CErasure ethical? Or creative?

Darkroom317 · May 25, 2012

Ok, I jumped too quickly. I can see some value in his work. My main issue is that I have yet to find his artist statement explaining this work or am I missing something. If I found this I might appreciate it more.

Diapositivo · May 25, 2012

Puccini used three Chinese traditional melodies in his Turandot opera. What makes a difference, is that he wrote "Turandot" around them.
Since ever composers take some other composer's theme to work upon. Famous cases:
Prokoviev: Rhapsody over a theme by Paganini (also known as Variations over a theme by Paganini);
Beethoven: Variations on a valzer di Diabelli (also known as Diabelli Variations);
Richard Strauss: Metamorphosen (which are variations over a theme of the Eroica symphony by Beethoven);
Mozart: Variations on the theme Je vous salue maman;
and very many others.
That is a creative effort, and it is art.

When you are in the conservatory, you are given a theme and you are asked to write a fugue on it as an exercise. Nothing to do with taking somebody else's photograph and applying some patches here and there.
In photography school nobody is given the assignement to "patch" somebody else's photograph because it is an exercise which has no merit and no sense. No creation whatsoever.

I bet Mozart and the others would be VERY pissed off if their work were compared to the "work" quoted by the OP.

You recognize shit because it looks like shit and smells like shit. Don't overthink about it or you might end up confusing it with ice cream Just trust your common sense.

Fabrizio

markbarendt · May 25, 2012

Darkroom317 said:
My main issue is that I have yet to find his artist statement explaining this work or am I missing something.

Artist statements aren't required, they ae an option. They have value when the artist wants the world to think somthing specific. They are detrimental when the artist wants to leave that question open.

markbarendt · May 25, 2012

Diapositivo said:
In photography school nobody is given the assignement to "patch" somebody else's photograph because it is an exercise which has no merit and no sense. No creation whatsoever.

IMO, you are looking at the issue as a photographer, not an artist. You are viewing the photo as the end result.

But they aren't always the end. Photos are regularly used as raw materials in other artistic processes.

Training in patching and manipulation is the essence of training in Photoshop, InDesign, and other programs. Before those programs were available people did the same thing with different tools.

Art schools do teach this, a lot.

Rick A · May 25, 2012

Erasing part of an image is what we did when bored in seventh grade social studies. Removing faces from Time(or whatever rag we were assigned to read)got old quickly even back then.

blansky · May 25, 2012

Rick A said:
Erasing part of an image is what we did when bored in seventh grade social studies. Removing faces from Time(or whatever rag we were assigned to read)got old quickly even back then.

Obviously you were farther advanced. All we did was paint on mustaches.

blansky · May 25, 2012

Darkroom317 said:
Ok, I jumped too quickly. I can see some value in his work. My main issue is that I have yet to find his artist statement explaining this work or am I missing something. If I found this I might appreciate it more.

I keep looking for Rembrandt's artists statement and can't seem to find it.

Could help some of my confusion over what he was trying to achieve.

Darkroom317 · May 25, 2012

Different time, different aesthetics and different conventions on what is needed. In the world of conceptualism an artist statement is usually needed. I argue differently depending on the work but I do think it would be nice to see one for this.

blansky · May 25, 2012

Darkroom317 said:
Different time, different aesthetics and different conventions on what is needed. In the world of conceptualism an artist statement is usually needed. I argue differently depending on the work but I do think it would be nice to see one for this.

I always feel if you have to explain the joke, it's not a very good joke.

cliveh · May 25, 2012

blansky said:
I always feel if you have to explain the joke, it's not a very good joke.

Nice analogy.

Darkroom317 · May 25, 2012

Well done and agreed is most cases. However, for some reason I don't really get why he is doing what he is doing. What is trying to say? What is your interpretation of the work?

Darkroom317 · May 25, 2012

Ok, the video on the artists website helps a bit along with the titles

blansky · May 25, 2012

Darkroom317 said:
Well done and agreed is most cases. However, for some reason I don't really get why he is doing what he is doing. What is trying to say? What is your interpretation of the work?

To be honest I haven't really looked at it.

My take on art is you have to look at it and YOU have to interpret it for yourself. You have to say, " I think this is what he's trying to get across".

To have an artist spell it out is like giving away the end of the story at the beginning. You lose the fun of it. In fact if he truly has to explain it, maybe he just sucks at it.

OR even worse is some blowhard bullshitter at a gallery pontificating on "This is what the artist is saying. It's mans inhumanity to man as he's forcing that thing into her" when in fact it's just a run of the mill porn shot.

Good art it meant to stimulate the mind and the sense, as well as the emotions. An artists statement to me is very amateurish.

"See mommy this is you and this is daddy and this is the cat..."

Darkroom317 · May 25, 2012

blansky said:
OR even worse is some blowhard bullshitter at a gallery pontificating on "This is what the artist is saying. It's mans inhumanity to man as he's forcing that thing into her" when in fact it just a run of the mill porn shot.

Very true. I guess his work just seems meaningless to me

Actually, I've had an instructor completely misinterpret my work during critique. Rather annoying to be honest.

blansky · May 25, 2012

Darkroom317 said:
Very true. I guess his work just seems meaningless to me]

I haven't read anything about him and only looked at 3 of the pictures.

To me he has taken the soul out of those images.

That in itself is worth exploring.

blansky · May 25, 2012

Darkroom317 said:
Actually, I've had an instructor completely misinterpret my work during critique. Rather annoying to be honest.

BUT did he misinterpret your work or did your work say to HIM, xxxx. Your work stirred something in him.

OR did he correctly interpret what you subconsciously were trying to say but didn't consciously know you were.

OR is he full of shit.

To me, that is what art is supposed to do.

A picture of a dog is not just a picture of a dog.

It's a picture of what the viewer feels about dogs, his dog, his long lost dog, the dog he wants to buy, the dog that bit him, the dog that he has sexual interest in.....

blansky · May 25, 2012

Here's a "for instance" on interpretation:

What if I posted a nicely lit black and white picture of a set of beautiful female breasts with shiny nipple rings in them.

One person would say, that's hot.

Another would say that's disgusting.

Another would say I'd like to suck on those.

Another would say, I'd like to put a leash on those.

Another would say the piercer didn't get them quite straight.

Another would say those breasts are too small.

Another would say, I like barbells better than rings.

What if we took the rings out:

A lot would say, that's hot.

What if we replaced the rings with large safety pins.

One would say, that's hot.

Another would say that's disgusting.

Another would say, that's torture.

Another would say, those breasts are too small.

It's all virtually the same picture. The only difference is YOU the viewer.

Do I really need an artist statement?

Darkroom317 · May 25, 2012

She was a grad student so probably just bullshit.

The problem is that we are taught more about the artist making a point rather than the viewer being able to freely interpret or appreciate the work. This is something I have had to deal with in art school.

Oh, look I've nearly gotten trapped in the box of bullshit that I have been trying to avoid.

Thanks Blansky for helping get out of it.

blansky · May 25, 2012

Darkroom317 said:
She was a grad student so probably just bullshit.

The problem is that we are taught more about the artist making a point rather than the viewer being able to freely interpret or appreciate the work. This is something I have had to deal with in art school.

Oh, look I've nearly gotten trapped in the box of bullshit that I have been trying to avoid.

Thanks Blansky for helping get out of it.

Well I think the artist is always (usually) trying to make a point and it may be good to try to interpret his point but maybe more importantly is art also not about what the work makes you feel.

Because just intellectually being able to interpret something is kind of an interesting puzzle but it may not be as fulfilling as the self examination of letting the work move you. And why.

One is active and intellectual.

The other is passive and emotional. Invite it in and let it arouse you.

el wacho · May 25, 2012

this "concept" has already been done, firstly when rauschenberg erased a de kooning then by the chapman bros altered the goya prints.

E. von Hoegh · May 25, 2012

If an artist has to make a statement his/her work sucks. Make a "sculpture" out of elephant turds and old gears, then tell people what it represents............. bullshit.

MattKing · May 26, 2012

I think the idea is fairly interesting, and most importantly isn't dishonest.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like the origin of the original photographs isn't hidden in any way.

It is a bit like a musician playing an unusually edited portion of another musician's composition - the performance itself is also a statement on its own.

Diapositivo · May 27, 2012

MattKing said:
It is a bit like a musician playing an unusually edited portion of another musician's composition - the performance itself is also a statement on its own.

A musician playing something is performing, and brings its own artistic contribution, a "reading" or reinterpretation of the music, performed by him.

A good musical analogy for the "work" at stake would be somebody playing a record, recorded by somebody else, through an electronic player I mean, inserting blanks here and there. Inserting blanks and cutting away bits and pieces of somebody else's performance is not a creative effort.

Another analogy with sculpture would be taking a ready-made copy of a statue (let's say the David by Michelangelo, you easily find plenty of copies), break it and "exhibit" under your name a piece of arm, a foot, half the head, etc. You may even arrange them "creatively", let's say by putting the foot above the head, but that's already much more "creative" (so to speak) than what the work at stake is.

Or you can take the same statue and put a Burkha on it. Such a statement! Or you can dress it like a pirate, or like Thomas Jefferson. Or like the Virgin Mary (that would help with promoting the work exploiting the "scandal"). It would be carnivalesque in any case, and good for Carnival. Otherwise, just pathetic. You can call it "art" because anything can be called "art".

You can exhibit an excrement in the Venice Biennale and call it art. Probably somebody did it already, in fact. That would be very Dada. Just call it "morning thought".

It's not honest, or dishonest. It's beyond that. It's just plain crap.

removed account4 · May 28, 2012

i don't think an artist statement automatically makes something suck,
sometimes it opens the door to a different interpretation.

CErasure ethical? Or creative?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency