Vija Celmins and my cutting board. Okay, so who does decide what is art? I’m confused.
Sometimes the stars aren’t really stars, but a cutting board.
I am an Artist.
This is great project in Indianapolis by Mosiac City. Here Maline Jeffers explain how it works.
Indiana’s Biggest Sculpture
Robert Indiana calls it an obelisk, and what he created has become an icon for the museum. It’s also the place where he wanted to be buried.
Found out more on Indiana’sIndiana.org
A detail of Alyson Shotz’s “Standing Wave”. (at The Alexander Hotel)
Agreed! The profile of Bill Arnett and Thornton Dial in the New Yorker was really good!
I thought this article on Bill Arnett, a white collector and curator (that’s an incomplete way of describing him), and Thornton Dial, a black Southern artist, is the only interesting feature on art I’ve ever read in the New Yorker.
Two passages I loved:
"[Arnett’s] cats are named Giuseppe, Lottie, Harito, and Julio Caesar — all ‘fancy’ names, out of fear that those without them would feel slighted."
"Arnett noticed a tin of homemade banana pudding and dipped himself some. Dial murmured, ‘Mr. Arnett at home, ain’t he? You can bet that. He at home.’ He didn’t say much else.’"
This is being a little melodramatic, but I think the article highlighted everything I love and hate about art. The fact that a man like Dial makes art in the first place, to stay busy because he “ain’t no sit-down man.” The fact that his art is questioned because it’s championed by someone like Arnett who is not within the “institution.”
When the article quoted Susan Krane, the director of the San Jose Museum of Art, I audibly growled: “There was also a question because Bill was creating art history around these artists while functioning as a dealer and promoting exhibitions. If you’re a museum person, it raised every red flag you’re taught to pay attention to.”
I wonder if Susan Krane pays attention to the New York art world? Because whatever faults she ascribes to Bill Arnett describe the New York art world perfectly.
High art as we see it in cultural institutions has become so tangled in bullshit that I hardly go see it anymore, not unless I have to write about it. The piece sort of gave me hope that there’s still some reason to make art at all. Read it for no other reason besides the fact that the writer, Paige Williams, wrote a really beautiful story.
A fantastic story by Know No Stranger.
Robert Indiana painting for the City of Columbus at the top of the stairs I go up into work at City Hall. (at Columbus City Hall)
So cool to see Sadie Wilhelmi practicing Allora & Calzadilla’s “Body in Flight (Delta)” for the opening reception of #AICIndy tomorrow night at the IMA. (at Indianapolis Museum Of Art (IMA))
Wish I could have seen these program!
At the conclusion of our Contemporary Art Forum: Art at Large: Art Making in the Long View, we are sharing some reflections on Tumblr. This is the fourth and last post in the series.
In “The Hypothetical Audience,” artist Trevor Paglen and art conservator Glenn Wharton explored how the meaning of an artwork evolves over time. Wharton spoke about his work with artists to document their intentions, since effectively preserving a piece’s meaning over time might actually require actions that seem incongruous with conservation, such as altering the physical work to preserve its desired effect in a given context. Along these lines, Paglen revealed that his intention in The Last Pictures is “deeply paradoxical,” since he aims to both foster dialogue on the included images as representations of society and also reflect on the reality that images are only legible based on context—an intention that raises questions about what components conservators should preserve.
A number of takeaways emerged, but one stood out in particular: as artists think increasingly broadly about artworks responding to their surroundings in the long term, the field of conservation is becoming more engaged in the process of treating works to avoid simply freezing them in a pristine state.
I did posters. I was in what they called the camouflage secret army. This was in 1943. The people at Fort Meade got the idea to make rubber dummies of tanks, which we inflated on the spot and waited for Germans to see through their night photography or spies. We were in Normandy, for example, pretending to be a big, strong armored division which, in fact, was still in England. That way, even though the tanks were only inflated, the Germans would think there were a lot of them there, a lot of guns, a whole big infantry. We just blew them up and put them in a field. Then all of the German forces would move toward us, and we’d get the call to get out quick. So we had to whsssh [sound of deflating] package them up and get out of there in 20 minutes. Then our real forces, which were waiting, would attack from the rear.
Image Credit: Shot by an unknown photographer, the photo shows a secret U.S. Army unit, the Ghost Army, in World War II that made hundreds of inflatable tanks and other devices of illusion to deceive enemy forces.
Text Excerpt: Ellsworth Kelly by Gwyneth Paltrow in Interview Magazine, Oct 13, 2011