A volte i riflessi della luce disegnano altri volti, espressioni inusuali che affiorano straniando l’immagine del visto svanendo alla prima variazione di luce ma ormai immortalate nel solco profondo dell’anima e non sai se è colore colato dal tuo tessuto o solo allucinazione disegnata e impressionatasi sui muti occhi di passaggio che incroci salendo gradinate di selce rubata alle montagne o sulle mani dei mendicanti che ignori ma che ti toccano per sempre fino al giorno della fine delle forme quando i tagli sulle tele saranno unica certezza da preservare come prova dell’atto, concetto spaziale, gesto voluto per disconnettere, scollare, tagliare la narrazione del mondo. Non accettare questa storia se nella folla brulicante nel viavai intermittente nell’abbaglio del luccichio della tangenziale sprofondata nell’orizzonte perduta tra ecchimosi nebbiose e fatue colline colorate per sbaglio dal bluff della purezza non si alza nemmeno un urlo. Se almeno la merda fosse un valore aggiunto. Ma è solo evacuazione, bisogno incontinente di appellarsi ai contenuti. Fosse invece forma d’artista da inscatolare e vendere come soprammobile da ammirare. Fosse colore debordante dal suo disegno, caduto dal suo maglione, qualcosa da poter collezionare a peso. Saluteresti quei volti chiedendo forse: di che colore sei, stamani?

In a New York Times op-ed piece, author Denis Dutton contrasts the relatively recent conceptual approach to art with ancient traditions of craftsmanship, which he admires.

Dutton’s thinking about conceptual-vs.-crafted artistry differs from David Galenson’s conceptual-vs.-experimental approach, but the two approaches have some similarities. Like Galenson, Dutton has an eye on the art market.

Galenson thinks that the success of conceptually innovative art is based on the structure of the modern art market, while Dutton expects conceptual art will lose its appeal. Dutton writes:

”The appreciation of contemporary conceptual art … on the other hand, depends not on immediately recognizable skill, but on how the work is situated in today’s intellectual zeitgeist. That’s why looking through the history of conceptual art after Duchamp reminds me of paging through old New Yorker cartoons.

Jokes about Cadillac tailfins and early fax machines were once amusing, and the same can be said of conceptual works like Piero Manzoni’s 1962 declaration that Earth was his art work, Joseph Kosuth’s 1965 “One and Three Chairs” (a chair, a photo of the chair and a definition of “chair”) or Mr. Hirst’s medicine cabinets.

Future generations, no longer engaged by our art “concepts” and unable to divine any special skill or emotional expression in the work, may lose interest in it as a medium for financial speculation and relegate it to the realm of historical curiosity.

Denis Dutton is a professor of the philosophy of art at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. He wrote “The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure and Human Evolution.”

This NEA thing that Breitbart broke last week has been rolling around in my head. There’s something seriously wrong with the story and it’s not just the propaganda end and payback scheme. There’s something deeper and deeply disturbing to me about this whole thing.

Piss Christ (Andreas Serrano).

I can’t bring myself to post that picture but you can google it. Serrano, is a photographic artist, at least, according to himself and some other wackos. In 1989, he caused a huge stir and drive to defund the NEA by his photo of a plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of his own urine. Believe it or not, this “piece” won him $15,000 in the  Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art contest.

By 2008, he’d moved on to feces with a show in New York. He told a newspaper that he was done with urine. I guess, he’d gone as far with that “medium” as he could go.

Interviewed by Dan Kois of New York Entertainment: “The show is also very basic — in a way, what I’m saying is that we all think we have the best shit. If you want to see some real shit, check out my shit!”, he says, beaming. “I got the best shit in town.”

I’m not making this up.

About 30 years before Serrano, and apparently his mentor, was Piero Manzoni. Manzoni was a conceptual artist. One of his brainstorms was called “The Artist’s Breath.” You guessed it – inflated balloons mounted on a wood block.

But he also did something extremely inventive: He canned his own feces in 90 cans, sealed them and sold each 30 gram can for the current price of gold (1960 price was around $1.12/gm.)  Of course, the contents of the cans has always been questioned but no one wants to open one, for obvious reasons. No, I don’t mean because it’s distasteful. I mean because the value of the can goes in the dumper (pardon the pun) if it’s opened. These 90 cans are in art collections, worldwide. In 2007, can #19 sold in America for $80,000.

See? I'm not making this up. (jerkmag.files.wordpress.com)

My questions are: What is art? What makes art, art? What is the purpose of art? Who determines what is or is not art? Why should art that I find distasteful or that I do  not consider art, be funded by my tax dollars? That question of course, is the fundamental argument for those in favor of dismantling the NEA, like me.

Art should be provocative and evocative. It should stir you. The first time I saw this painting, it stirred me:

Billy Boys/ Jack Vettriano

I can’t say why it stirred me, I can’t put my finger on it but, when I saw this in a gallery window, it “spoke” to me, as corny as that sounds. I had to have it and I eventually, designed an entire room around it.

But I digress.

Is Piss Christ a stirring thing? Is it provocative? What about canned artist feces? This kind of “work” is stirring, it is provocative. But does that qualify it as art? One could say that it is art to someone, some sick someone, but someone just the same. And this is where moral relativism and art meet.

Because someone else considers this art, does that mean we have to accept it? If we don’t accept it does that make us intolerant? Does it make us exclusive because we won’t accept it?

My answer is yes.

There are some things that are just wrong: simply and inherently, unacceptable and intolerable. And I think that is the basis of a lot of what’s wrong with our society: we have become tolerant of the unacceptable, of bad behavior, of the tasteless, of the ill-mannered and rude, for fear of being called intolerant or rigid or lacking an open mind …

… for fear of not being POLITICALLY CORRECT.

Arte italiana del ‘900.
Tre famosi maestri italiani raccontati dallo splendido Philippe Daverio, critico d’arte francese naturalizzato italiano nonché conduttore del programma Passepartout in onda su RaiTre.
Tre filmati tratti dallo stesso che ci raccontano il legame tra arte e materia.
Astrattismo e spazialismo materico. Fontana, Burri, Manzoni.

Lucio Fontana

Alberto Burri

Piero Manzoni

Piero Manzoni: Artist’s Shit | Művész szar, 1961
version & edition of Plágium2000
Copy Shop Show, Stuttgart, 2009

“Probably many think of doing this as a multiple, but I also would like to do it again and again in the most unorthodox way as possible.”

link

L’arte non è un fenomeno descrittivo ma un procedimento scientifico di fondazione.

Piero Manzoni

Piero Manzoni: Artist’s Shit | Művész szar, 1961

“Probably many think of doing this as a multiple, but I also would like to do it again and again in the most orthodox way as possible.” Recipepublished now by Peter Haury.

Piero Manzoni: Künstler Scheisse, edition of Peter Haury
Copy Shop Show, Stuttgart, 2009

“Partigiana” durante la guerra. Bucarelli aprì alle avanguardie. La sua Gnam le dedica una mostra

di Simona Maggiorelli

Quando nel 1942, giovane direttrice della Galleria d’arte moderna (Gnam) di Roma, Palma Bucarelli (1910-1998) si trovò davanti la dura realtà della guerra, temendo non solo i bombardamenti ma anche preconizzando il saccheggio «da parte della soldataglia» in ritirata, non esitò a mettere a valore tutto quello che aveva (Topolino compresa) per portare in salvo casse piene di opere d’arte prima nel Castello di Caprarola e poi in Castel Sant’Angelo. Donna coltissima e determinata, Bucarelli – a cui la sua Gnam dedica dal 25 giugno una grande mostra – aveva iniziato a lavorare nella Galleria romana poco dopo la laurea conseguita a 22 anni (con Adolfo Venturi), ma nonostante la poca esperienza intuì subito che la Convenzione di Bruxelles del 1874  e le rassicurazioni che le venivano dal ministero non sarebbero bastate a fermare la devastazione. Fu così che frequentando ambienti antifascisti e in stretto rapporto con Giulio Carlo Argan ed Emilio Lavagnino (entrambi destituiti dai loro incarichi dal governo fascista) Palma svolse un ruolo cardine per la messa in sicurezza del patrimonio d’arte nell’Italia centrale. Ma non solo. Diventata soprintendente subito dopo la liberazione, in una decina di anni fece della Gnam una fucina culturale  internazionale, organizzando mostre come quella di Picasso del ’53 e quella di Mondrian del ’56.

In anni in cui la sinistra si attardava in difesa del figurativo, Bucarelli aprì all’arte astratta e alla ricerca di artisti come Rothko, Gorky e Pollock. Ma anche alla giovane ricerca degli anni 50 e 60, con la prima grande mostra di Burri e con collettive di artisti italiani che riuscì a portare anche all’estero. Arrivando perfino a gettare le basi per creazioni site specific utilizzando il giardino della Gnam come una galleria a cielo aperto, come  documenta il catalogo Electa che accompagna la mostra. Ma tanto più cresceva il successo di Palma  tanto più feroci diventavano gli attacchi. E se fulminanti sono certi nomignoli che le furono affibbiati ( Palma e sangue freddo, Salma Bucarelli), la cifra della sua positiva fierezza si legge nei suoi scritti e in certe lettere ufficiali. Come quella che scrisse al ministro di Grazia e giustizia Zagari dopo che era stata aperta un’inchiesta sulla merda d’artista di Manzoni che lei aveva voluto alla Gnam: «Onorevole ministro – scrisse Bucarelli – può un magistrato stabilire ciò che è arte e ciò che non lo è, dato che dell’arte non esiste una definizione giuridica? E può determinare con tanta apodittica certezza, come fa, quali sono i compiti di un direttore di museo… E si può negare che le scatolette di Manzoni, anche se non sono opere d’arte nel senso tradizionale del termine siano almeno un documento di un atteggiamento dell’artista che indica la ripresa del dadaismo nel secondo dopoguerra?».

left avvenimenti, 19 giugno 2009

Un po’ un peccato che nella traduzione in italiano si perda il gioco di parole: der Mensch ist, was er iβt. Insomma Feuerbach diceva che l’uomo è quello che mangia. Lo stesso vale pure per i nostri simpatici animali domestici.

Per questo – scendendo dalla filosofia a temi più terra terra – desidero presentare oggi un prodotto eccezionale della premiata ditta Manzoni Piero e Figli. Intuendo quasi cinquant’anni fa le grandi potenzialità del software open source, e cosa sarebbe diventato, Piero Manzoni ha infatti sviluppato nel lontano 1961 un alimento che è divenuto oggi parte integrante della dieta dei nostri pinguini domestici. Parliamo ovviamente di MdA, conosciutissimo anche da tutti gli utenti linux, che si contendono con i pinguini questa prelibatezza gastronomica.

Dalla brochure del produttore:

MdA in lattina è sempre ricco di sapori e pieno di gusto. Un incontro sorprendente che conquisterà anche i palati più esigenti. Una gamma stuzzicante e pensata con una particolare attenzione al benessere del tuo fedele pinguino.

Da ingredienti accuratamente selezionati e grazie a preparazioni semplici e naturali per preservare il gusto autentico degli ingredienti, un prodotto unico; senza conservanti e additivi, le pratiche lattine MdA mantengono intatto l’aroma e attivi tutti quei principi naturali che danno vita ad una corretta alimentazione. In ogni momento della giornata, per una ghiotta pausa-merenda o per un gustoso fuoripasto.

Trasforma i pasti del tuo fedele pinguino in un momento di allegria da condividere. Provalo anche tu! e tu e il tuo pinguino vi gongolerete di gusto.

MdA, in pratiche confezioni monouso da 30gr, è disponibile in lattine singole e confezioni multiple da 4 pezzi.

Piero Manzoni (1933-1963) is an Italian artist best known for his ironic conceptual art that question the nature of the art object. Instead of using general artistic materials he has used his body as an artwork and the outcomes of the transfigured body has become worth-the-same-weight-of-gold relics.

In 1961, ninety cans of “Merda d’artista” (“Artist’s Shit, content 30 gr., freshly preserved, produced and tinned”) were exhibited in a gallery. Manzoni calculated the value of the ninety cans – all numbered, each with a net weight of thirty grams – in accordance with the daily exchange rates for gold. These “works of art” were sold out in no time and are predicted to be worth much more than their primary cost today.

Other than the “Merda d’Artista” (Artist’s Shit) project, “Fiato d’Artista” (Artist’s Breath; balloons filled by Manzoni’s Breath) project and the only planned -but not “produced”- “Sangue d’Artista” (Artist’s Blood) project underlined the role of artists body within the concept of art. Turned artist’s being into a “magic body” which turns everything within touch into a work of “art”.

In 1960, took place in Milan, an “exhibition of edible exhibits”: the consumption of dynamic art by the art-devouring public. According to this project Manzoni boiled some eggs, marked them with his fingerprint and offered them to the visitors to eat. If the artwork does not exist anymore and leaves no messages behind, the audience turns out to be much more than a spectator. In this case, having eaten the fingerprint-signed eggs, the visitors became a work of art as well; merging with the tracks of the artist and relics of his artistic body.

Lastly in April 1961, Manzoni began to sign people at a gallery of Rome, changing them into works of art. His “Sculture Viventi” (Living Sculptures) were completed by a declaration of authenticity. In this project; a red stamp declared the subject was a whole work of art for life, a yellow stamp limited the artistic status to a body part, a green stamp meant the individual signed was a work of art under certain circumstances only (such as sleeping etc.) and finally a purple stamp on the receipt meant that this service was paid for.

Another attempt of Manzoni’s to transform a human body into a “living sculpture” was the “Base Magica” (Magic Base) project. In this view, as long as one stand on the plinth he/she/it is a work of art. Finally “Socle du Monde” (an upside down magic base made of iron) concluded this problem of transforming human bodies into works of art; for now the earth was standing upon the upside-down magic base, everything upon it has transformed into a work of art.

Remember Marcel Duchamp’s infamous 1917, “Fountain”—the French artist took a man’s urinal, turned on its side, and miraculously it was sculpture. But the conservative art show to which Duchamp submitted his piss pot wasn’t impressed. The “Fountain” was never displayed and the original was lost. Today we only have Duchamp’s commissioned replicas to enjoy.

Don't you want to just take a whiff?

And then there’s Piero Manzoni—a 1960s conceptual artist, who canned his own waste. He also included every undesired detail: the net weight (30 grams) and the date it hit the tin. Today amateurs repeat his stunt at www.poopreport.com

Art as Shit

In 2006, a bronze sculpture commemorating TomKat’s baby Suri went on display at the Capla Kesting Fine Art Gallery in Brooklyn. Titled, “First Poop”, Daniel Edwards (the artist) explained the sculpture as “evidence of Suri’s existence for a public who has yet to see photos of the superstar couple’s 4-month-old infant.”

avant guarde?

Just about a week ago Wim Delvoye’s, “Cloaca Faeces No. 5”, sold in a Sotheby’s art auction for more than $ 20,000—and if the price doesn’t scare you this will: “No. 5” was a vacuum-packaged strand of waste made by the artist’s own shit-making machine.

I’ll stop the list here. You can connect the dots.

The art elite might explain this shit-show as a redefinition of art, breaking down stereotypes and its highbrow label… where art is beautiful, these men made it ugly…where art is sophisticated, these men made it crude…and where art is idyllic, these men made it animalistic. And so isn’t it interesting that it’s the very highbrow art institutions and wealthy clientele that SHOULD find insult in such crudity are actually the ones buying into it?

I call that sophisticated shit.

And because the Everson isn’t likely to turn its gallery space into a feces observatory (for anyone interested in such smuttiness), I’ve found this instead. A student group on campus, self-titled Ugly Art, is seeking your ugliest drawings, photos, paintings, sculptures, and “stuff you drew in your notebook during class”.

To get your trash into the hands of these treasure hunters, just email UglyArt.SU@gmail.com. You might get your offensive creation printed in their ‘zine. So far no submission deadline is set.

Coincidence the Ugly Art logo shows a giant pile of computer-generated poo in the corner? I’m thinking not. So take a whiff folks and get ugly!

Duchamp, Manzoni, Lewitt, Craig-Martin, Gilbert and George

Conceptual art, an art form which established itself in the 1960s but saw its roots back in the early twentieth century with the dada movement and Marcel Duchamp. But why did it take so long for the movement to come to complete fruition? Easy answer, the timing was not right. The artists who moved to the states from Europe in an attempt to flee World War One were interrupted by a new wave of artists who fled Europe from World War Two. With this came the rise of abstract expressionism and pop art. Both of these were very important in the creation of a movement that would change the art world forever. After world war two, America was in a state of feeling victorious and powerful over the world, of course it was the beginning of a new world power. With this confidence grew a thriving for more knowledge and a desire to enhance the nation that had done so well in the two previous wars. All cultural activities were to delight in more money being spent on their development, and the critic world which we know today was born. One critic, Clement Greenberg was so influential he split the art world, dividing it into its medium genres. Painting being dominant at the time was given much more attention than the less popular sculpture. Because of this, painting became incredibly self-reflective and self-referential. It formed into a formal action, mainly counting on its aesthetic value to get it any publicity.

           At the same time a group of artists was forming under the term fluxus. These artists were not interested in the traditional ways of expressing oneself but were into more unconventional methods such as dance, performance art, music amongst others. Although these had been seen before, never had they been considered art in a gallery format. With this came the questioning of the purpose of the gallery and a wish to break away and elude the art market. Conceptual art was born. The artists were not first interested in making paintings but decided on whatever materials and form was appropriate to the concept. This overcoming of medium and the task of putting the idea first is the origin of conceptual art. Although the art was growing in popularity around the early sixties, the term wasn’t coined until Sol Lewitt wrote “Paragraphs on conceptual art” were he explains the type of art he was generating. This was published in the June, 1967 edition of ArtForum Magazine, a significant international art magazine still around today.

           So let’s begin with Marcel Duchamp, who can be considered as one of the most important artists of the twentieth century. His controversial work and stunning concepts behind the work took the art scene by storm and turned it upside down, he raised questions about the aesthetics of art, the importance of the craftsmanship of the artist, the idea that the artist did not even need to make the work and maybe the most important of all he questioned what is art? What was its purpose in modern day society?

            Marcel Duchamp was born in 1887 into an incredibly creative family. His older brothers were to become famous artists themselves; the sculptor, Raymond Duchamp-Villon and painter, Jacques Villon. At an early age, Duchamp worked in a fauvist style, being inspired by painters such as Andre Derain and Matisse but eventually moved onto a more cubist approach. His depiction of cubism was very different to the other examples of work under the movement’s umbrella, it concentrated mostly on time, similar to a long exposure of a camera setting. In his selection of works, “Nude descending a staircase” is perhaps the most well-known, having a great composition, backed up by the strong, confident use of line and colour. This was seen as a step in the wrong direction for cubism and was rejected by the community. Duchamp was of course disheartened, but did not give up on art. In fact, this can be seen as the most important turning point in his work.   

           The artist began to produce ready-mades as artwork, found objects which formed the basis for the dada movement. The union of objects and the juxtaposition of them against one another is a reaction to the First World War, a form of protest art, and also something that rebelled against the boundaries of art. In some respects it can be seen as anti-art in its concept. This can be seen as an attempt to react against the society which did not agree with his earlier work and which had settled neatly into a predictable cubist world. In 1915 he moved to New York along with other artists who were both fleeing the war and this conventional groove. Possibly the most famous of his readymades was constructed during his time in New York.

           In 1917, an artwork which was certainly never appreciated at the time and caused controversy throughout the art scene, Fountain was entered into an exhibition showcasing the avant-garde of new work in the New York area. It was discarded and disallowed by the panel, pushing Duchamp and his companions out of the increasingly popular art world. This piece is, without a doubt, one of the most significant pieces of art not only in the twentieth century, but ever. It paved the road for the legacy of Duchamp, who soon became one of the most respected artists in New York. Duchamp and his close friend Man Ray wrote New York Dada, a compendium and manifesto to what the movement meant, which was hugely influential to artists at the time, and many artists flocked to the new epicentre of art. Amidst the prowess and thriving art scene in the states, Duchamp focussed on what he considers his most important work “The Bride Stripped Bare by her Bachelors, Even (The Large Glass)” which he worked on for eight years, and then his final twenty years were spent working on a 3-dimensional version of the piece. It is so incredibly important because of its connection to the artist. Just imagine how much effort the artist put into the work. Duchamp overlooked this point though as it was unimportant to the final piece, instead he centred on the concept behind the art. The bride is isolated from the nine bachelors in the bottom screen, this can be interpreted as two things, one they are working for her, attempting to please her, this would mean it’s a satirical work were the female has complete power over the male gender. The second is that it is a kind of experiment, the removal of women from the world could lead to disastrous consequences, as males would have nothing to work for. Either way, the piece is without doubt strong. I believe the artist’s choice to think of this as his most vital work to be because of his connection with it and the effect and control the work had on his life (it did take him 28 years).

           In all of his works, including the early works, he has asked the question what is art? He has questioned how art is viewed and how artists should approach making their artworks. Duchamp was the key player in the evolution of art towards its conceptual climax in the 1960s. He died in 1968 just outside Paris.

Continuing on from Duchamp’s idea, Piero Manzoni is an infamous artist who dealt with the growing celebrity trend by creating mass-produced items inspired by himself. He was born in Italy in 1933 and started working in white monochrome paintings during the early 1950s influence by Yves Klein’s work in the same way, but eventually moved on to what he is considered to be so important for. “Artist’s Shit” talks about the artists role in the art world, dealing with the artist itself. It portrayed the art to be a futile act which was nowhere near as imperative as the artist. The tin was simple with the label reading “Artist’s shit,” the simplicity being crucial to the audiences understanding of the concept, the brutal wording emphasising the vulgarity of the work. This piece was a follow up to the successful “Artist’s breath” a balloon blown up by the artist. It, of course, has the same concept as the offensive tin. Jars of Angelina Jolie’s and Brad Pitt’s breath were recently sold in 2005 for $15099 on ebay. Maybe Manzoni was warning us of this impending celebrity obsessed culture we live in today. It also may have been a precursor for the skyrocketing art market in the nineties with art collectors such as Saatchi buying piece just for the sake of owning a piece by an important artist. He became a member of Milan’s Galeria Azimut, a meeting place for avant-garde artists which provided the art scenes daily dose of provocative and controversial works. The mundane becoming very valuable is a theme seen in the work of the Dadaists and Duchamp.

           Although Manzoni was inspired by the past, he was fascinated with developing art and worked mostly in the sixties to form a base for the rest of conceptual art to bounce off of. Works such as his living sculptures piece, allowed the viewer to step on and become art. This was obviously a huge inspiration to Gilbert and George, who describe themselves as living sculptures. The artist was early on the art scene and unfortunately died before Sol Lewitt published his paragraphs on conceptual art, but yet he is still considered a conceptual artist. Why? Because of his clever use of humour in his works, his aspiration to break the boundaries between art genres, and of course his strong clear concepts. Mazoni died in 1963, and had created a ledge were other artists could continue his legacy.

           Sol Lewitt, one of these artists which used Manzoni’s work as a grounding, was born in Connecticut, 1928. He worked as a graphic artist for, a now internationally renowned architect, I.M.Pei. As a young boy he was inspired by De Stijl and Bauhaus, influenced by its straight lines and design purpose. His earlier works were mostly of cubes organized in a structural arrangement until he saw the potential for furthering his art and moving into the conceptual world. He made up serial systems which provided ideas for his work, it systematically worked through all the outcomes with the inputs provided. This is especially true for “49 Three-Part Variations on Three Different Kinds of Cubes,” where he experimented with three different kinds of cube (open, closed, and half open) and found how many variations he could create with this. He published his findings of this new kind of art in his paragraphs on conceptual art in ArtForum, 1967:

 “In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art.”

           This extract resembles very closely how Lewitt worked with his art, he was extremely isolated from it. This involved even getting other people to produce his work for him, while he wrote the plans. This was particularly evident in his wall drawings phase where Lewitt would compose a set of instructions and give them to a draughtsman who would then follow the plans to his best of knowledge and thus the artwork would be created. This ingenious form of working allowed Lewitt to produce vast amounts of clever systematic pieces, which like his work before used a logical pattern to attain its final state. This serial method may have been inspired by the repetition of tanks and soldiers from the Vietnam war and the mass produced objects in the consumerist market that existed at the time. Pop artists such as Andy Warhol had already looked into this, much like Manet had done during the late nineteenth century, and now Lewitt was, but in a much more conceptual way, obscuring it beyond the obvious. Lewitt worked from the late sixties into the modern day with large concrete structures resembling his earlier work. However he died recently in April 2007. He was extremely important in the expansion of conceptual art, not just for his findings but how he highlighted the work behind the art is just as important as the final piece. Knowing this, he placed his plans beside the work as to give them equal credit. He was also significant in continuing on Duchamps ready-made idea where the artist does not have to produce the actual work.

           Michael Craig Martin, another conceptual artist who regarded Duchamps ready-made idea as hugely crucial to the development of art, has been a hugely influential artist in the ways in which he approaches his concepts. He was also in later years a lecturer of Goldsmiths, where the Young British Artists originated from. He was born in 1941 in Ireland but moved to America at an early age and studied painting at Yale University. Whilst in America he would have been influenced by the American art scene, which was flourishing with all the migrant artists from Europe. This hub for art would be incredibly important in Craig-Martin’s interest in art. Upon completing his degree in 1966 he moved to England where he still works. In 1973 he taught as a senior lecturer at Goldsmiths college, London, where he had huge influence over students during the 1980s and 90s. His part was pivotal in the forming of the YBAs, publicising the Freeze exhibition and guiding the artists into their proper directions. His work, although conceptual in content, is very inspired by minimalism. His simple use of simple, household objects can be seen as a modern equivalent of Duchamp’s ready-mades. Possibly the most famous of these works is “Oak Tree” a glass of water on a shelf, with a plaque next to the piece dictating the artists argument that the glass of water on the shelf is in fact, an oak tree. His reasoning is that because he is the artist, he can change the glass into an oak tree. This brought up questions of how the artists intent was an extremely important issue of the time. Because of his use of domestic items, the art is relatable and reads easily and correctly, having conceptual lucidity.

           The artist did not constrict himself to these pieces and worked on installations, sculptures, paintings, wall drawings and many others. Craig-Martin remains a very famous and influential artist, working mostly in screen prints and large painted wall murals. These pieces can be seen as a kind of modern pop art. In one of these works entitled “History” the artist juxtaposes scale and objects to create a nonsense which although can be seen as unorganized comes across as graphical and neat in appearance.  This clinical sense may be implying something about our organized society or how history is portrayed in the present. Despite what it actually means, his work can be seen as very contemporary, even though it heavily references pop art and its mass production. It is extremely difficult to use a technique that has been used before and have it emerge looking new.

           Two artists which have applied this technique to Manzoni’s living sculptures are Gilbert and George, a united duo, who work together. They are made up of Gilbert Proesch who was born in Italy, 1943 and George Passmore in Devon, 1942. Although nothing has ever been openly discussed over their relationship, it is widely considered that they are a couple. They met at Saint Martins College of Art and Design in 1967 after it turned out George was the only one who could understand Gilbert’s poor English. Their studios consist of a room entirely dedicated to subject matter. In it are boxes and boxes of things, filed in order in A4 sized boxes. In another room is a computer studio devoted to the creation of sketches on the computer. This clinical setting is very similar to the way in which the artists function. All of their pieces are entitled as sculptures, even if they are 2-Dimensional (this maybe a reference to Duchamp’s attempt to break down the barriers of the genres). They work in mixed media with photographs mostly with a trademark format of a rectangle or square broken down into a grid. But their degree show piece for Saint Martin’s was not dissimilar to Manzoni’s living sculptures idea. Gilbert and George dressed up in suits and stood on a podium like base, depicting themselves as living sculptures. In the film “A portrait of the artists as young men, 1970” the artists are filmed doing nothing for seven minutes. The concept behind this work was the same as the living sculptures idea. This developed into their entire body of work, and everything they do is now an extension of the personas they have created for themselves. The two appear in suits whenever in public and very rarely are seen apart. These guises, are the vital part to their work as everything they do stems out from it, they are the central them of their work. Although moving into their later work, the artists included religion, sexuality, alcohol, class, nationality, death, identity and politics as themes in their work. In “The Naked Eye, 1994” the artists are depicted without their iconic suits, completely naked but still hiding behind their hands. This can be seen as a portrayal of the loss of character that the two feel when they are not in character.

           In 1984 the pair were nominated for the Turner Prize only to lose to fellow artist, Malcolm Morley. They did win in 1986 however. They have been very important artists throughout their careers broadening the horizons of what art is and how it is portrayed to the public. They drew the art away from the actual art and more towards the artist, a technique used by Piero Manzoni in his work. The artists believe firmly that their art breaks down the social barriers of society, and I believe this too. Because of their light heartedness and almost confessional work they really appeal to me.

           Although many people do not like conceptual art, it must be argued that it has been one of the most dramatic and important turns in art. The expansion of art makes it easier for an artist to work in whichever way he or she feels comfortable. It was crucial to what art has become nowadays, and I shudder to think what would have happened if the movement had not occurred.

Bibliography

Introduction

http://www.tate.org.uk/collections/glossary/definition.jsp?entryId=73

Marcel Duchamp

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ArtistWorks?cgroupid=999999961&artistid=1036&page=1&sole=y&collab=y&attr=y&sort=default&tabview=bio

http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/duchampmanraypicabia/rooms/default.shtm

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=4029

Nude descending staircase no2, 1912

The Bride Stripped Bare by her Bachelors, Even (The Large Glass), 1915-1923

Fountain, 1917, all pictures supplied by tate.com

Piero Mazoni

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999961&workid=26872&searchid=9599 

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999961&workid=27330&searchid=12749

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ArtistWorks?cgroupid=999999961&artistid=1571&page=1&sole=y&collab=y&attr=y&sort=default&tabview=bio

http://www.artpool.hu/ketseg/5-1-2/artist/MANZONI.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1390036.htm

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ArtistWorks?cgroupid=999999961&artistid=1418&page=1&sole=y&collab=y&attr=y&sort=default&tabview=bio

artist’s shit, 1961, supplied by artpool.hu

artists breath, 1960, supplied by tate.com

Sol Lewitt

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ArtistWorks?cgroupid=999999961&artistid=1504&page=1&sole=y&collab=y&attr=y&sort=default&tabview=bio

http://www.oberlin.edu/amam/exhibit_simpleforms.htm

http://radicalart.info/concept/LeWitt/paragraphs.html

Both wall drawings supplied by tate.com

49 Three-Part Variations on Three Different Kinds of Cubes (1967–71) – supplied by Allen Memorial Art Museum online

Michael Craig Martin

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ArtistWorks?cgroupid=999999961&artistid=955&page=1&sole=y&collab=y&attr=y&sort=default&tabview=bio

http://www.michaelcraig-martin.com/

http://www.artnet.com/artist/4547/michael-craig-martin.html

Oak Tree, 1973, supplied by tate.com

History, 2001, supplied by artnet.com

Gilbert & George

www.artlex.com/ArtLex/c/collaboration.html

http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/history/gilbertgeorge.htm

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ArtistWorks?cgroupid=999999961&artistid=1163&page=1&sole=y&collab=y&attr=y&sort=default&tabview=bio

http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/gilbertandgeorge/

Still from a portrait of the artists as young men, 7 minutes long, supplied by tate.com

Naked Eye, 1994, supplied by tate.com

Gordon Douglas 16^th February 2009

Been really busy…new column on the way!

Sticker posting?

Say What?!?

Luxury food for the homeless on 14th Street.

Stunning

SMOKIN YOU FOOLS

2009 © PostHood

Here is a piece that was auctioned off a few days ago by Sotheby’s in London. Belgian conceptual artist Wim Delvoye and his Fecel Matter Cloaca Machine. What truly is art? And is it what we can get away with? It’s a question that is asked so much that it can become boring even thinking about it. It’s a machine that mimics the human digestive system, from the mouth to the bottom hole.

Delvoye feeds Cloaca normal human food and fecel matter comes out the other end. The end product is wrapped in plastic and sold to adoring art collectors. There have been several versions of his cloaca machine, with the latest being a vertical system that works more like a person. According to the website dedicated to his fecel matter making machine, they have all sold out, with one hundred pieces being kept for “future capitalization”.

He isn’t the first artist to use feces to create art either, as the Italian artist Piero Manzoni became famous for canning his own waste and calling his works “Artist’s Shit”. The MoMA has one. I can’t imagine owning any of the works, but it does make one think about art and the people that buy it. There’s an auction estimate of between 2,000—3,000 GBP for the piece of fecel matter!

…a guy after our own heart.

Thanks to breakfastpolitics.com for the following.

Here is today’s story from Village Voice.

Irreverence is such a cheap commodity these days, available everywhere, that it can be difficult to imagine a time when an artist’s nose-thumbing act could be termed radical. That’s why Gagosian Gallery’s retrospective of the impish Piero Manzoni, an Italian provocateur who ushered in conceptualist hijinks almost 50 years ago, feels less a tribute to ground-shifting work than a nostalgic tour o…

Read the whole article

¿Si tuvieses 125000 euros te comprarías una de las 90 famosas Mierda de artista (perfectamente conservadas) de Piero Manzoni?

Si la respuesta es positiva, tal vez te llevases una sorpresa al abrir la lata guiado por una curiosidad enferma, pues un amigo del artista declaró que las latas contenían en realidad yeso. El arte conceptual es lo que tiene.

Debo decir que la obra de Manzoni en general era una patada en el cul* a todos aquellos entendidos del arte. Una irónica crítica que le convirtió en lo que criticaba.

Llegó incluso a firmar cuerpos desnudos de mujeres para luego exihibirlos  con certificado de autenticidad.

Me recuerda a Kurt Cobain: Un antisistema critico con la sociedad en general que acabó convirtiendose en un objeto comercial más.

We picked an interesting year in which to start writing about publishing and art, since as even a casual observer knows by now, the clouds are darkening above both industries. From the daily death march of publishing headlines on Gawker and GalleyCat—layoffs! breakups! breakdowns!—to the recent New York article asking “Who Will Bail Out the Publishers?”, signs of crisis are everywhere, prompting tough, even existential questions about the future of books. Meanwhile, this month’s issue of Prospect magazine warns that the bottom is about to fall out of the contemporary art market in what they call a repeat of the 17th-century Holland tulip craze. Needless to say, both of these crises have potentially severe implications for another of this site’s main subjects: New York City, which is already reeling from its recent financial meltdown (the wellspring of all this trouble, naturally) and which now finds its cherished primacy as an art and literary mecca under threat. And how is the Universe doing these days?

On the whole, not too bad, actually.

It’s time to take a step back—way back. (Abbeville occupies a small and specialized niche, so we don’t have the industry-wide perspective that GalleyCat and Gawker provide; and of course our relationship to the art industry is only tangential. As always on this site, we speak purely as book lovers, art lovers, and would-be opinionators.) The times are indeed grim, and our sympathy for those who are losing their jobs or struggling to sell their creative work—particularly during the holiday season—is heartfelt. Everybody is feeling the pinch and it’s no fun at all. At the same time, we resist hysterical prophecies of doom as instinctively as we do the kind of reckless optimism that inflates bubbles, causes industries to overexpand, and creates these messes in the first place. The cure for both syndromes, sententious as it may sound, is a renewed focus on things of permanent value.

In the case of the contemporary art market, the danger of a crash—which is very real—should have been obvious to anyone paying attention for the past several years. Reputations and prices were absurdly overinflated; financial shell games were played; quality was often disregarded altogether. It’s hard not to shrug and repeat the old saying about a fool and his money, but of course the problem isn’t just cunning auction houses or gullible collectors. Too many artists for too many years have been playing variations on Piero Manzoni’s Merda d’artista, or, if you like, on the pranks of the Dadaists (though these at least were original)—trafficking in grade-school ironies and an utter contempt for their audience…

Meanwhile, of course, there’s Art.

It can’t be mass-produced, it isn’t fashionable, it’s hard to make a killing on because it’s mostly owned by big institutions already, but it does have a way of reducing contemporary, big-business art and all its troubles to a small, far-off noise. And it’s there to study for anyone who would rather try to discover—or create—its equivalent, and profit from it years from now if at all, than make a quick buck on trashy substitutes.

As for our own industry, we would modestly propose that publishers attempt a similar investment in lasting quality instead of chasing down the newest ghostwritten celebrity tome or the latest popular “literary” craze. Some have claimed that it’s necessary to sell loads of chaff in order to be able to carry the wheat at all, but this is an old and fallacious argument (not least because half the time, the chaff doesn’t sell either). In books as on the Internet, “content is king,” and the world will never lack for terrific content languishing in obscurity. Recognizing it is difficult; supporting it is risky; but making a concerted effort to do both offers publishers the best chance for survival in the end. As GalleyCat put it recently:

“Even though independent publishers are themselves not immune to the economic pressures, many are prepared to press on and carve out a unique space for themselves because they don’t want to live in a world where the books they love aren’t available for others to read. They may press on cautiously, and slowly, and they may not gain huge ground most years, but they will persevere, as will their equally passionate counterparts at the larger houses, because they must.”

Bravissimo. Compare to this Oscar Wilde’s lament that ”in the old days books were written by authors and read by the public. Nowadays books are written by the public and read by nobody.” Over a century later, this comic exaggeration threatens to become literal as books compete for attention with innumerable other media outlets. Only a return to books and artworks that their creators and vendors love will ensure an audience that continues to love them, and buy them, as well.

http://www.marchesi.it/

A mi por lo particular, se me debe quedar la cara a cuadros (porque no me la veo) y no puedo evitar soltar el comentario popular y generalizado de “¿eso es arte?… si eso también lo hago yo”.

Pues lo consideran arte, contémporaneo para ser más exactos, y los Premios Turner son lo más controvertidos y prestigiosos del mundo, que premia con 40.000 libras al mejor artista menor de cincuenta años que desarrolle su actividad artística en Inglaterra.

Supuestamente se ofrece la posibilidad al artista de mostrar su visión particular de los objetos reales y de los conceptos, rompiendo con los cánones sociales...

El urinario de Marcel Duchamp, la ‘mierda de artista’ de Piero Manzoni, la escultura de Juan Pablo II derribado por un meteorito de Mauricio Cattelan, las ‘performances’ de los integrantes del Accionimo vienés o las obras de Jake y Dinos Chapman , son algunas de las obras que más resonaron de la muestra.

Dejo a total elección del lector, considerarlo como guste, verlo como obras que rebosan originalidad y fraccionan el clasismo y los patrones de arte, o gente con mucho dinero que no sabe en qué gastarlo.