tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3137995022574691057.post1720700377880513618..comments2023-08-26T14:31:44.845+01:00Comments on Charles Lambert: AttentionCharles Lamberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18074227813367594283noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3137995022574691057.post-62229519354319328982009-08-17T14:53:28.475+01:002009-08-17T14:53:28.475+01:00Thanks, Nathalie. I'm a little swamped today -...Thanks, Nathalie. I'm a little swamped today - meant to get the link to CL but obviously didn't get A Round Toit. Intriguing point that you make, and one I want to let simmer a bit, but it makes perfect sense to me that there's been an historical "sorting" of what we see. I know much less about art than about literature (and may not know much about that), but on a couple of occasions when I've done historical bibliographic research, I've been amazed to find how many novels and short story collections, e.g., were published during various periods that we think of as strongly "marked" by one book or a particular group of "movement" writers (the pre-Civil War abolitionist era, e.g. or women writers during the Harlem Renaissance). And, in fact, all that's happened is that what has come down to us has been "chosen" in a sense. Of course it must happen with the visual arts. (All you need to do is take a tour of churches in Rome to see how many Renaissance-era "also rans" there were!)VitaVagabondahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02214385920224346747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3137995022574691057.post-83794067250709406632009-08-17T14:06:28.236+01:002009-08-17T14:06:28.236+01:00The Duane Michals quote posted by Wendell is from ...The Duane Michals quote posted by Wendell is from here: <br />http://www.queso-fresco.com/articles/16921/news <br /><br />Maybe the reason so much contemporary art seems crap when compared with art from the past is because what survives has been so heavily edited. What remains is more likely to 'mean' something. There's also the issue of the cold war skewing western art post WWII and, in recent years, Charles Saatchi single-handedly making (and unmaking) art stars.<br /><br />When my friend had her MA show, students were fighting dirty to have their work displayed in the rooms where they calculated Saatchi would go.Nathalie de Brogliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14486461293863368273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3137995022574691057.post-46014895914980744212009-08-17T10:23:26.208+01:002009-08-17T10:23:26.208+01:00Couldn't agree more. There's an unbearable...Couldn't agree more. There's an unbearable triteness and banality about so much that passes for art these days. The best I can usually muster in the way of response is a shrugged "so what?"Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11647405720597546140noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3137995022574691057.post-8906792013200903262009-08-16T18:07:03.175+01:002009-08-16T18:07:03.175+01:00I love Duane Michaels too, Wendell. Where did you ...I love Duane Michaels too, Wendell. Where did you read this?Charles Lamberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18074227813367594283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3137995022574691057.post-85919745328277871672009-08-16T15:51:38.402+01:002009-08-16T15:51:38.402+01:00Oh you know perfectly well it's not just you!
...Oh you know perfectly well it's not just you!<br /><br />To quote Duane Michals, one of my favorite artists/bitchy queens/curmudgeons (here he's talking about photography, but not only): <br /><br />“The bar keeps getting lower and lower and lower. All these kids are spewing out of art school photographing their dinner and then making it a 20-foot photograph. I was at an opening years ago, and this woman wasn’t even looking through the lens. She was just waving her hand taking pictures and kept saying, ‘Oh look, everything’s art! Everything’s art!’ and I said, ‘No no, everything is not art.’” That’s the problem: Everything has become art."<br /><br />I think you laid your finger on it, though: smugness. It's just about the most unattractive quality a work of art can have, IMHO. Of course, you and Giuseppe and much more worldly than we are. At our house, we just go on pretending that "contemporary art" is a contradiction in terms.VitaVagabondahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02214385920224346747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3137995022574691057.post-54431728702099070492009-08-16T09:39:33.233+01:002009-08-16T09:39:33.233+01:00What's interesting is that I spoke to two frie...What's interesting is that I spoke to two friends of mine, one of whom is an artist and neither of whom has issues with experimentalism, and they both felt exactly the same, and not only about the Arnolfini. It's easy to lay into the Hirsts and Emins and Banksies of this world for being brash and what have you, but they do at least pack a bit of emotional punch and force some sort of dialogue on you.<br /><br />Try muttering louder next time, Nathalie! Who knows, the person next to you may agree!Charles Lamberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18074227813367594283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3137995022574691057.post-49155635658309976362009-08-15T20:24:44.443+01:002009-08-15T20:24:44.443+01:00I'd like to go to a gallery with you Charles, ...I'd like to go to a gallery with you Charles, then I wouldn't have to mutter all on my lonesome ownsome.Nathalie de Brogliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14486461293863368273noreply@blogger.com