lb..art has a different intention behind its creation..sculpture too..
But architecture encompasses the intent behind art and
sculpture and adds more,thats why we call it as the mother of all arts.
If someone asked me to define architecture in a word .....I say"shelter". all else is mutable.
some basic concepts cannot and should not be skewed around with.Then the intent is lost hopelessly
speaking from a fanatical traditionalist viewpoint, I'd still like to consider "sculpture" as different from most of the stuff that has been posted in this thread.
It may belong in the realm of "art" of whatever genre..but sculpture ???
I'll tell u a true incident...One wannabe,arty,well heeled,socialite"artist" in my city long time back once had an exhibition titled "Sculptures of suicides" or something like that..
I went running for that exhibition..sounded exciting.
when i entered the room of the art gallery..Lo and behold what do i see>
she had hung various regular store mannequins from various heights of the ceilings by their necks with various colour ropes and in the middle of the room was a bucket filled with red liquid (symbolising blood i guess)
now what talent is there in doing that ?!??
It was so dishonest to the word "sculpture"
"Sculptures of suicides" my a**...I felt like dunking her head in that same bucket and the bitch didnt even refund my admission fee.
I may enter inside a white painted room and randomly spray black paintdrops all around the walls and ceiling..
I may call that art...noone can debate with me on that.
I may call that a spatial sculpture..noone can debate with me on that either.
I may be termed as an artist after that....but am I doing justice to the term of "artist" which requires immense talent in handling the brush and palette or the intricacy and skill of using a hammer and chisel on a slab of Italian marble ?
thats why any tom dick or harry calls himself an artist(?) or a sculptor(?) or an architect(?)
Thats poetic injustice.
Im saying this for a reason...It may sound tangential to the topic but i think it does have implications.
tomorrow ( and its already happening in quite a few instances in my country).......Interior Designers, Decorators ..heck even civil engineers open offices selling their services as "architects".
where does that leave the profession ?
I agree its intent and expression of art and feelings and all and blah...but somewhere there is also nobility and true beauty and inborn talent.
nevermore, I don't think we are totally arguing against each other here. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a ton of crap out there being called 'art' that has very little or no justification for being labelled as such.
However, I will argue all day with you if you think that any of the examples I've posted above do not exhibit nobility, true beauty, and inborn talent. It's not only about physical result, but also about the thought that went into it.
i also like calder. AP, i have a few shots of that one you posted, pink flamingo, with mies' building in the background hanging in my dining room.
there was a documentary on pbs a few years ago on him. he made just about everything in his house including the pot, pans, and eating utensils.
the person interviewing him asked him when did he know when a piece was complete. calder thought and then answered in his rather gruff voice, "when it's dinner time." priceless.
Thanks e. That exhaust system is actually really great when it's being displayed in a gallery-type space. Sitting in a huge wooden crate taking up most of my living room floor, on the other hand...well...living with an artist does have its downsides!
"talent in handling the brush and palette... hammer and chisel" ?
This makes it as if artists and sculptors are damned from birth to deal with yesterday's tools.
The concept as the material and the creative mind as the (primary) tool, and production through a project team. This is the reality. The artist is often just the marketable name of an ensemble cast. It was thus even when the tools were restricted to stone and canvas
To ringfence art as that made in oil or marble to represent classical beauty by someone innately talented is kinda backwards. I accept the value of what has gone before, but that does not mean it has value for going forward. Our tools can give so much more, and our cultures are that much more intricate.
I accept the value of what has gone before, but that does not mean it has value for going forward. Our tools can give so much more, and our cultures are that much more intricate.
Well-stated PsyArch. but I would add "...exclusive..." between your second "has" and the word "value".
Keep in mind nevermore that looking at anything historical from the perspective of standing in 2006, your vision is impacted by the object's age. There is some part of your mind saying "If it has survived this long it must have value..." and that reading is impossible to entirely escape. The corollary is, looking at contemporary art you are forced to ask yourself if the object might or might not be "valuable" enough to survive our culture for the next 5 centuries. It's hard to say that about a really cool pile of big nails (nice, e!) as compared to a cast bronze figure - but I don't necessarily think one is any less valuable than the other. It depends on the idea behind its construction whether it will remain valuable to culture, or not.
I just gave examples of classical art..they are not exhaustive of classicism neither of art.
Psyarch wrote-->"The concept as the material and the creative mind as the (primary) tool, and production through a project teamThis is the reality."
The value of the end product of what comes after the concept material is ,I believe ,the final reality.
Michelangelo,Van Gogh ,Leonardo vinci or any of the past masters , I assume were not part of an ensemble cast...so Im afraid, I dont know what you are talking of ?
Could you kindly elucidate with examples ?
I never "ringfenced" art in way whatsover..i merely gave examples of what I consider as a superior expression of art (irrespective of tools , irrespective of medium)..and Libertybell , it is also supremely aloof from the bondage of time.
The monalisa is admired for its subtlety ,intricacy ,composition..scarcely for its antique value.
I actually get to drive by Calder's studio from time to time and there are still works of art in the yard....it has to be my favorite grouping in this country. Across the pond is Henry Moores studio north of London, where the sheep ramble around his works in the pasture.
Well of course on one's mentioned Jeff Koons - cuz his work sucks!!!
I'm kidding. It's significant in the recent history of art, but leaves a bad taste of commercialism in my mouth. I mean that Wim Delvoye I posted of the deer in the missionary position is soooo much more interesting than Jeff and his wife doing the same. That's all I have time to say as I'm out the door.
nevermore...i actually do think you are putting a very strict
interpretation of what art is...saying what is 'superior' in art
is completely subjective....your example, for instance, of the
mona lisa is completely as seen through the lens of time...
the fact that it was da vinci, the fact that it was one of the first
examples of true representation...but i would also argue that
you're seeing beauty through the lens of an art history class..
the mona lisa was avant garde/ super modern in its time...
most art as seen by its contemporaries is seen through the
lens of the 'shock of the new'...many of our most famous
paintings (such as van gogh's) were laughed at, or mocked,
at the time of their first exposition...
also...all the past masters DEFINITELY had helpers...even more
so than today...masters like da vinci and michelangelo had to
have helpers to mix paints, help stretch canvas etc...as well
as just to learn and pay for the masters life/work as apprentices..
and much of the problem with attributing authorship to new
found paintings by the old masters is determining what was
truly painted by them or not...even when they did paint the face
or the like..many times the painting of the clothing or secondary
features was left to apprenticed helpers...michelangelo had
many helpers on the sistine chapel for instance...
LB, i agree with you about koons...i've never been too sure how i feel about his work...i was just remarking that no one has mentioned him...
has anyone seen the iconoclasts series on the sundance channel...there was one that featured tom ford interviewing jeff koons...it was pretty interesting...offered some insight into koons' work...although i was still left wondering if it was all still just a big joke on the art world...
The mona lisa is/was admired because it was the first portrait to be set in front of a landscape, and was using perspective in a novel way. It is also shrouded in mystery of the subject, and its many thefts.
Michelangelo's studio assistants included Francesco Granacci, Giovanni Angelo Montorsoli and Marcello Venusti. He didn't do it all. Perhaps sometimes the faces, or the clothes. Van Gogh was a loner you are correct there.
Richard Serra uses the same engineer as Frank Gehry.
Andy Warhol often only signed his works, without having so much as commissioned them.
Cattelan and Hirst have teams of craftsmen making their work.
You place artistic value in the final reality, and I hope that you mean the difference it makes to those who view it, their realities.
Much as we are aware of Moore's Law (the doubling of computer processing power every 18 months), so there is something similar in the power output of Art. To parody, to satirise, to announce, to intrigue, to (insert verb of your choice), it gets better every day...
People do still make "beautiful art", but, like the ladies, is beauty enough ?
I need substance, subversion, humour, intrigue, sex, death, and I get it from El Greco as much as I get it from Francis Bacon or Matthew Barney. I would not applaud a painter today for recreating an El Greco. Computers can do that without human intervention.
can anybody explain why some of the linked images above will appears sometimes, and then when you open this thread at another time, some image links will just show up as a "box with an x" ?
this pile of copper plumbing parts, appropriately called 'chain reaction' stands on a prime spot in santa monica civic center. because sta monica is a sister city with hirosima or something. it kind of moves little bit on windy days not because it supposed to but because chains made from elbows and couplers, which are hollow.
a winner. it calls for more metaphors other than the atom bomb.
all said. to me, sculptures are like the 'poems' of visual arts.
- this has been a great thread so far - i've learned a lot about sculptors i never really recognized before - this is a passionate group of folks - thanks a ton
Who is your favorite modern sculptor ?
Here (first pictures, bear with me) is some contemporary figurative from Maurizio Cattelan:
<img src=http://www.designboom.com/eng/interview/cattelan/3.jpg><br />
<img src=http://www.designboom.com/eng/interview/cattelan/2.jpg><br />
butt Ox. I'll try again
Go again fella,
Presenting Maurizio Cattelan:
‘la nona ora’, 1999
‘him’ 2001
Michael Heizer
http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2005/08/city-sized_scul.html
lb..art has a different intention behind its creation..sculpture too..
But architecture encompasses the intent behind art and
sculpture and adds more,thats why we call it as the mother of all arts.
If someone asked me to define architecture in a word .....I say"shelter". all else is mutable.
some basic concepts cannot and should not be skewed around with.Then the intent is lost hopelessly
speaking from a fanatical traditionalist viewpoint, I'd still like to consider "sculpture" as different from most of the stuff that has been posted in this thread.
It may belong in the realm of "art" of whatever genre..but sculpture ???
I'll tell u a true incident...One wannabe,arty,well heeled,socialite"artist" in my city long time back once had an exhibition titled "Sculptures of suicides" or something like that..
I went running for that exhibition..sounded exciting.
when i entered the room of the art gallery..Lo and behold what do i see>
she had hung various regular store mannequins from various heights of the ceilings by their necks with various colour ropes and in the middle of the room was a bucket filled with red liquid (symbolising blood i guess)
now what talent is there in doing that ?!??
It was so dishonest to the word "sculpture"
"Sculptures of suicides" my a**...I felt like dunking her head in that same bucket and the bitch didnt even refund my admission fee.
I may enter inside a white painted room and randomly spray black paintdrops all around the walls and ceiling..
I may call that art...noone can debate with me on that.
I may call that a spatial sculpture..noone can debate with me on that either.
I may be termed as an artist after that....but am I doing justice to the term of "artist" which requires immense talent in handling the brush and palette or the intricacy and skill of using a hammer and chisel on a slab of Italian marble ?
thats why any tom dick or harry calls himself an artist(?) or a sculptor(?) or an architect(?)
Thats poetic injustice.
Im saying this for a reason...It may sound tangential to the topic but i think it does have implications.
tomorrow ( and its already happening in quite a few instances in my country).......Interior Designers, Decorators ..heck even civil engineers open offices selling their services as "architects".
where does that leave the profession ?
I agree its intent and expression of art and feelings and all and blah...but somewhere there is also nobility and true beauty and inborn talent.
just my perspective.
nevermore, I don't think we are totally arguing against each other here. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a ton of crap out there being called 'art' that has very little or no justification for being labelled as such.
However, I will argue all day with you if you think that any of the examples I've posted above do not exhibit nobility, true beauty, and inborn talent. It's not only about physical result, but also about the thought that went into it.
PS What scares me is that I know a ton about contemporary art, and next to nothing about contemporary architecture.
i also like calder. AP, i have a few shots of that one you posted, pink flamingo, with mies' building in the background hanging in my dining room.
there was a documentary on pbs a few years ago on him. he made just about everything in his house including the pot, pans, and eating utensils.
the person interviewing him asked him when did he know when a piece was complete. calder thought and then answered in his rather gruff voice, "when it's dinner time." priceless.
lb, brian's work is vnice. i've checked out his site before and really dig it.
hey LB..how do u bold your text and incline your font for your posts ?
Thanks e. That exhaust system is actually really great when it's being displayed in a gallery-type space. Sitting in a huge wooden crate taking up most of my living room floor, on the other hand...well...living with an artist does have its downsides!
i = italics
b = bold
Put [ b ] in front, [ /b ] behind the text you want affected. No spaces between [ and b and ].
ah yes, but doesn't every relationship? it is the good that we search for though.
Lbell check this out
what can modern sculpture compare to a David or this...
Buddha, Gandhara style, India, c.5th Century ce. Stucco, 9 3/4" high.
Victoria and Albert Museum, London
sigh.....
i also like john bisbee's work too. he does a lot of work with large nails.
nevermore..
"Inborn talent" ?
"talent in handling the brush and palette... hammer and chisel" ?
This makes it as if artists and sculptors are damned from birth to deal with yesterday's tools.
The concept as the material and the creative mind as the (primary) tool, and production through a project team. This is the reality. The artist is often just the marketable name of an ensemble cast. It was thus even when the tools were restricted to stone and canvas
To ringfence art as that made in oil or marble to represent classical beauty by someone innately talented is kinda backwards. I accept the value of what has gone before, but that does not mean it has value for going forward. Our tools can give so much more, and our cultures are that much more intricate.
Well-stated PsyArch. but I would add "...exclusive..." between your second "has" and the word "value".
Keep in mind nevermore that looking at anything historical from the perspective of standing in 2006, your vision is impacted by the object's age. There is some part of your mind saying "If it has survived this long it must have value..." and that reading is impossible to entirely escape. The corollary is, looking at contemporary art you are forced to ask yourself if the object might or might not be "valuable" enough to survive our culture for the next 5 centuries. It's hard to say that about a really cool pile of big nails (nice, e!) as compared to a cast bronze figure - but I don't necessarily think one is any less valuable than the other. It depends on the idea behind its construction whether it will remain valuable to culture, or not.
I just gave examples of classical art..they are not exhaustive of classicism neither of art.
Psyarch wrote-->"The concept as the material and the creative mind as the (primary) tool, and production through a project teamThis is the reality."
The value of the end product of what comes after the concept material is ,I believe ,the final reality.
Michelangelo,Van Gogh ,Leonardo vinci or any of the past masters , I assume were not part of an ensemble cast...so Im afraid, I dont know what you are talking of ?
Could you kindly elucidate with examples ?
I never "ringfenced" art in way whatsover..i merely gave examples of what I consider as a superior expression of art (irrespective of tools , irrespective of medium)..and Libertybell , it is also supremely aloof from the bondage of time.
The monalisa is admired for its subtlety ,intricacy ,composition..scarcely for its antique value.
i'll second quite a few of the ones mentioned previously (especially calder, serra, beuys, smithson, oldenburg)
i can't believe that no one has listed jeff koons...
sorry about the large images...don't know how to resize...
also surprised that no one has mentioned damien hirst
I actually get to drive by Calder's studio from time to time and there are still works of art in the yard....it has to be my favorite grouping in this country. Across the pond is Henry Moores studio north of London, where the sheep ramble around his works in the pasture.
Well of course on one's mentioned Jeff Koons - cuz his work sucks!!!
I'm kidding. It's significant in the recent history of art, but leaves a bad taste of commercialism in my mouth. I mean that Wim Delvoye I posted of the deer in the missionary position is soooo much more interesting than Jeff and his wife doing the same. That's all I have time to say as I'm out the door.
nevermore...i actually do think you are putting a very strict
interpretation of what art is...saying what is 'superior' in art
is completely subjective....your example, for instance, of the
mona lisa is completely as seen through the lens of time...
the fact that it was da vinci, the fact that it was one of the first
examples of true representation...but i would also argue that
you're seeing beauty through the lens of an art history class..
the mona lisa was avant garde/ super modern in its time...
most art as seen by its contemporaries is seen through the
lens of the 'shock of the new'...many of our most famous
paintings (such as van gogh's) were laughed at, or mocked,
at the time of their first exposition...
also...all the past masters DEFINITELY had helpers...even more
so than today...masters like da vinci and michelangelo had to
have helpers to mix paints, help stretch canvas etc...as well
as just to learn and pay for the masters life/work as apprentices..
and much of the problem with attributing authorship to new
found paintings by the old masters is determining what was
truly painted by them or not...even when they did paint the face
or the like..many times the painting of the clothing or secondary
features was left to apprenticed helpers...michelangelo had
many helpers on the sistine chapel for instance...
LB, i agree with you about koons...i've never been too sure how i feel about his work...i was just remarking that no one has mentioned him...
has anyone seen the iconoclasts series on the sundance channel...there was one that featured tom ford interviewing jeff koons...it was pretty interesting...offered some insight into koons' work...although i was still left wondering if it was all still just a big joke on the art world...
The mona lisa is/was admired because it was the first portrait to be set in front of a landscape, and was using perspective in a novel way. It is also shrouded in mystery of the subject, and its many thefts.
Michelangelo's studio assistants included Francesco Granacci, Giovanni Angelo Montorsoli and Marcello Venusti. He didn't do it all. Perhaps sometimes the faces, or the clothes. Van Gogh was a loner you are correct there.
Richard Serra uses the same engineer as Frank Gehry.
Andy Warhol often only signed his works, without having so much as commissioned them.
Cattelan and Hirst have teams of craftsmen making their work.
You place artistic value in the final reality, and I hope that you mean the difference it makes to those who view it, their realities.
Much as we are aware of Moore's Law (the doubling of computer processing power every 18 months), so there is something similar in the power output of Art. To parody, to satirise, to announce, to intrigue, to (insert verb of your choice), it gets better every day...
People do still make "beautiful art", but, like the ladies, is beauty enough ?
I need substance, subversion, humour, intrigue, sex, death, and I get it from El Greco as much as I get it from Francis Bacon or Matthew Barney. I would not applaud a painter today for recreating an El Greco. Computers can do that without human intervention.
architphil - To resize the image, after the image name (usually .jpg or the like), leave a space, then type
width=418
before the final set of brackets. No space between 418 and the final bracket.
"....substance,subversion, humour, intrigue, sex, death..." I like the way you think, Psyarch! If I justwant beauty, I'll look at Brad Pitt.
apologies for the ranting. Who has more pretty pictures ?
Like a lust for chocolate I want more pretty pictures:
me immortalised:
I wish...
Elmgreen & Dragset
can anybody explain why some of the linked images above will appears sometimes, and then when you open this thread at another time, some image links will just show up as a "box with an x" ?
this pile of copper plumbing parts, appropriately called 'chain reaction' stands on a prime spot in santa monica civic center. because sta monica is a sister city with hirosima or something. it kind of moves little bit on windy days not because it supposed to but because chains made from elbows and couplers, which are hollow.
a winner. it calls for more metaphors other than the atom bomb.
all said. to me, sculptures are like the 'poems' of visual arts.
- this has been a great thread so far - i've learned a lot about sculptors i never really recognized before - this is a passionate group of folks - thanks a ton
Here is one for all you radical architect types: http://www.wildstyleinc.com/
Oh, dear. Wild Style Inc.
I honestly don't know what to say.
louise bourgeois
first attempt at posting an image so forgive me if it doesn't work...
i like these things...
im really diggin this guy right now
Kenneth A. Huff
Since people seem to be enjoying the pretty pictures, here are some female sculptors who have definitely affected my work:
Jackie Winsor – a piece of plywood wrapped in rope, from 1975 I think
This brick piece, god, it really quiets me. Love it. From 1971 – early grrl power!
Eva Hesse's 1967 box Accession: its a metal grid with rubber tubing shoved trhough to the inside - had a huge affect on my grad school work:
Cathy de Monchaux – her work often uses repetitive machined metal parts, but they're so body-like. This is about 8" long
lb, great references
i'm into furry stuff lately
these are patrick dougherty's sapling sculptures
these are theo jansen's walking beasts
Flank Steak and Black Button Thread
wow - I knew the steak dress but never seen the steak chair - suddenly I'm rethinking the upholstery on my couch..
more grrrrl stuff
oops, would be nice to give her name: rebecca horn
Another Architect Sculptor: Tim Prentice: http://www.timprentice.com/index_framev2.html
How do you post an image inhere ?
If you look at the grey text underneath the "post a response box" (i.e. where I am now typing) it shows you the code.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.