Yes, but be delicious

originally posted by evan hansen:
I've seen in wine shops around here a clerk that will try to guide someone asking about natural wines into trying something new that is low SO2, largely biodynamic. And instead of even saying thanks but no thanks, they essentially claim the clerk has no idea what they're talking about and head for the Dressner wines they've had before.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't trust a clerk, either.

clerks.jpg
 
It's also re-opening (in a new location) after the closure. And it doesn't sound like the new restaurant will be any less precious.
 
Wow, I think y'all really over-complicated this piece. AP is just complaining about fashion trends and how both providers and consumers are bullied by them. It's got little to do with deliciousness.

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I see parallels to how many mourn the decline of beauty in modern and contemporary art. As if in art one could say "yes, but be beautiful."
Click to expand...

It seems to me that many modern pieces require explanation in order to be appreciated. And that works its Coadian magic sometimes.

But I'm still not impressed with the artiste who painted all-black canvasses for most of his adult life or the other magnifique who painted squares for 30 years. Are they just low-sulfur pet-nat painters?
 
Maybe it helps to understand these two artistes to think of them as process oriented, so that, in that sense, there may indeed some parallels with vin nature. It also helps to jettison technique requirements, and put concept above execution (though theirs is very fine, especially Reinhardt's). In that sense, too there may be a parallel with natural wine, but thinner.
 
The other names I was thinking of: Albers (squares), Klapheck (+explanation).

Art as the residue of an 'art process'. (Like sweepings off the shop floor while the artist was busy doing something else there?)

I suppose it is reasonable to say that all art is the residue of the artist's actions but I typically expect their attention to be focused on the making of the residue, not on doing something else.

To map that to my line of work, I can tell you all my folders and file sizes but not tell you what the computer program does. Is that how I present my work to my customer, or add it to my resume?
 
That's a good way to put it for art that (mostly from 1968 onwards) didn't want to be a commodity. All you have left is a record (photo or movie) of an ephemeral action, or a material residue that functions more like a souvenir. Ironically, the record or residue is then fetishized by collectors and institutions, becoming itself a kind of second derivative commodity.
 
I'm mostly with you on Reinhardt. His writing is more interesting than the painting and the writing was pretty clearly iconclastic--which is a strange thing for an artist to be.

I don't see that Albers is remotely similar unless you also think that Rothko's colored squares were pointlessly repetitious or Morris Louis's color swatches. Most abstraction was pretty concerned with painterly flatness to the expense of theorizing color (and Pollack might as well have been color blind) so insistence on color over shape, by repeating shape, has its point.
 
Yes, Albers and Reinhardt are very different, but perhaps alike in being somewhat process-oriented/systematic. In any case, they were the two I thought Jeff was alluding to.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I'm mostly with you on Reinhardt. His writing is more interesting than the painting and the writing was pretty clearly iconclastic--which is a strange thing for an artist to be.
Click to expand...

The photography trumps the writing, in my view.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
That's a good way to put it for art that (mostly from 1968 onwards) didn't want to be a commodity. All you have left is a record (photo or movie) of an ephemeral action, or a material residue that functions more like a souvenir. Ironically, the record or residue is then fetishized by collectors and institutions, becoming itself a kind of second derivative commodity.
Click to expand...

I recall seeing the Box at the Guggenheim, many years ago. It seems to me to be the ne plus ultra of the genre. I found it interesting for a while. But I eventually decided that it is merely a passive surface onto which I may -- or may not -- apply my ideas. It does not put forward any ideas of its own. Take it or leave it art. I think I expect art to do more than not interfere with my meditations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top