Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Art that people rave about that's actually shit.

I would *love* to do something like that. Oh no, the negatives gone :( I bet that was a blow.

They got damp, so a lot of the emulsion came away from the backing - unsalvageable. :( I lost loads of clothes too, but losing most of the pics and negatives I took between the ages of 15 and 25 was a worse blow.
 
I was thinking street as in Banksy type art but I didn't know about the lack of casting facilities ... is that linked to decline of steel works in general?

Edit: oh, you're meaning bronze?

Yep, bronze. Small stuff (maquettes, ornaments) is still done by several UK foundries, but big multi-piece pieces are pretty much a monopoly of one company (out in Essex, IIRC), and their waiting list is supposedly years-long now.
 
Yep, bronze. Small stuff (maquettes, ornaments) is still done by several UK foundries, but big multi-piece pieces are pretty much a monopoly of one company (out in Essex, IIRC), and their waiting list is supposedly years-long now.
There's also the bronze foundry in Limehouse Basin quite near me, have you seen that one?
 
To appreciate any art you have to have a frame of reference, you like Van Gogh because he painted scenes from Europe where you're from and which you can relate to.
Often galleries will put those explanations there to get around the "it's just a few bits of paint" brigade, it's best to look at the painting, then the blurb.

I like Van Gogh because his paintings have passion.
 
To appreciate any art you have to have a frame of reference, you like Van Gogh because he painted scenes from Europe where you're from and which you can relate to.
Often galleries will put those explanations there to get around the "it's just a few bits of paint" brigade, it's best to look at the painting, then the blurb.
What you quoted is simply the sales blurb from Christies.

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/paintings/ellsworth-kelly-green-white-5147465-details.aspx

The piece needs no explanation, in order to be appreciated. It is an exercise in form, composition, and colour. Other people up-thread have already expressed a liking for this painting, without any need for explanation.

It's the blurb that led to the painting selling for over a million dollars.
Without the explanation and commentary the painting is just what you see. There is no message or emotional quality. There is nothing but a green form. That may be enough for people....dunno.
 
It's the blurb that led to the painting selling for over a million dollars.
Without the explanation and commentary the painting is just what you see. There is no message or emotional quality. There is nothing but a green form. That may be enough for people....dunno.
No, it's the history and impact of the artist that made it valuable, same as van gogh.
 
I call this one 'Ger Orf Moi Land' :D


15155985797_ed60817dc7_o.jpg
 
No, it's the history and impact of the artist that made it valuable, same as van gogh.

His stated aim was to produce art that was figurative and non compositional...he achieved this.

Here's another. .

EK%2054(1).jpg


And here's what has been written recently about it...

"Kelly's Painting for a White Wall (1952) © Ellsworth Kelly

This severing of the physical link between referent and indexical sign—which amounts to the splitting of the indexical sign from its usual function of communication—is what happens almost by itself in the particular mode of transfer that is cropping, as in Maillot Jaune andTricot. Kelly’s use of cropping has nothing to do with this paean to the subjective and transitory nature of experience—especially since, as one must always remember, what he crops is always flat (if it involves the visual field, and not, as is most often the case, a particular surface in it, it is the visual field as perceived with only one eye). More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that the cropping is itself an involuntary accident, almost like a hiccup or a Freudian slip of the tongue—the sudden “apparition” of a shape as it strikes a chord for being unrecognizable, for being recognized as something the artist consciously knows it is not. Either this shape echoes something already caught in the web of the matrix, or it appeals to Kelly for its potentiality as a score for a new piece, but a score whose material performance in the real world, an “already-made” unperceived by anyone but him, is only the material proof that it can, indeed, exist on its own. The process by which the “already-made” shape is suddenly available to Kelly—while it escapes most of us—is one of defamiliarization, of what the Russian formalists called
ostranenie...

By Yve Alain Bois writing for IAS (Institute for Advanced Study) fall edition 2013.


The thing is that Kelly was very up front about his art and it was John Coplans who decided to neglect the figurative inspiration and sources of Kellys art to the extent that in his first writings on Kellys work, he deliberately did not mention them. Preferring to let the abstract nature have foremost mention. It was a few yeats later that Coplans edited his writing and included the figurative origin and inspiration for Kellys art works.
Kelly was clear that his work was figurative yet the world of militant abstractionism was not keen to hear that and for a while neglected to mention it...
 
His stated aim was to produce art that was figurative and non compositional...he achieved this.

Here's another. .

EK%2054(1).jpg


And here's what has been written recently about it...

"Kelly's Painting for a White Wall (1952) © Ellsworth Kelly

This severing of the physical link between referent and indexical sign—which amounts to the splitting of the indexical sign from its usual function of communication—is what happens almost by itself in the particular mode of transfer that is cropping, as in Maillot Jaune andTricot. Kelly’s use of cropping has nothing to do with this paean to the subjective and transitory nature of experience—especially since, as one must always remember, what he crops is always flat (if it involves the visual field, and not, as is most often the case, a particular surface in it, it is the visual field as perceived with only one eye). More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that the cropping is itself an involuntary accident, almost like a hiccup or a Freudian slip of the tongue—the sudden “apparition” of a shape as it strikes a chord for being unrecognizable, for being recognized as something the artist consciously knows it is not. Either this shape echoes something already caught in the web of the matrix, or it appeals to Kelly for its potentiality as a score for a new piece, but a score whose material performance in the real world, an “already-made” unperceived by anyone but him, is only the material proof that it can, indeed, exist on its own. The process by which the “already-made” shape is suddenly available to Kelly—while it escapes most of us—is one of defamiliarization, of what the Russian formalists called
ostranenie...

By Yve Alain Bois writing for IAS (Institute for Advanced Study) fall edition 2013.


The thing is that Kelly was very up front about his art and it was John Coplans who decided to neglect the figurative inspiration and sources of Kellys art to the extent that in his first writings on Kellys work, he deliberately did not mention them. Preferring to let the abstract nature have foremost mention. It was a few yeats later that Coplans edited his writing and included the figurative origin and inspiration for Kellys art works.
Kelly was clear that his work was figurative yet the world of militant abstractionism was not keen to hear that and for a while neglected to mention it...

Monsieur Bois' description is everything I hate about art criticism and explanations of art. It makes use of language that is made unnecessarily complicated; borrows from semiotics (a linguistic discipline that has nothing directly to do with art) and attempts to "professionalise" or otherwise specialise the appreciation of art by imposing a definition.
 
Back
Top Bottom