From the NYTimes…

There is a small gem of a show at Danziger Projects right now, featuring a little-known trove of Polaroids by Andy Warhol of famous athletes. They were commissioned by one collector in the late 1970s and early ’80s. The simplicity of Warhol’s method — straightforward portraits shot with the Big Shot camera — gives the tiny images (4 1/4″ x 3 3/8″) a purity and sincerity that belies the radiance and aura of greatness coming from the sitters. Even today, there is something tingle-inducing about seeing Muhammad Ali, Dorothy Hamill, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Chris Evert, Pelé, Tom Seaver and Wayne Gretzky captured at the height of their youthfulness and fame. These portraits, made by the ultimate connoisseur of fame himself, have aged beautifully. The show is up through Dec. 12 at 534 West 24th Street.

I collected the rest of the photos that I liked after the break, so click to

meine recherche fähigkeiten waren heute gefragt als eine liebe freundin nach einem bildbearbeitungsprogramm gesucht hat, welches fotos a la andy warhol kreiert … hier nun letztlich zwei tolle links, mit denen man easypeasy tolle ergebnisse erzielen kann:

big huge labs: http://bighugelabs.com/popart.php (siehe unteres beispielbild)

shadowfire warholizer: http://www.shadowfire.de/warholizer

Photo Credit: The Fashion Wonder Woman

“I wish I could turn the whole world on, just for a moment.”

Photo Credit: MiMi Frou Frou

I’m bored with that line. I never use it anymore. My new line is “In 15 minutes everybody will be famous.”

las imágenes moldean los deseos, las fantasías, la identificación, el dinero y el poder.

andy warhol.

For several semesters I was given the opportunity to teach the Arts in Learning course at the Tyler school of Art. This course is a required course for the College of Education students at Temple University. With the cut-back of Arts funding for visual art or music classes in the schools, this class looks to support ways in which classroom teachers may integrate arts into the daily curriculum. This class also is geared toward helping build or re-build positive connections to art making in general. Many of us have been the unfortunate patrons of two opposite and equally detrimental ideas: a. that Art making can only be done by the talented and: b. that “Art” is anything you make. Both of these ideas do damage to our perceptions of who can make Art and how that Art is made.

How many times have you heard a teacher or anyone say, “ Oh, I can’t make Art..I am not talented.” This statement frustrates me because of course some people are born with greater aptitude for certain activities, but that does not mean they are completely incapable or should not venture to try. If I am not that great at throwing a basketball do I not play the game? Can I practice and get better? Of course I can. The same can be done for Art making. Most artists don’t just wake up and suddenly know how to draw a picture in 3 point perspective. What people discredit when they say, oh he/she has “ talent” is the fact that it actually took time, energy and work to become “talented.” Although he/she may have self-selected drawing because for some reason he/she finds it pleasurable, he/she more than likely draws all the time i.e. practices, learns, perseveres.

Quite frequently I would have a student who would complain about the price of Art work. My stock answer would always be…when you see a doctor for a visit..how much do you pay for 5-15 minutes of their time? What are you paying for? Their expertise. It is the same with Artists. We do not say that a doctor’s skills are “innate.” Why should we wrongly handicap Artists with that brand? Artists work lifetimes to achieve the skills and understanding that they bring to their work. In fact sometimes artists work lifetimes and find that their one best piece of work was a painting, print or something done in an hour. Don’t great gymnasts find the pinnacle of their careers in single performances? There are moments when all things come together, all the work, the frustration, the perseverance the practice and then there is Art; the nexus where truth and beauty come together. Beauty, not in the sense of something pretty, but as in something awesome.

I don’t believe that “Art is anything you make.” When a child makes a drawing, any drawing, a line on a page a quick sketch of a dog, I would not be so quick to label it as Art. As an educator, when we make this blanket statement we are discrediting any work or standards or level of thoughtful editing that is a necessary process in the pursuit of making great “Art.” Can a child make a great work of Art? Yes! But, and of course there is a but in an educational setting the journey and process toward making that “work” qualifies it’s value as Art.

These ill founded perceptions about Who makes Art and How it is made greatly effect the general perceptions of what “Academic” skills are necessary in schools. If only the “talented” can really make art and or it is just a matter of giving a child some paint or some crayons well then naturally anyone can teach it. Art then becomes valued merely as an accessory to actual learning. In a September, 2007 article, Art for our sakes,¹ published by the Boston Globe Two researchers for Project Zero at the Harvard School of Education, Lois Hetland and Ellen Winner write about a study they conducted in the Boston Public schools In their article they suggest a reframing of how we understand the value of Arts education in schools. What they found is that there are certain important skills taught in Arts classes that are not necessarily taught in the academic subject areas. They identified 8 distinct habits of mind that are taught specifically in Arts learning classes; visual and performance based. These habits of mind may be understood as tools for learning and thinking. They are as follows: persistence, expression, making connections between the school and world, observing, envisioning, innovating through exploration, reflection and self-evaluation.

What the researchers focus on as distinct to re-valuing our understanding of Arts learning were the last four modes of thinking: observing, envisioning, innovating through exploration and reflection and self-evaluation. These habits of mind they pose represent skills that are essential to becoming successful as scientists, inventors, doctors and any other profession that requires one to critically analyze something and come up with diagnosis, prognosis, and solutions whether they be aesthetic, cultural or scientific.

Clearly we who are Art educators know that these habits of mind are taught and addressed in the best Art classes, but what we need to remind educators, administrators and parents who choose schools is that Art isn’t just about making pretty pictures that anyone can do. Simply because you don’t think your child is talented or motivated to make art doesn’t mean he or she does not have important value added to their repertoire of skills as a thinker when they engage in Arts learning. Art is something everyone can and should learn to create, understand and value. The value of art making and education is not that of a handbag on the well constructed suit of knowledge, but rather an essential thread of learning. Arts learning creates the opportunity for students to engage in “vital modes of thinking: seeing, and envisioning.”² These modes are useful and I would pose, necessary to all their pursuits as learners and thoughtful adults.

As a parent it is not because I am an artist that I want my sons to have access to great Art programs. It is because as an educator I have practiced, witnessed and been part of the transformational learning that happens for all children when they engage in creating and thoughtfully expressing themselves through Arts media. When my students design a picture that tells a story about their family, sew a pillow stitch by stitch eagerly anticipating its 3dimensional form, sculpt a ball of clay into a magical creature imagining how it will change once fired, I know and they know how much thought, how much energy, how much love went into their work of Art. Whatever my sons become, study, or develop a passion for, it is that type of engagement or approach to learning and thinking that I believe in and will always fight for.

Now if the person who just received 43.7 million dollars for the purchase of their Warhol painting of “200 one dollar bills” ³could donate just one percent of their profits to Public school Art programs in Philadelphia then perhaps our most wealthy one percent might have some competition in the future. Or better yet if someone would donate 43.7 million dollars to The Public Schools of Philadelphia’s Art Education programs then perhaps Administrators and parents would have the opportunity to witness and realize the true value of Arts learning in schools and education.

1http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/09/02/art_for_our_sake/

2.E. Winner, L. Hetland, Art for our sake, Boston Globe, Sept 2, 2007.

3.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/arts/design/12auction.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=warhol&st=cse

200 One Dollar Bills: Andy Warhol’s Fabulous Joke

Unfortunately, Andy Warhol’s not around to enjoy the fabulous joke of his pictures of money grabbing so much money.  His 1962 silk-screen painting 200 One Dollar Bills sold for $43.8 million at Sotheby’s this week, more than four times its estimated selling price. The seven-and-a-half-foot-wide canvas, one of Warhol’s first silk-screen paintings, looks like just what you’d think: 200 one-dollar bills.  The current record for a Warhol painting is $71.7 million for Green Car Crash, which was sold at Christie’s in 2007.  Yes, if you just take a wide look at today’s contemporary art world, that confection of bucks, puff and street smarts, you realize anew that Andy Warhol was the big daddy of it all.

But is this painting, a solid wall of greenbacks, really beautiful?  Well, in the art world Warhol completely changed our idea of beauty so, yes, it is.  He was also one of the first modern artists to say out loud that money itself is beautiful, is art, which has helped create the reality that, aesthetically speaking, it is as often as not, the price tag, not what it’s attached to, that generates value.  So the new owner of 200 One Dollar Bills got a funny old print on canvas all tarted up with some paint, which he or she succeeded in making super-famous and valuable by paying so much for it.  Wow.  That’s talent.  And as for Warhol, did he already suspect in 1962 that in making his art he would be so good at printing money for many, many years?  He was such a cultural clairvoyant, you just know he knew.

done

Andy Warhol’s 200 One Dollar Bills

Please Save This:

After hearing about the Warhol that sold for over $40 million on the radio, I headed over to ArtForum to get more of the auction drama. The Sotheby’s folks must be thrilled after their banner night.

The U.S. art market appears to be on the mend. The major fall art auctions may not have sold everything on offer, but collectors showed a renewed willingness to bid up top examples of artists’ work. Dealers also said inflation fears and expectations of higher bonuses in the financial markets stoked strong bidding.

New York’s two chief auction houses, Sotheby’s and Christie’s International, brought in about $596 million combined from their semi annual sales of Impressionist, modern and contemporary art in the past two weeks. The total surpassed the houses’ $409 million spring sales in May, a gain that could signal a measure of returning confidence in high-end art values.

Despite the uptick, the market isn’t likely to recapture its boom-era exuberance anytime soon. The volume of art changing hands at these sales is still much smaller than it was last November, when the two houses brought in a combined $729 million, or two years ago at the market’s peak, when their fall sales totaled $1.6 billion.

Wise words from Warhol.

New York, 12 nov. (Adnkronos/Dpa)- Un quadro di Andy Wharol, l’artista simbolo della pop art, e’ stato venduto all’asta per la cifra astronomica di 43, 8 milioni di dollari. Lo ha reso noto la casa d’aste Sotheby’s, riferisce il New York Times. L’opera, una delle prime su seta dell’artista, raffigura 200 banconote da un dollaro. La vendita partiva da sei milioni di dollari, ma gia’ la prima offerta raddoppiava il prezzo e vi e’ stata un’agguerrita concorrenza fra cinque persone. L’acquirente, di cui non e’ stato reso noto il nome, ha piazzato le offerte per telefono.

Photo Source: www.molly.com

“An artist is somebody who produces things that people don’t need to have.”

Photo Credit:blog.neonancent.net

 “They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself.”

Photographed by punk27fay

our favorite

– License

Acest referat este o cercetare asupra artei și culturii postmoderne. Sunt puse in discuție atât teorii cu privire la postmodernism( dacă acesta este o mișcare nouă sau o continuare a modernismului, ce este și ce nu este postmodernismul etc) cât și idei cu privire la arta postmodernă(mijloace de exprimare ale artei, arta digitală, televiziunea etc).

O scurtă privire asupra postmodernismului

Această cercetare a pornit din dorința personală de familiarizare cu arta și cultura postmodernă in mijlocul căreia trăim. Cercetarea a pornit de la întrebarea -”Ce este postmodernismul de fapt?”-și a continuat cu studiul câtorva cărti(indicate in bibliografie) și al câtorva site-uri(indicate in siteografie),și s-a concretizat cu acest referat.

După moartea modernismului, aproximativ in anii ‘70 , arta trebuia să urmeze o nouă directie.Totuși nu a existat o intoarcere spre vechile stiluri (clasicism, romantism, sau realism) ci era nevoie de noi forme și conținuturi. Totuși postmodernismul nu merge departe de modernism ci e mai degraba un fel de continuare logică a acestuia.

“Pe la sfarșitul secolului al XIX-lea, lumea artistică a ajuns și a trecut granița intelectuală și culturală a contextului sfârșitului anilor 1960 și 1970. A absorbit universul absurd al existentialismului care pe atunci era la modă, eșecul reducției pozitivismului, și căderea socialismului Noii Stângi. S-a conectat la greii intelectuali ca Thomas Kuhn, Michael Focault si Jacques Derrida, și a luat indicații din temele lor abstracte despre antirealism, deconstructie și din pozitia lor puternic impotriva culturii vestice. Din aceste teme, postmodernismul a introdus patru variații asupra modernismului. “

Mai întâi, ca și filozofii postmoderni , artiștii acestei perioade au devenit antirealiști respingând orice formă de realism. Postmodernismul a reintrodus conținuturi dar numai cele ironice și cu referire la sine însuși.

În al doilea rând postmodernismul a stabilit mai multe deconstrucții ale categoriilor tradiționale decât a făcut modernismul.

Cea de-a treia caracteristică a postmodernismului este tendința sa spre distrugere (ex, opera L.H.O.O.Q. a lui Duchamp în care Monalisa lui DaVinci este reprezentată cu barbă si mustață) .

Postmodernismul permite oricui să expună conținuturi atâta timp cât acestea vorbesc despre realitatea socială si nu despre cea naturală sau obiectivă.

Conform lui Andreas Huyssen postmodernismul timpuriu are patru faze. Prima dintre acestea se referă la postmodernismul anilor ‘60 definit de un tip particular de imaginație care punea in evidentă un acut simț al viitorului și al noilor frontiere, al discontinuitații, al crizei și al conflictului dintre generații. Acesta amintea de primele avangarde europene de felul dadaismului și al suprarealismului. A doua fază a postmodernismului includea un atac iconoclast împotriva “artei instituționalizate” (Peter Bürger). În cea de-a treia faza partizanii din occident ai postmodernismului împărtășeau optimismul tehnologic al unor grupări din avangarda anilor ‘20. Cea de-a patra fază este definită de încercarea de validare a culturii populare fată de “arta inaltă” modernistă sau tradiționalistă.Tendinta “populistă” din deceniul al șaptelea și-a dobânidit in bună parte energia în contextul unei contraculturii și a unei abandonări aproape totale a tradiției americane intemeiată, până nu demult, pe critica culturii moderne de masă.

“J.F.Lyotard a scos la iveală și a identificat o filieră alternativă a postmodernismului, și anume antimodernismul. Înca din anii ‘80, s-a făcut auzită din ce in ce mai mult pretenția de a pune capăt experimentelor, care s-a bucurat de o intensă mediatizare populistă. Conservatorismul antimodernist face parte in mare măsură din așa-zisa “perspectivă” postmodernă, o încâlceală de păreri contradictorii, acesta fiind unul dintre motivele pentru care este imposibil să se ajungă la un consens rațional in privința postmodernismului.”

O alta falsă filieră a postmodernismului este postmodernismul eclectic. Același Lyotard spunea “eclectismul este gradul zero al culturii generale contemporane: se ascultă muzică reggae, se văd westernuri, se mănancă la McDonalds la prânz și se gătește în casă la cină, se poartă parfumuri pariziene la Tokio și haine “retro” la Hong Kong; cultura este utilă doar la concursurile Tv. Același lucru se intamplă și în arta-kitsch, confuzie și stilul “merge orice”. Neexistând criterii estetice, singura unitate de masura rămân banii.Toate “gusturile” precum și toate “nevoile” sunt satisfăcute de piață.”

Adevaratul postmodernism poate fi recunoscut dupa trei caracteristici esentiale: prima dintre ele este dilema reproductibilității. Cea de-a doua este o aură consumeristă care se extinde asupra a tot ceea ce apartine trecutului: obiecte cu design retro, haine vintage, aparate de radio din perioada Art Deco, cutii metalice de biscuiți etc. Cea de-a treia caracteristică a postmodernismului este consumerismul axat pe imagine. Reproducerile iau locul realității sau o înlocuiesc printr-o hiper-realitate. Noi trăim ceea ce deja a fost trăit și reprodus, iar realitatea noastră nu e decât cea a imaginii descompuse in fragmente.

Arta postmodernă

Postmodernismul rastoarna paradigma antropocentrică înlocuind artistul cu un bricoleur -un individ care pune laolaltă fragmente ale sensurilor create de altcineva, nu de el. Artiștii postmoderni folosesc mijloace neortodoxe pentru a “crea”: grăsimea de la liposucție(Evaristti), paie(Kiefer), excremente umane (Manzoni) sau de elefant (Ofili), urină(Serrano), sânge(Quinn), pietre(Smithson), maioneză, hotdog, ketchup(McCarthy) .

“Arta postmodernă este un fenomen unic in istorie. Oricare altă cultură din istoria umanității a produs si onorat cu mândrie pictura, sculptura, arhitectura, muzica si literatura. Dar, arta postmodernă, in teorie si in practică, este o mișcare antiartă. Se mândrește cu distrugerea formelor artei mai sus menționate și cu șocarea audienței.

“Stravechea Mimesis s-a întors pare-se, dar de data aceasta, ca zeiță a răzbunarii. Nu se mai pune problema imaginilor reprezentând o realitate transcendentă: însusi conceptul unei astfel de realități e astazi denunțat ca un efect al iluziei. Oglinda paradigmei postmoderne nu reflectă nici lumea exterioară, a naturii, nici pe cea launtrică a subiectivitații: ea se reflectă pe sine într-o oglidă, într-o oglindă, într-o oglindă…”

“Warhol “papă al artei pop”, refuză ideea, îndelung acreditată, a operei de artă ca supremă creație originală într-un spațiu și într-un timp unice si lansează mesajul postmodern care proclamă transformarea imaginii intr-o marfă, reproductibilă mecanic, parte a unui “set total de acte ale comunicării” in care stilurile, concepute și transmisibile global, pot fi semnalate concomitent, în diverse puncte ale hărții culturale a lumii, radiind în toate direcțiile, de la un continent la altul.”

Plecând de la afirmația lui Warhol “totul e drăguț” artiștii pop au luat imagistica banală și timidă a vieții cotidiene la valoarea ei declarată ca produs comercial, astfel încât subjugarea artei de către legile mărfii parea un proces încheiat pentru totdeauna.

Una dintre caracteristicile artei postmoderne este inserarea imaginilor apocaliptice, caracteristică ce o putem vedea și in televiziunea zilelor noastre (știrile Pro Tv de la ora 17, filmele dar și desenele animate(!) tot mai violente.”Consecinta a fost o criză in relații. logica bunului simt si credința, nu se sugereaza de fel existenta unui moment istoric in care aceste relații să fi fost întemeiate pe o corespondență perfectă, ci a unei diferențe istorice a modurilor de articulare a bunului simț cu credința. Schimbarea e de ordin cantitativ si e parțială, dar efectele ei sunt reale și din ce in ce mai vizibile.”

Lewis P.Thorpe afirmă ca televiziunea nu e o oglindă a lumii, ci lumea este o oglinda a televiziunii.Televiziunea este creatoare de mituri (vedete care nu își merită statutul apărute în urma mediatizării excesive), este un surogat al culturii și dă privitorului senzația că află tot și știe tot.

Trecerea de la Galaxia Guttenberg la Satul Mondial al lui McLuhan a pus în pericol egalitatea dintre educație și alfabetizare. Rezultatul acesteia a fost înlocuirea culturii cărtii cu o cultura a imaginii (tendința de a ne informa privind la televizor). Efectul invaziei imaginii e înlocuirea realului cu aceasta care este investita cu o valoare care nu poate concura cu realitatea.

Termenul de spatiu cibernetic a fost inventat de scriitorul de romane știintifico-fantastice William Gibson în cartea “Neuromancierul” și era definit ca o “halucinație consensuală”. Termenul este aplicat unui spațiu generat de software într-un calculator care creaza experiențe în realitatea virtuală. În lumea virtuală poți comunica cu oameni din diferite colțuri ale lumii, poti face cumpărături sau poți face artă. Arta electronică este considerată limita esteticii postmoderne .”Când tehnologia în ultima ei fază, “ultramodernistă”, se leaga din nou de primitivism sau spaima mitologică “devenită esențială și radicală”, nu ne mai aflăm in fața unei lumi a simulacrului și a hiperrealismului, ci a unui nou orizont al tehnologiei virtuale și al sfârșitului definitiv al fanteziilor realului.”

Concluzii

Postmodernismul este nu o miscare opusă modernismului ci o continuare a acestuia. Practic, postmodernismul a preluat scheletul modernismului pe care a construit noi ințelesuri. Făcând referire la cultura de la sfarșitul istoriei, Heidegger susține că cel mai stabil criteriu al acesteia va fi “starea de spirit”.

Arta postmodernă- fie ca vorbim de arta propriu-zisă, de arta digitală sau de televiziune- este axată pe imagine. Principala caracteristică este reproductibilitatea iar scopul principal este să șocheze audiența. Valoarea artei este data piată (arta este făcută pentru a fi vândută).

Bibliografie

• Appignasnesi , Richard și Garratt , Chris în colaborare cu Sardar , Ziauddin și Curry , Patrick – Cte ceva despre postmodernism-ed. Curtea Veche -București- 2003- pag 48

• Grigorescu , Dan – Între cucută si Coca-cola -ed.Minerva, București ,1994

• Grossberg, Lawrance – Putting the pop back into postmodernism, in -The universal abandon? : the politics of postmodernism, ed.Andrew Ross,Mineapollis ,University of Minesota Press ,1988,pag 189 citat în D.G-Între cucută si Coca-cola

Siteografie

• http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-958-Why_Art_Became_Ugly.aspx la 24-08-2009

• http://www.michaelnewberry.com la 24-08-2009

• http://michaelnewberry.com/av/fat/fat.html -24-08-2009

 *habar n-am cum se pun note de subsol in wordpress-daca stie cineva sa imi spuna si mie

*acesta nu e un referat de pe net e referatul meu de anul trecut la estetica .Asa ca va rog: usor cu copiatul.

http://thankyouandywarhol.com

”A Million Thank You’s for Andy Warhol” (2007) är ett verk skapat av den Londonbaserade grekiske konstnären Miltos Manetas (1964). Två animerade figurer i klara färger upprepar frasen ”thank you” om och om igen. Antalet uttalade tack registeras i en siffermätare som visas överst på sidan och varje gång sidan klickas fram startar processen på nytt. I förgrunden gungar Andy Warhols namn i olika typsnitt fram och tillbaka. Exakt hur många gånger de två figurerna upprepar detta tack har jag faktiskt inte lyckats ta reda på ännu, men förmodligen i upp till en miljon gånger..

Verket ser egentligen ganska anspråkslöst ut. Det är upprepning av samma sak om och om igen, estetiken är nästan lite barnslig, klotteraktig och väldigt gullig. Men det finns mer tanke bakom denna till synes ganska anspråkslösa hommage.

Andy Warhol ses som en av popkonstens stora utövare och är bland annat känd för att ha reproducerat kommersiella varor som konst och för att mer eller mindre ha massproducerat sina egna konstnärliga tryck. Dessa verk har förmodligen varit en del av hans undersökning kring konst och hur långt den kan dras innan betraktaren tråkas ut. Ett verk som tydligt demonstrerar denna sömnframkallande provokation är den film Warhol gjorde av sig själv ätande en hamburgare (”Andy Warhol Eating a Hamburger” 1966). Filmen är bara ca fyra minuter lång men var ändå ett studium i att se hur länge betraktaren härdade ut att se den. Den massproducerade bilden på en kossa är ett uttryck för samma sak.

Jag tycker att Manetas kommer åt nåt väsentligt i Warhols konst med ”A Million Thank You’s”. Verket är repetititv och skapat i datorteknik, i ett relativt nytt medium för konstnärer, och som betraktare blir jag lätt förförd av den enkla, färgglada ytan. Warhol själv utforskade såväl fotografins som filmens potential i sitt konstnärskap, något som var en ganska ny företeelse under hans liv och färgskalan är ofta omisskännligt ren, stark och lysande. 

Nyfikenheten inför hur länge figurerna ska orka upprepa sitt tack (om nu animationer kan bli utmattade) känns till en början manisk, men efter ett tag blir man utmattad av surret i bakgrunden. Man orkar naturligtvis inte sitta och titta på sidan hela tiden utan gör lite annat under tiden: slösurfar, skriver, jobbar… Figurerna tackar på, men har ändå inte hunnit upp i en miljon en god stund senare. Deras upprepande mässande blir till slut övermäktigt. Jag stänger av ljudet vid omkring 25 000 för att sedan ganska snart stänga ner hela sidan. Det blir irriterande när inte rätt fönster hittas genast och det är ett faktum: Manetas har på ett effektivt sätt iscensatt Warhols idé att uttråka betraktaren via upprepning på ett helt underbart sätt. Jag är förförd, förtjust och vansinnigt uttråkad och utmattad på en och samma gång!

These profile pic designs were some off-the-cuff things I did when I felt an urge of inspiration come upon me. They are my Facebook and Twitter profile pictures. I thought they represented myself well. (Which is what a profile pic is intended to do!) And they truly express how I was feeling at the time. I don’t know if it’s classified as art, but it definitely felt like inspiration to me! Copyright © 2009 Will Johanning. All rights reserved.

Set in a beautiful park overooking across the Kolding Fjord in the southern Danish Syddanmark Region, the Trapholt Museum of art, design and handicraft presents a splendid art exhibition this autumn under the title Love at first sight. The exhibition, which runs through February 28, 2010, features works from the famed German Würth collection, making a stroll through 20th century international modern art. From impressionism to expressionism, surrealism, op art and pop art, meet the likes of great names in European and American art: Munch, Baselitz, Magritte, Pissarro, Kiefer, Lichtenstein, Kapoor, Warhol and many others.
more…

The 2009 International Fine Print Dealers Association Print Fair is on until 8 November 2009 at the historic Park Avenue Armory, an amazing late nineteenth-century building with a massive, arched main hall that is much like a grand European train station shed. The fair features prints of works from all periods, exhibited by over 80 art dealers. If I could have purchased three prints, they would have been:

1) Wilhelm Laage’s Sur la plage (1906), a simple woodcut impression, on grey paper, of a cloaked and hatted woman standing on the beach. $2,000.

2) Andy Warhol’s Happy Butterfly Day (1955), a hand-coloured offset lithograph buzzing with cheerful pink, orange, and yellow butterflies. $20,000.

3) Edvard Munch’s Death in the Sickroom (1895), which depicts family members—seated, standing, pacing, praying—dealing with tragedy in the room. $140,000.

Happy Butterfly Day

Art historians have a problem telling the story of 20th century art.

The tale gets a running start from Post-Impressionism, picks up speed with Cubism, then jogs through Abstract Expressionism on its way to Pop Art and Conceptual Art, but the story line peters out somewhere after about 1980.

Then the thread of the narrative vanishes into a welter of conflicting styles.

Post-modern art “cultivates the variety of incoherence,” Jonathan Fineberg stated in the textbook “Art Since 1940.”

After the 1980s, the art world split into fragments that “disintegrated, becoming the sluggish mishmash that has prevailed in art ever since,” New Yorker art critic Peter Schjeldahl wrote.

Now along comes economist David Galenson to offer a remedy for art historians’ problem. His alternative version of 20th century art has a beginning, a middle and – not an end, but a narrative thread that continues up to the present.

Galenson’s comprehensive and data-based account of modern art, set forth in his new book Conceptual Revolutions in Twentieth-Century Art might win acceptance from art critics and art historians.

Maybe.

But if so it would have to overcome their sharp distaste for how Galenson approaches the subject. He examines how the art market has influenced artists and their styles. He categorizes artists as either slow-moving experimental innovators or quick-changing — and now increasingly dominant — conceptual innovators. And he uses economic analysis to rank artists’ importance.

Each of those approaches yields insights into 20th century art, allowing for new understandings both of its early days and of its late “mishmash.”

Galenson’s history of the art market starts traditionally, in 1874, with the French Impressionists’ destruction of the Salon’s monopoly on acceptable art. Next comes Picasso’s cultivation of a handful of key gallery owners and art collectors who reward his stylistic innovations. Finally an open marketplace allows Andy Warhol and now Damien Hirst to grow rich by appealing to a mass audience.

The contemporary marketplace rewards the latest bright ideas from brilliant conceptual innovators, which leads to the proliferation of contemporary styles, Galenson says.

According to Galenson, who were the dominant artists during the last quarter of the 20th century? Perhaps not exactly whom you would guess, although Galenson’s numeric analysis is based simply on how often artists’ works appear in all art textbooks published from 2000 on. No. 1 is photographer Cindy Sherman, with 25 illustrations. She’s followed by Gerhard Richter, with 23; Jeff Koons, with 22; and Damien Hirst, just 19.

Galenson’s previous work has been scorned by art scholars, so he doesn’t try to win them over with honeyed words.

“I persevered in spite of their unfortunate lack of intellectual curiosity,” he writes. As a result, “I have learned fascinating things about modern art that art historians do not know.”

Perhaps they will be fascinated by this new book. More likely it will be greeted with silence.

If you’re interested in buying Conceptual Revolutions in Twentieth-Century Art, click on the book title.

After more research on the subject female artists vs male artists I’m beginning to realise that it is much more complex then just the media ignoring female artists. Some people argue that women are just not as good artists as men, the art critic Brian Sewell for example was quoted in this article by Andrew Johnson in the Independent online claiming that “there has never been a first-rank woman artist,” which I believe is simplifying the issue. Until quite recently women were seen as second-rank human beings which of course would affect the way people view their art.

Many of the great male artists are not just admired for their art but also for their status and their eccentric ways. The life they lived, and were allowed to lead, helped create the mystery around them and their art. Look at Warhol for example or Picasso, how many women at the time do you think would have the courage to live the way they did? And if they did live that life they would most likely not be looked upon the same way as a man would. This was of course even harder the further back in time we go. As a man you were free, you could travel and see the world but as a woman you often belonged to someone else from a young age.

Women are still in this day and age seen as a bit weird if they don’t want to have children, we feel sorry for them, while a childless man is more seen as a free spirit, a wanderer. These characteristics normally go hand in hand with being an artist so if being that way is not accepted for women of course they will be regarded differently.

Not saying that you can’t be a great artist just because you have children but in a way freedom is very important in the creative process, you have to go deep inside yourself and if your the one who’s supposed to take care of the children, when will you find the time? Living in the time we do now many of us feel that men and women are nearly equal (which can be argued) but it is important to remember that this was not the case for the generation of our grandparents or even our parents.

There must have been many female Monet and Van Gogh who had to give up their dreams to live in their husband’s shadow. It is hard to change history though and evidently there aren’t for example as many female impressionists as male ones hence there won’t be as many paintings by female artists to exhibit.

Mr Sewell takes it has far as saying “Only men are capable of aesthetic greatness. Women make up 50 per cent or more of classes at art school. Yet they fade away in their late 20s or 30s. Maybe it’s something to do with bearing children.” Why would only men be capable of aesthetic greatness? Do men have an aesthetic greatness gene that women lack? That sounds very unlikely. One could wonder what Mr Sewell’s theory would be on why most great artists are white men.
Women can only have children until they are about 40 so yes perhaps a lot of women feel that they can’t live the life of an artist if they are going to be able to support and take care of a family. Men can live a vagabond life until they are 60 if they want and then decide to settle down and have a family. That is many more years of freedom. So if you are woman who hasn’t “made it” by the age of 30 perhaps you will chose another career path.

Still I feel like it would be simplyfing the matter if we only blamed it on having children. But that, together with how society expects a woman to be and act contributes to how we look at female artists and their art. Male artists seem to be allowed to more freely express their eccentricity which affects the way we see them and their art.
The art world reflects society and society is not yet equal. The reality is that men are more respected in most areas in life, something that will hopefully change with time. Have a look here to get an idea of how female artists are represented by the art world.
There are obviously many great female artists out there and my aim with this blog will now be to write about them.

The Edinburgh Printmakers is one of the city’s most fantastic resources for everyone.

Beth's pink sheep

Beth’s Recommendation: I just took a weekend long workshop on screen printing and produced a pink sheep ala Andy Warhol. What a fantastic weekend I had! The instructor Gill is so knowledgeable and SO patient. All the participants are friendly and helpful as well. Following the workshop I now have a 6 month associate membership which means I can make more pink sheep!!

The soul of art has been kidnapped and is being held for ransom! In
the late 20th Century art became viewed as a commodity. It had a
monetary worth. Less and less value was placed on its worth to
society. Artists like Basquiat and Warhol were able to change art and
society in ways we are just starting to understand. This is potentially
dangerous and unsettling to some. People like to have a preconception of what art is so they give it meaning by asking, “How much is it worth?”  The problem with this compass is that when the material possession of a thing called a piece of art is more important than the subtle ways it works on one society, it is numbed even more than it already is to its own soul.

We have broken the connection between artist/public/society. We need to get back to the artist’s studio, a return to art that identifies with the individual not with what a gallery or collector sees as merely a commercial opportunity. I think there’s a good chance that the
pendulum will swing back. Look at the music industry-we can make
our own records now and reach an audience on the web. Art will go
that way and we will have a new Avant-garde. It has gone so far in the
other direction it has to come back.