can we discuss this?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://www.artnet.com/PDB/PublicLotDetails.aspx?lot_id=424321104&page=7

― anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 23:18 (twenty years ago)

is it a painting or photo?

― La Monte (La Monte), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 23:24 (twenty years ago)

it IS signed.

― when something smacks of something (dave225.3), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 23:25 (twenty years ago)

Too busy.

― andy --, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 23:26 (twenty years ago)

I like it.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 23:29 (twenty years ago)

It looks how I feel right now.

― Bombed Out and Depleted / Kate (papa november), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 23:31 (twenty years ago)

itsa coupler print

― anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 23:32 (twenty years ago)

it seems Gerhard Richter has a huge influence now.

― jed_ (jed), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 23:34 (twenty years ago)

looks like part of the painting i'm working on right now

― President Busch (dr g), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 23:34 (twenty years ago)

i never would have guessed this was an anthony thread (too many question marks in the title for one)

― jimmy glass (electricsound), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 23:36 (twenty years ago)

ihttp://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=empty+canvas/v=2/SID=e/TID=I047_86/l=IVS/SIG=12vblgtoi/EXP=1126229664/*-http%3A//byelarus.org/wm/paint/auth/hopper/interior/hopper.sun-empty-room.jpg

― jim wentworth (wench), Thursday, 8 September 2005 00:37 (twenty years ago)

That image doesn't really give you any clues what the piece actually looks like.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 8 September 2005 00:49 (twenty years ago)

I didn't know you were a painter, DG.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 8 September 2005 01:13 (twenty years ago)

itsa coupler print

Only looks like one to me, har har!

― pr00de, where's my car? (pr00de), Thursday, 8 September 2005 01:44 (twenty years ago)

'coupler print' is a fancy name for a color photographic print, basically the same thing you'd get at the drugstore.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 8 September 2005 01:48 (twenty years ago)

Aw, but that ruins my awful pun.

― pr00de, where's my car? (pr00de), Thursday, 8 September 2005 01:50 (twenty years ago)

I like it better than some of the more contemporary artwork that is out there...for instance a blank canvas with a single dot of paint on it. This at least looks like a corner of a room. I suppose my problem is I don't understand much of contemporary art, so therefore my brain rejects it and tells me "you don't like this piece", but there are many contemps that I really do like such as roy Lichtenstein & John Register.

― Wiggy (Wiggy), Thursday, 8 September 2005 02:17 (twenty years ago)

lichtenstein is so contemporary he's dead

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 8 September 2005 02:20 (twenty years ago)

the other dude, too

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 8 September 2005 02:22 (twenty years ago)

Stop trying to "understand", that's not art's job.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 8 September 2005 02:26 (twenty years ago)

i think her larger prints have more of an effect. not really huge, but around 2-3 ft

― ronny longjohns (ronny longjohns), Thursday, 8 September 2005 05:23 (twenty years ago)

there are 50 like this, they hold a large punch for me in numbers like this, its handsome.
johns is not only alive, hes making some of the best work in his career.

i dont see richter here, at all, but maybe im wrong...tell me more about this.

― anthony easton (anthony), Thursday, 8 September 2005 05:54 (twenty years ago)

i don't really get works like this. i mean, where's the actual real content?

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 8 September 2005 06:01 (twenty years ago)

what do you mean by actual content?

― anthony, Thursday, 8 September 2005 09:36 (twenty years ago)

I don't like it, but that's because my instinctive reaction to it is "it's art about BLANKNESS" and I do not like blankness, my aesthetic is far more about pattern, repetition, even overload. That makes me feel calm. Blankness like that makes me feel extremely nervous, discontented, isolated.

― Luminiferous Aether (kate), Thursday, 8 September 2005 09:43 (twenty years ago)

i like it. that is all.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Thursday, 8 September 2005 09:46 (twenty years ago)

Ikea inspired blandness. Maybe that's the point.

Good site to trawl around in all the same. I like this: http://www.artnet.com/PDB/PublicLotDetails.aspx?lot_id=424266399&page=2

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Thursday, 8 September 2005 09:50 (twenty years ago)

Blankness != blandness

Quite different concepts.

I find actual blankness quite threatening and not very bland at all.

― Luminiferous Aether (kate), Thursday, 8 September 2005 09:51 (twenty years ago)

Blankness != blandness

Quite different concepts.

I know. I found it bland.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Thursday, 8 September 2005 09:54 (twenty years ago)

the texture of the paint etc. looks a lot like Richter's candle paintings etc

― Ward Fowler (Ward Fowler), Thursday, 8 September 2005 10:00 (twenty years ago)

i mean, where's the actual real content?

The only content should be your emotions. ;-)

I love it. But reminds me of the huge fights my parents and I had about modern art.

― nathalie's pocket revolution (stevie nixed), Thursday, 8 September 2005 10:08 (twenty years ago)

Sorry for derail but does anyone know where I can get a print of that Joan Miró painting I linked upthread (without paying half a million pounds, that is)?
It's so unlike anything else of his that I've seen and I think I need to have it in my house.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Thursday, 8 September 2005 10:40 (twenty years ago)

I don't like it. It's the little dome at the bottom right, and to a lesser extent, the spot in the upper right that bug me. Now, having art bug me is not necessarily a bad thing.. but these bug me in a 'the artist wasn't trying very hard to do a good job' way.

― when something smacks of something (dave225.3), Thursday, 8 September 2005 11:48 (twenty years ago)

it looks like the corner of my bedroom. i kind of like it. it feels nice to me. although i dont think a small print of that size does it justice.

― AaronK (AaronK), Thursday, 8 September 2005 12:00 (twenty years ago)

I like this quite a bit. It's certainly not peaceful.

― Rock Hardy (Rock Hardy), Thursday, 8 September 2005 12:03 (twenty years ago)

Uta Barth is no Zach Duke

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 8 September 2005 13:46 (twenty years ago)

This painting is just the sort of thing that people like, if they are people who like this sort of thing.

It certainly seems intended to suggest the corner of a room, with diffused light from a window falling on the wall and a stool's top visible near the bottom. This perception makes viewing this painting a sort of visual pun on a child's time-out punishment. It has a rather soothing and austere quality in the reproduction linked above, as seen on my computer monitor.

Every teenager with a camera and a yen for visual artistry attempts to compose pictures of this sort. I wouldn't place an exceptionally high value on it, but it's an OK painting, as these things go. Seeing it in person might be a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

― Aimless (Aimless), Thursday, 8 September 2005 14:03 (twenty years ago)

Barth is a photographer, not a painter.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 8 September 2005 14:10 (twenty years ago)

Too bad. A gifted painter could add to this image, the same way a good actor can partly rescue a mediocre play.

― Aimless (Aimless), Thursday, 8 September 2005 14:15 (twenty years ago)

shes both really, one of her central strengths is her extension of medium, this is a standard photo (though smaller and more intimate then most), she also does things with almiunum and wooden panels, plus canvas that are almost painting and almost photographs

― anthony, Thursday, 8 September 2005 20:06 (twenty years ago)

she mounts her c-prints (or other media) on aluminum/wood panels, or uses canvas - I don't see how that makes her a painter. Painting tends to imply that the artist is applying paint to something (which Barth hasn't done in about a decade, focusing on photographs in themselves).

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 8 September 2005 20:37 (twenty years ago)

This thread title is giving me the guilt! Every time I scan down the list, it's like someone tapping me on the shoulder and saying "I think we need to have a serious talk about this."

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 8 September 2005 20:58 (twenty years ago)

she is a painter in the same way that ryman is a painter---mounting on canvas and panel is a way to formally examine what makes a painting taxonmoically.

― anthony, Thursday, 8 September 2005 22:44 (twenty years ago)

at best she is a mounter

― President Busch (dr g), Thursday, 8 September 2005 22:47 (twenty years ago)

what do you mean by actual content?

i don't feel like there's much for me to respond to in this work. but now that i think about it, my first reaction - dislike - is similar to kate's, which could mean that i have a similar reaction to expressions of "blankness." so i suppose i'm wrong to say there's no content here, since there's enough of it to provoke a response from me, but i still can't see anything all that interesting going on here.

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 8 September 2005 22:54 (twenty years ago)

She isn't a painter in the same way that Ryman is a painter - in that Ryman was a painter (ie 'one who paints').

Barth worked in mixed-media in her earlier career but no longer does and hasn't for some time (and didn't for the piece in question). It's a photographic print.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 8 September 2005 23:00 (twenty years ago)

Where's the line between "a different way of mounting photographs" and "formally examine what makes a painting taxonomically"?

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 8 September 2005 23:01 (twenty years ago)

many painters work from photographs ... maybe they are all photographers too

the difference is that photographers get a rub from associating themselves with painting and the reverse is not at all true

― President Busch (dr g), Thursday, 8 September 2005 23:02 (twenty years ago)

i dont know, this is a photograph. we need to talk about it as a photograph.

but ryman's painting is the least impt...one who paints is less impt then one who thinks metacontextually about painting.

― anthony, Thursday, 8 September 2005 23:08 (twenty years ago)

god, what a disgustingly lame statement

― President Busch (dr g), Thursday, 8 September 2005 23:14 (twenty years ago)

photographers get a rub from associating themselves with painting and the reverse is not at all true

first what's "a rub" and 2nd what about photorealists?

― vahid (vahid), Thursday, 8 September 2005 23:23 (twenty years ago)

oh wait, i think i get what you're saying - getting away w/ boring photography by borrowing old masters' lighting tricks and compositions, right? yeah, i agree that sucks too.

― vahid (vahid), Thursday, 8 September 2005 23:27 (twenty years ago)

"a rub" meaning they they benefit from the association

i don't think that the photorealists get the same sort of benefit from associating themselves with photography because they're only working harder as painters to use their craft to replicate something else ... i don't see how mounting photos on canvas or board or producing "painterly" photographs requires extra effort on the part of the photographer to replicate a painting

― President Busch (dr g), Thursday, 8 September 2005 23:29 (twenty years ago)

i will admit that this discussion is a bit muddled because we're having it on the internet, discussing a jpg of the object

― President Busch (dr g), Thursday, 8 September 2005 23:31 (twenty years ago)

hmmm well photorealists benefit from the context established by mechanical reproduction - although a better, less polemical way of putting it is that they work off of that context.

example: gerhard richter's "uncle" paintings - it's good because we've all got blurry snapshots, react a particular way to blurry snapshots, etc.

― vahid (vahid), Thursday, 8 September 2005 23:32 (twenty years ago)

That's playing conceptually with 'the snapshot' - he's benefitting from the strength of his ideas.

Whereas photographers may, on occasion, try to use 'painterly' affectations (like canvas or wood backing) in order to attain some of the cachet of finer arts.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 8 September 2005 23:35 (twenty years ago)

well i'm not sure how you can draw a strict line delineating between "painterly affectation" and "conceptual play". the best i can say about this photo is it seems a bit late and lazy - using a photo to rail against clement greenberg might have hit the mark in 74 or 84 but it's a bit late in 94.

― vahid (vahid), Thursday, 8 September 2005 23:38 (twenty years ago)

i don't see how they benefit in the same way, since they are not recontextualizing the physical materials. it is still obvious that the work is a painting produced by a painter which is not true of the mixed media object labeled a painting ... and this argument is mostly based on the assertion that someone who mounts a photograph on canvas is a painter, which i don't think is true at all. maybe in the conceptual "oh the art is in our minds" sense, it may be true, but i think the distinctions of "painter" and "photographer" are from the real and tactile world and should be used accordingly since they refer to actual processes and techniques.

― President Busch (dr g), Thursday, 8 September 2005 23:39 (twenty years ago)

the assertion that someone who mounts a photograph on canvas is a painter, which i don't think is true at all

yeah i agree, that is sort of a ridiculous (and irrelevant) statement

― vahid (vahid), Thursday, 8 September 2005 23:42 (twenty years ago)

i dont think that she is a painter, i think that she works with the methodology of art making, as a photographer, and i dont think she is talking about clement greenberg modernism at all.

― anthony, Friday, 9 September 2005 00:01 (twenty years ago)

no?

why not.

― vahid (vahid), Friday, 9 September 2005 00:05 (twenty years ago)

because its clearly a thing, a wall and some light and a chair, its an extension of the category still life if its anything.

its too gentle to be against abstraction.

― anthony, Friday, 9 September 2005 00:28 (twenty years ago)

well, yes - it's photographic insistence on the thing-ness of abstractions and color fields.

― vahid (vahid), Friday, 9 September 2005 00:31 (twenty years ago)

ie "let's not pretend post-painterly abstraction doesn't have a referent" = common strategy of post-op, neo-geo, etc

as aimless points out

ie haha "ground" a subtle comment on normative values of modernism

― vahid (vahid), Friday, 9 September 2005 00:35 (twenty years ago)

i think it is a referent, but it is a edd/tide thing

― anthony, Friday, 9 September 2005 01:33 (twenty years ago)

how about formally examining what makes a yawn

― amon (eman), Friday, 9 September 2005 04:00 (twenty years ago)

I think it's nice in a pretty immediate way, Anthony. I like work that emphasizes space and shading. I like how the rest of the room is only hinted at by the corners of the stool and lamp (?). I actually find it kind of soft and pleasant and not very threatening at all but that's probably me. I think I might like blankness and isolation more than I should.

― Sundar (sundar), Friday, 9 September 2005 04:16 (twenty years ago)

I also never found 'time out' to be all that punitive.

Aimless might be right in this, I wouldn't know:

Every teenager with a camera and a yen for visual artistry attempts to compose pictures of this sort. I wouldn't place an exceptionally high value on it, but it's an OK painting, as these things go. Seeing it in person might be a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

― Sundar (sundar), Friday, 9 September 2005 04:19 (twenty years ago)

still waiting for an explanation ... what is an edd/tide thing ...

― vahid (vahid), Friday, 9 September 2005 04:29 (twenty years ago)

it reminds me of ikea

― terry lennox. (gareth), Friday, 9 September 2005 04:34 (twenty years ago)

ebb/tide not edd.

i think its what is meant by conceptual play, in the sense that i dont think its a stab greenberg till he bleeds to death thing but more of a come and go, lets look at colour, lets look at light, what happens if i do this, does this connect to minimalism, well its pretty, is that enough ? those sort of questions asked but not really answered.

fluid.

― anthony, Friday, 9 September 2005 05:45 (twenty years ago)

ok fine, i'll agree that it's not outright polemical, and yeah, it would have been more to the point if i'd said "test the boundaries of greenberg" rather than "rail against greenberg".

― vahid (vahid), Friday, 9 September 2005 05:53 (twenty years ago)

i dont think that it tests the boundries, i think it plays in the area past the boundries, martin, judd, flavin, they tested the boundries,

it might test the boundries of painting, but i have been mocked for that

― anthony, Friday, 9 September 2005 06:09 (twenty years ago)

dude i am seriously shocked - you wonder at why people mock you and yet you can't give up your petty one-upmanship for even like one post.

ok fine - it doesn't "test", it "plays"

― vahid (vahid), Friday, 9 September 2005 06:16 (twenty years ago)

the composition is sorta unsettling to me in a way that made me take some time to digest it, even tho it was v. simple it also felt nicely unexpected.

i think it would freak me out if i had it on my wall though.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 9 September 2005 06:31 (twenty years ago)

im not doing one upmanship at all vahid, i am trying to position critical opinon.
i am wondering what you are saying, and im being jocular, two friends over beer jocular, like thats cool i hadnt thot about this, what about that.

― anthony, Friday, 9 September 2005 08:30 (twenty years ago)

can we discuss this?
this is the noize board thread

― anthony, Friday, 9 September 2005 08:47 (twenty years ago)

can't discuss this.

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 9 September 2005 08:50 (twenty years ago)

hammertime

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 9 September 2005 08:50 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.