what's up with cedric bouchard?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Unknown
  • Start date Start date
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
It is news to me aboutDuchamp very fundamentally and profoundly brought the question of artistic authorship into question, with the readymades and also with persona shifts. If you take a bottle drying rack and present it in a new context (essentially a non-functional context) as your artwork, what are you doing in terms of authorship, exactly? Duchamp didn't himself make the actual bottle drying rack. When he assumes the persona of a woman and signs the piece with that woman's fantasy name, what does that say about artistic authorship? I said that Duchamp punctuated the situation with a question mark because these are still very much questions today. I meant punctuated, although I was implying puncture in my use of the word (reinforcing the sense that I was bringing to the discussion), as well as implying signature through the use of "mark". It was a layered sentence.

Koons lines up nicely with Rodin because of the emphasis on sculpture.
Click to expand...

Levi, the readymade is not artwork signed by a different (younger, less esteemed) artist, but rather the subversion of mass production. Not at all the same idiom. A nom de plume (or de pinceau) isn't the same as a real flesh apprentice one co-opts. Yes, Rrose Slavy, but that was all one and one.

Koons makes cartoon crap, IMO. But that's IMO.
 
feel better now, Sharon? i do.

but, for the record, Koons is precisely the kind of guy who would sign his name on an idea one of his assistants came up with...

well, i say that, but i know it's not exactly true. there was that postcard/sculpture lawsuit tho.
 
Levi, I get the Duchamp reference now.......I've always enjoyed his readymades (tho I still don't get his "Bride stripped bare" thing). His R. Mutt urinal was brilliant. I like the snow shovel too...but don't you think he didn't see Picasso's bicycle seat bull and get the idea?

As for that lowly, solo guy hanging out in Arles, you've read "Letters to Theo" I assume.....talk about the question of originality, here's a twist: V often repainted what he deemed were successful paintings of his own because he felt it was necessary to have and hold the original, while selling the copy (or attempting to sell, I should say). Not sure there are 2 or more copies of Starry Night or Dr. Gachet, but there are copies of other lesser works, done by his own hand.

The Chihuly example is really apropos here I think....after the car accident, he couldn't make the work himself, so he created a team. That really pisses off some people, but if you see him in action with his team, it all makes sense.
 
originally posted by Joel Stewart:

Not sure there are 2 or more copies of Starry Night or Dr. Gachet, but there are copies of other lesser works, done by his own hand.
Click to expand...

There is another twist in that Dr. Gachet did many copies of the Van Gogh paintings himself, of his own accord, and that those were later confused with actual Van Gogh pieces in the collection of Dr. Gachet.
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:

Levi, the readymade is not artwork signed by a different (younger, less esteemed) artist, but rather the subversion of mass production. Not at all the same idiom. A nom de plume (or de pinceau) isn't the same as a real flesh apprentice one co-opts. Yes, Rrose Slavy, but that was all one and one.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that he did what Rodin did. I said he brought the whole idea of artistic authorship into questiion.
 
But forcibly, and differently. Not in our post facto wonderment at calmly accepted practices, in the case of past masters. Those artists did not question authorship; quite the reverse: they revered it.
 
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
originally posted by Joel Stewart:

Not sure there are 2 or more copies of Starry Night or Dr. Gachet, but there are copies of other lesser works, done by his own hand.
Click to expand...

There is another twist in that Dr. Gachet did many copies of the Van Gogh paintings himself, of his own accord, and that those were later confused with actual Van Gogh pieces in the collection of Dr. Gachet.
Click to expand...

that is interesting indeed

are we talking about sotheby's type confusion?
 
originally posted by Joel Stewart:
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
originally posted by Joel Stewart:

Not sure there are 2 or more copies of Starry Night or Dr. Gachet, but there are copies of other lesser works, done by his own hand.
Click to expand...

There is another twist in that Dr. Gachet did many copies of the Van Gogh paintings himself, of his own accord, and that those were later confused with actual Van Gogh pieces in the collection of Dr. Gachet.
Click to expand...

that is interesting indeed

are we talking about sotheby's type confusion?
Click to expand...

Both museums and auction houses have been confused over the issue in the past, and possibly in the future.

There was a long article about it in the New York Review of Books several years ago.

Basically, Dr. Gachet did some amateur painting work for his own amusement, taking the canvases in his collection as the subject, and after his death there was confusion about which was which.
 
when there's a question of authenticity, i often wonder if the curatorial experts ever picked up a paint brush themselves. some things to me, as a painter, seem so obvious. now i'm really curious to check out these gachet paintings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top