I haven't written anything about Art journals, magazines or periodicals for this research assignment as I'm not the greatest multi-tasker. I know my idea was to read one a week and review it but I just haven't got round to it.
I have so far read Art Review and a weekly email I get called Art Info, but I really don't get it writing about Art is thus far a pretty closed book to me. I find reading about art does not really convey to me anything about the work even with pictures In fact since I started painting again I have started to actively disregard photos. It isn't really that surprising, I have never really been one for Magazines , my favourite form of mass media is radio, specifically Radio 4. I will endeavour though in fact in the couple of days of bus rides that I have been writing this during , I have bought 3 very different periodicals Which I will review eventually and probably post much later.
I did spend several weeks reading or at least leafing through a copy Art Review from the David Lynch article to the 25 Artists to look out for in the future. I can't really say very much about it because it was pretty unmemorable I never really did get into it, It seems really to be about glossy pictures and adverts revenue from galleries in New York and Germany. I mentioned the 25 artists because I found out that a friend of mine was an artist, I'd only ever seen him at parties and in the pub and to me the most notable thing was how he fancied my ex-girlfriend and how unpleasant it was for that he got mugged. Maybe my priorities are skewed for an Art student but the only thing that sticks out about what I read was what I found out about a friend and that David Lynch of the produces, as a hobby, art that gets publicity because he's famous for making films. I'm easily distracted I know, in fact I have a special report all about it, but I think anybody would have difficulty reading Art Review because of all the ads. I don't know how many times I got confused between ad and article but I think its a big part of why the magazine is sitting mournfully by my bed not and i keep pretending to myself that I'll read some more.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
NY galleries
I've rather neglected my new York research. It has become the plans for a trip to New York so it will actually cone to fruition after the end of term
I am collecting, gallery names and people to guide me through where to go. Currently I have my ex-girlfriend's mother Irene Reed who studied there in the 6Os and 70s (I think) and Lindsey my friend Sam's ex-girlfriend who is studying there now.
I am also going to consult the ace up my sleeve a London based artist from New York who recently featured in Art Review's 25 Artists to watch for the Future
I'm not exactly Sure he'll be able to help in a tangible way but he should be able to give me a feeling about how the Art Scene works and if I'm very lucky he'll be able to give me some contacts.
Who knows what will really happen its all just conjecture but I'm ever the optimist, as long as I put in the effort it should be a success. Now I should get back to I'm scouting the magazines for hopeful looking gallery names
I am collecting, gallery names and people to guide me through where to go. Currently I have my ex-girlfriend's mother Irene Reed who studied there in the 6Os and 70s (I think) and Lindsey my friend Sam's ex-girlfriend who is studying there now.
I am also going to consult the ace up my sleeve a London based artist from New York who recently featured in Art Review's 25 Artists to watch for the Future
I'm not exactly Sure he'll be able to help in a tangible way but he should be able to give me a feeling about how the Art Scene works and if I'm very lucky he'll be able to give me some contacts.
Who knows what will really happen its all just conjecture but I'm ever the optimist, as long as I put in the effort it should be a success. Now I should get back to I'm scouting the magazines for hopeful looking gallery names
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Actually Seeing The Gilbert and George Exhibition and The Work Itself
Going around the actual Tate Modern exhibition, I thought might help me understand all the fuss, maybe even convert me, or at least give me an understanding of their work.
It starts with some of their latest work based on the bombings in London 7/7 and 21/7 in their traditional panel style. I saw this and it didn't really touch me other than make me want to go in to see the full extent of their work or to put it honestly, anything else they could do, that I might like or at least, that wouldn't leave me cold.
It started well as it started with their early work. It was refreshing to see the artists before they became a caricature. Their early work such as their Sculpture by Post and their Singing Flanagan and Alan sculpture have a wonderful humour to them that still has a freshness, possibly because they are smiling and relaxed and not trying to be "Gilbert and George" but just making art and making a point . It seems that the rot started when they did their drawing pieces, and became overly concerned with people trying to figure out which of them had drawn which part. This seems to be when they became more concerned about the perception of Gilbert and George than of the work itself. I know that this is part of their Art and was particularly relevant at the time, but it is where their work begins to leave me. It is ironic as I really liked the examples of the drawings that were in the exhibition. This is the point when the first of their signature panel pieces came about. Oddly, in the exhibition, I actually quite liked it, it seemed like a very natural progression for the earlier photographic work to take the scale of the drawing and in the context of the exhibition, I enjoyed it until I realised that it was not going to stop, all I could hope for was a change in colours.
From here on things went down hill, although the content changed with the period the unchanging nature of the presentation meant that it became a bit of a blur. We lurched from room to room grasping for differences, from familiar pieces to recognisable figures (were we the only people who noticed a young Martin Clunes, I don't know?) It was very hard to appreciate individual pieces. I got more and more bored, additions of nudity, piss, shit and cum did little to alleviate it, maybe it would have been different if I hadn't been aware it would be coming. My heart did jump a little when I saw the pieces that were exhibited in the White Cube but only because I new the end was in sight.
It starts with some of their latest work based on the bombings in London 7/7 and 21/7 in their traditional panel style. I saw this and it didn't really touch me other than make me want to go in to see the full extent of their work or to put it honestly, anything else they could do, that I might like or at least, that wouldn't leave me cold.
It started well as it started with their early work. It was refreshing to see the artists before they became a caricature. Their early work such as their Sculpture by Post and their Singing Flanagan and Alan sculpture have a wonderful humour to them that still has a freshness, possibly because they are smiling and relaxed and not trying to be "Gilbert and George" but just making art and making a point . It seems that the rot started when they did their drawing pieces, and became overly concerned with people trying to figure out which of them had drawn which part. This seems to be when they became more concerned about the perception of Gilbert and George than of the work itself. I know that this is part of their Art and was particularly relevant at the time, but it is where their work begins to leave me. It is ironic as I really liked the examples of the drawings that were in the exhibition. This is the point when the first of their signature panel pieces came about. Oddly, in the exhibition, I actually quite liked it, it seemed like a very natural progression for the earlier photographic work to take the scale of the drawing and in the context of the exhibition, I enjoyed it until I realised that it was not going to stop, all I could hope for was a change in colours.
From here on things went down hill, although the content changed with the period the unchanging nature of the presentation meant that it became a bit of a blur. We lurched from room to room grasping for differences, from familiar pieces to recognisable figures (were we the only people who noticed a young Martin Clunes, I don't know?) It was very hard to appreciate individual pieces. I got more and more bored, additions of nudity, piss, shit and cum did little to alleviate it, maybe it would have been different if I hadn't been aware it would be coming. My heart did jump a little when I saw the pieces that were exhibited in the White Cube but only because I new the end was in sight.
Mind mapping Gilbert and George
Since Last I posted I have openned a big box of software I got because of the disabled student allowance , which I get because of dispraxia which I will no doubt explain at a later date. The reason I mention it is that I have been trying the mind map software which I have come to the conclusion is best for essays, unless I can get the blog to publish in a Mind Map TM format. Because of all of this I have got far to much to publish at once but I'm going to any way.
Gilbert and George; Historical and Contemporary artists
I always think an artist (or double act) should be judged by his or her work. So theoretically a retrospective of Gilbert and George's work should be the place to start, if my prejudice against them is going to be tested then this is where it should happen.
Secondary to the work itself but still important is an understanding or appreciation of the context , and the period the work was created in. This applies to a historical artists rather than contemporary artists, but with artists such as Gilbert and George where their work stretches back over almost forty years, back to their breakthrough, which according to the exhibition programme was in 1969, before I was born.
But, I have live through the period that most of the work was created in, and even though I was very young at the beginning of the eighties I remember the feeling of the time not just because of I LOVE80s revival TV but because if affected me, so the work although not contemporary to now, it is contemporary to me.
I have however come to the conclusion that G&G as I have come to think of them cannot really be called contemporary artists, in much the same way The Rolling Stones are not really a contemporary band. They may still be performing today and they may be admired but they are a remnant of a bygone era, they had a heyday in the late seventies and eighties (okay the stones was 60s and 70s) when they were world beaters the zeitgeist, not just riding but creating the wave that has shaped and influenced not just Artists but a whole generation Like the Stones they have been living on that reputation, while Mick, Keef, Ronnie & Charlie are perpetually on a farewell tour Gilbert & George have been rehashing their once ground breaking work to fit new issues, in a way that doesn't really convince, that its not just about self promotion they may have supposedly found the perfect way to express themselves but It feels to me that they seem to fear that if it doesn't look like a G&G no one will believe them
Gilbert and George; Historical and Contemporary artists
I always think an artist (or double act) should be judged by his or her work. So theoretically a retrospective of Gilbert and George's work should be the place to start, if my prejudice against them is going to be tested then this is where it should happen.
Secondary to the work itself but still important is an understanding or appreciation of the context , and the period the work was created in. This applies to a historical artists rather than contemporary artists, but with artists such as Gilbert and George where their work stretches back over almost forty years, back to their breakthrough, which according to the exhibition programme was in 1969, before I was born.
But, I have live through the period that most of the work was created in, and even though I was very young at the beginning of the eighties I remember the feeling of the time not just because of I LOVE80s revival TV but because if affected me, so the work although not contemporary to now, it is contemporary to me.
I have however come to the conclusion that G&G as I have come to think of them cannot really be called contemporary artists, in much the same way The Rolling Stones are not really a contemporary band. They may still be performing today and they may be admired but they are a remnant of a bygone era, they had a heyday in the late seventies and eighties (okay the stones was 60s and 70s) when they were world beaters the zeitgeist, not just riding but creating the wave that has shaped and influenced not just Artists but a whole generation Like the Stones they have been living on that reputation, while Mick, Keef, Ronnie & Charlie are perpetually on a farewell tour Gilbert & George have been rehashing their once ground breaking work to fit new issues, in a way that doesn't really convince, that its not just about self promotion they may have supposedly found the perfect way to express themselves but It feels to me that they seem to fear that if it doesn't look like a G&G no one will believe them
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
