekly episodes of Love Boat. Even though it’s incredibly formulaic, the special guest stars add enough novelty to keep people interested week after week. And so it’s the formula–and the main characters, Gopher et al/Gelitin–who come out ahead.

Though it sounds like they all want to be Julie the coked-out cruise director.

billy, ¶. ¶, billy.

I think the performative element is explicit here. I mean, it’s a stage set surrounded by bleachers.

As for the art stars, it’s basically like weekly episodes of Love Boat. Even though it’s incredibly formulaic, the special guest stars add enough novelty to keep people interested week after week. And so it’s the formula–and the main characters, Gopher et al/Gelitin–who come out ahead.

Though it sounds like they all want to be Julie the coked-out cruise director.

billy, ¶. ¶, billy.

I think the performative element is explicit here. I mean, it’s a stage set surrounded by bleachers.

As for the art stars, it’s basically like weekly episodes of Love Boat. Even though it’s incredibly formulaic, the special guest stars add enough novelty to keep people interested week after week. And so it’s the formula–and the main characters, Gopher et al/Gelitin–who come out ahead.

Though it sounds like they all want to be Julie the coked-out cruise director.

the arguments being presented, which i understand, remind me of a permanent public exhibit that i saw while visiting different cities. one in particular (but speaks for the potential malaise in this) had outdoor sculptures noted with signage in braille. thus, people who could see the work could not read about it, and those who could read about it were unable to see it. get it?? gotcha, but not really. hence, a reminder in that as well as the experience, it’s seems a contradiction compared to organized or structured art or styles making integral statements about social, cultural, or spritual shisms or ?question marks?. as someone else mentioned with duchamp — symbolists, dada, surrealism, futurism, modernism….la la la. yet, there was a projection not projectile vomit, thus just a mess to clean up, repeat, repeat, delete.

in seeing this, it’s yet another reminder of how one considers multiple purported social ‘crises’ when creations or presentations are merely messy tapestries, or a loom with a view where guests or participants are free to then snip with scissors, knifes, or other blades — simply to do it and simply to waste….no statement, just redundant platitudes so with ad nauseum it puts nausea to the experience.

good night.

the arguments being presented, which i understand, remind me of a permanent public exhibit that i saw while visiting different cities. one in particular (but speaks for the potential malaise in this) had outdoor sculptures noted with signage in braille. thus, people who could see the work could not read about it, and those who could read about it were unable to see it. get it?? gotcha, but not really. hence, a reminder in that as well as the experience, it’s seems a contradiction compared to organized or structured art or styles making integral statements about social, cultural, or spritual shisms or ?question marks?. as someone else mentioned with duchamp — symbolists, dada, surrealism, futurism, modernism….la la la. yet, there was a projection not projectile vomit, thus just a mess to clean up, repeat, repeat, delete.

in seeing this, it’s yet another reminder of how one considers multiple purported social ‘crises’ when creations or presentations are merely messy tapestries, or a loom with a view where guests or participants are free to then snip with scissors, knifes, or other blades — simply to do it and simply to waste….no statement, just redundant platitudes so with ad nauseum it puts nausea to the experience.

good night.

the arguments being presented, which i understand, remind me of a permanent public exhibit that i saw while visiting different cities. one in particular (but speaks for the potential malaise in this) had outdoor sculptures noted with signage in braille. thus, people who could see the work could not read about it, and those who could read about it were unable to see it. get it?? gotcha, but not really. hence, a reminder in that as well as the experience, it’s seems a contradiction compared to organized or structured art or styles making integral statements about social, cultural, or spritual shisms or ?question marks?. as someone else mentioned with duchamp — symbolists, dada, surrealism, futurism, modernism….la la la. yet, there was a projection not projectile vomit, thus just a mess to clean up, repeat, repeat, delete.

in seeing this, it’s yet another reminder of how one considers multiple purported social ‘crises’ when creations or presentations are merely messy tapestries, or a loom with a view where guests or participants are free to then snip with scissors, knifes, or other blades — simply to do it and simply to waste….no statement, just redundant platitudes so with ad nauseum it puts nausea to the experience.

good night.

the arguments being presented, which i understand, remind me of a permanent public exhibit that i saw while visiting different cities. one in particular (but speaks for the potential malaise in this) had outdoor sculptures noted with signage in braille. thus, people who could see the work could not read about it, and those who could read about it were unable to see it. get it?? gotcha, but not really. hence, a reminder in that as well as the experience, it’s seems a contradiction compared to organized or structured art or styles making integral statements about social, cultural, or spritual shisms or ?question marks?. as someone else mentioned with duchamp — symbolists, dada, surrealism, futurism, modernism….la la la. yet, there was a projection not projectile vomit, thus just a mess to clean up, repeat, repeat, delete.

in seeing this, it’s yet another reminder of how one considers multiple purported social ‘crises’ when creations or presentations are merely messy tapestries, or a loom with a view where guests or participants are free to then snip with scissors, knifes, or other blades — simply to do it and simply to waste….no statement, just redundant platitudes so with ad nauseum it puts nausea to the experience.

good night.

I felt the same way about Spencer Sweeney’s Theatre Workshop/ rehearsal-as-art exhibit recently at Gavin Brown. I didn’t see the final performance though…

I felt the same way about Spencer Sweeney’s Theatre Workshop/ rehearsal-as-art exhibit recently at Gavin Brown. I didn’t see the final performance though…

I felt the same way about Spencer Sweeney’s Theatre Workshop/ rehearsal-as-art exhibit recently at Gavin Brown. I didn’t see the final performance though…

I felt the same way about Spencer Sweeney’s Theatre Workshop/ rehearsal-as-art exhibit recently at Gavin Brown. I didn’t see the final performance though…