ok...so I have this interpreted as seeing someone of power infused with sex...
but isn't that the problem we have had with the belief in a female president?!? (and yes sadly I have heard people really questioning her female attributes rather than her abilities.)
while no I do not hope she is our next pres...(as of now) I do hope a minority does reach that hilltop SOON. and I do hope that we are able to argue the attributes of her policy...not her femininity
Seriously, it's a BUST, she has female breasts, breasts are part of a bust. It's idealized - IT"S SCULPTURE, it's suppoed to be idealized - it's a modern classical bust.
Americans gotta chill the fuck out about sex.
This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just anticipating some kind of morality backlash.
i doubt if a senator will ever be elected president. they have too many skeletons in the closet. too many votes than can be spun against them. ie senator vadoretro voted against giving one billion dollars to the troops. he is unpatriotic and supports terrorism. oh he wanted to give them two billion, oh nevermind...the dems will win with a governor from the south who is a populist. a little like hillary's stay at home husband...
vado- actually, I remember in AP government senior year of high school learning that statistically, senators and governors have the best chances of being elected president.
I'm still undecided on Hillary: frankly, I wish a stronger progressive candidate would emerge- someone with charisma, reasonable policies, and not so much negative history. But if it doesn't happen, I think I'd support her.
I'm still inclined to Vote....Liberman/Nader...or Nader/Liberman...
I don't think anyone will be flashing sexual parts....Least I hope not....as it would be disguisting....
The bigger problem here is what that object says about the state of the art world: when Jeff Koons did Michael Jackson and Bubbles it was ironic and new and had a cool slick quality that made it interesting. This guy does lousy Britney and Hillary likenesses with odd sexual content and people get all worked up: as sculpture, it's sensationalist crap - let's please ignore it.
I'm still hoping for a Hillary v. Condi election this time round. Go sisters.
LB - do you really feel this Hilary sculpture is oddly sexual? It's not a great likeness I agree, I mean it resembles more my third grade teacher but I think making a modern bust, a neo-classical art form typicaly reserved for important male figures, especially heroic male political figures is actually fairly intriguing and as far as sexual content well - so shes got breasts and they're slightly idealized but not perversely so at least not anymore than a classical bust. It's interesting I wonder if your reaction to this sculpture is colored by your opinion of the Britney sculpture.
And to the Britney sculpture - definitely creepy sexual overtones - but I think that was more of a reaction to our obsession with Britney as a sexual object, and how preverse that is when combined graphically with preganancy. It's a pretty clear and damning critique of our present culture I would say, despite once again the only vague resemblance to a likeness of Britney Spears.
Ooops, I did it again - I guess I can't ignore it.
Thanks for intelligent discsussion urbanspec (and your comments on another thread made me crack up last night - that thing about jasoncross's pants chapping him...anyway...)!
The thing I hate about this guy's work is he's using unauthorized representations of celebrity with unauthorized sexual content to get people to look. That's the entirety of his content: to get people to look. He can say he wants to spark discussion about sexuality and celebrity but honestly I think the only celebrity he's interested in is bolstering his own. Maybe that's why anyone makes art, but he's using other's accomplishments to give him a jumpstart and I've never appreciated that approach.
The likenesses are bad, there's no life-breath in these human portrayals. They exist to be scandalous, and not in a healthy way like for example the work of Mark Quinn.
If this was a bust commissioned by Hillary for public display, I'd feel very differently about it. But looking at it in context, I hate it and think it's self-serving crap by someone calling himself an "artist".
if i were making comparisons of the hilary bust to other historical precedents, i would (as a degreed art historian who studied under the chairman of the neh) compare this piece to roman republican sculpture of the first century b.c., rather than neo-classical sculpture, which in a historical context ran from 1760-1850. except for the boob lift, i don't see the idealization that is found in neoclassical sculpture.
LB - I would say that artist intention (seeking celebrity for instance) is only a part (how big a part is certainly debatable) of the importance of any given art work. I would argue that in fact it is how an artwork is experienced culturally, through public discourse and professional critique, as well as personally through intellectual, emotional, and physical response that an art work's importance should be judged.
I think criticizing the "unauthorized" nature of the work is a unfair - it is in the nature of contemporary art to employ the images of the surrounding world with all of their inherent cultural meaning, be they famous human beings or monumental places, or scientific concepts, or sliced up cows.
Thanks for the Mark Quinn reference, I don't know his work but I'll check it out.
Vado: you probably know a hell of a lot more than me about the history of art. But let's give it a go, let's say that the modern western interpretation of sculptural form orginated in greek classicism. But we won't get into that specifically since you reference the Romans, who are obviously the next in the historical line. So, with respect to the Republic the following can be said:
"In the Republic, public sculpture included honorific portrait statues of political officials or military commanders erected by the order of their peers in the Senate. These statues were typically erected to celebrate a noted military achievement, usually in connection with an official triumph, or to commemorate some worthy political achievement, such as the drafting of a treaty."
And,
"Official imperial portrait types...were carefully designed to project specific ideas about the emperor, his family, and his authority. These sculptures were extremely useful as propaganda tools intended to support the legitimacy of the emperor's powers."
So this sets up a historical framework for the meaning of this type of art.
Now if we move to the neo-classical, which is a revival more directly of the Greeks than the Romans, but we'll overlook that for now we can say this:
So I would say upon reading the historical lineage of this form of sculpture a fairly powerful statement is created by the Hillary bust (once again regardless of the desires/aims/goals of the artist). There is an unmistakeable historical context which imbues the sculpture with meaning, with respect to representation of politcal power, propoganda, and sensual idealization of form, on top of gender politics. I mean there is a lot of shit going on here!
Sorry this post is so long - but this is good stuff. Vado - what do you think? Are these statements accurate?
yes the roman republic honored its leaders as all civilizations do. however, stylistically the realism found in the republican scu;ptures is not found in "classical", "neoclassical" or "roman imperial sculpture". i was merely pointing out that, in my view, the work resembled roman republican sculpture, rather than neoclassical sculpture. i would argue that this bust of hillary is not based on the "beau ideal". as far as the work carrying meaning in respect to political power, propaganda and sensual idealization of form and of gender politics, well perhaps the artist should have based his work on the venus of willendorf.
Well, I think that the Hillary bust does in fact resemble NeoClassical busts more so than roman republican sculpture, not just in form but in cultural content, and that it is the bust's manipulation of that content that makes it legitmately interesting.
You would argue that the bust is not based on the "beau ideal" but don't because....you're shy?
Hey, I love the Venus, but what does a prehistoric sculpture of fecundity have to do with anything?
i would argue it doesnt because i am comparing it to roman republican sculpture rather than neoclassical. therefore, the beau ideal would not apply. fecundity and gender politics, that is, in appropriating the historical and applying a post modern varnish, any image is fair game.
urbanspec, I don't know much about art history, so I'll just address your first two paragraphs, though my comment may end up incorporating some of what you and vado are discussing anyway.
I would say that artist intention (seeking celebrity for instance) is only a part (how big a part is certainly debatable) of the importance of any given art work. I would argue that in fact it is how an artwork is experienced culturally, through public discourse and professional critique, as well as personally through intellectual, emotional, and physical response that an art work's importance should be judged.
I think criticizing the "unauthorized" nature of the work is a unfair - it is in the nature of contemporary art to employ the images of the surrounding world with all of their inherent cultural meaning, be they famous human beings or monumental places, or scientific concepts, or sliced up cows.
I agree with your sentiments, of course, but I am married to a sculptor, so I find it impossible to remove intent from content. That's the way I engage with the art world, I basically have no dispassionate critical distance. In the case of the Britney sculpture, I'm not as concerned with the maker as I am with the Hillary: Britney is a celebrity, Hillary is a politician, in fact she's a Senator. Any information we read about a political figure should always be tracked back to its source, because that helps one understand the motive behind putting the info out there.
If this was an official aka authorized portrait, a la the Presidential portrait that happens every administration, it would be worthy of an entirely different level of consideration (more like the neo-classical intent you discussed: to portray someone in a certain light for idealized political reasons). But it's not: it's made by an artist who specializes in scandalous celebrity images, or so it appears to me. In that regard, it pisses me off because I think this country deserves and needs to have a serious discussion of female sexuality, power, and political issues, as well as a discussion about sexuality at elder ages, but stupid objects like this one will only derail that discussion (except of course among the brilliant citizens of Archinect, who could have an intelligent, illuminating, interesting discussion of serious cultural issues while looking at a doorknob, that's how good we all are!).
I'll add too: the best "sexual" sculpture I've seen in a long long time is this one:
Wim Delvoye. And that's in Indianapolis, kids!
my position regarding intent is in line with urbanspec's (I think).
...to expand: Intention belongs not only to the artist,
but also to the viewer and exhibitor.
From the start, this adds complexity to the experience of any work of "art." Not only do each of us bring our own personal conditioning to the reading of a work (as lb has demonstrated above), we are also subject to setting - in this case, a thread on archinect, co-presented by cf and urbanspec. Thankfully this particular setting encourages discourse and rumination, rather than a distant, detached glance in passing.
also, lb, I find your position re: political art interesting - Any information we read about a political figure should always be tracked back to its source, because that helps one understand the motive behind putting the info out there.
for you (lacking a "dispassionate critical distance"), the artist's intent is an important aspect of aesthetic experience.
do you feel the same way regardless of the subject matter?
lb, isn't there another version of the same sculpture, indoors using stuffed deer? or is there more than one artist placing deer in the missionary position?
in reference to your position on the unauthorised nature of the work I would have to disagree about the validity of the perception of a politician as subject manner, I think the public focus on sexuality as the defining characteristic of female politicians is a subject worthy of comment, hopefully as you say in a serious manner. however it is disappointing that the sculpture never really gets past the cheap shots that characterise most discussion about women and sexuality in politics. perhaps it was his intention to highlight the shallowness of the discussion, but in that case it seriously lacks any real irony, apart from the simplistic idea of using the form of a bust as a reference to historical political representation.
LB - like the human-organ-musical-instruement amalgam motif in your man's art.
In the end Vado I'm just saying the sculpture fits with an historical type - although the artist doesn;t do a lot with it - the Mark Quinn stuff is a lot better - I hope that the Mary Boone gallery here in NYC has a show of his soon.
And as far as intent goes, LB you're actually critiquing the work not on the artist's intent, but on what you believe was his intent based on your interpretation. So, when I said before that artist intention is a small part (perhaps irrelevant? AP?) to the meaning of a piece of art you would have to agree because you have completely discounted his declared intention. Which I think AP would have a word or two to about.
I would like to hear about any successful explicitly political art (as in about politcians) focussing on gender issues that any of you know about.
And as far as intent goes, LB you're actually critiquing the work not on the artist's intent, but on what you believe was his intent based on your interpretation. So, when I said before that artist intention is a small part (perhaps irrelevant? AP?) to the meaning of a piece of art you would have to agree because you have completely discounted his declared intention
Agreed, urbanspec, my critique is based on my interpretation of intent. Whose isn't? As for this artist's declared intention, a brief google when I first saw your image posted above didn't give me any meaty results, and I don't find the work interesting enough to continue searching. So yes I've formed a shallow critique that I think is sufficient to the piece, for me, because I don't think the piece is very good, and it's presented in the Museum of Sex (which goes to AP's point about context), which adds to the titillation factor and reduces the "serious art" factor. As to your last sentence, I don't really know of any contemporary explicitly political work that is good art, period, though lots of it generates good discussion, as witnessed on this thread.
Wim Delvoye also did the stuffed version of Trophy, upside down. and I agree with your second paragraph, does that make us in agreement even though you say you disagree with me? Now I' a little confused and it's pre-coffee on a Monday morning, what am I doing trying to discuss this now?!?
AP, yes, every made object I look at I perceive by thinking about the maker's intent. To me art is defined by intent, and (to me) most contemporary art has a search for fame for the artist as a pretty large intentional component. I tend away from this type of work, because it feels less authentic to me. But that's contemporary life: most artists want to be famous, and who can blame them? I'd love to have been the photographer who shot those first pictures of Brad and Angelina on the beach in Africa and sold them to the Star for a reported half a million, but I don't think those pictures were art. I'd put the Hillary bust on roughly the same level - though, again, it is sparking an interesting discussion here, and for that I think the artist has achieved a certain kind of success, though, again, (again) I owe that more to the level of inquiry on the part of archinecters than to the quality of the work. I also tend to not like the architecture designs of people I think are assholes, so there you go. I'm not dispassionate.
Yes, this sculpture fits with a historical notion of political busts, and yes, that is an interesting comparison. It would be more interesting if it was of better quality - and it's of poor quality because the artists isn't a very skilled craftsman, there's no subtlety here, either materially or in content. It initially appears to present serious cultural issues of sexuality and power - but its presentation context unfortunately erodes that discussion. If Hillary - or any major female political figure - had directed an artist to do a portrait of her that would raise these topics, that would have been more interesting and culturally significant.
And now I'm getting some coffee and getting to work.
OK, urbanspec, I've had some coffee: I've explained why I dislike this piece to the point that even I'm annoyed at hearing myself talk about it. Tell us why you like the piece: what is good about it?
Well, you're gonna hate me here, but I don't really have strong feelings about the sculpture itself, although now that I've expended so much time discussing it I'm going to have to go see it. I should really check out the Museum of Sex anyway.
My first reaction was just against the drama I thought would ensue over it's percieved sexual overtones - I was worried it would become another "omygodboobsondisplay" kind of argument vs. an actual discussion about what the work means. I actually, through this discussion, have develped the opinion that the work is quite mundane.
Then I got schooled in Art History by Vado.
And then I got all hot and bothered about your desire to dismiss it out of hand so I wanted to argue against that which really fueled most of the rest of my arguments.
My personal opinion about the sculpture, since you ask, is that I don't find it very moving and outsdie of this discussion which I did find very interesting I will probably not give it all that much more thought. We kinda hashed it out here and I think delved about as deeply as one need with this particular work. I think you're right that Mark Quinn is infintely more interesting, and I intend on looking more into his work.
God no, not a thread hijacking. This was IMO a more naturally developing and interesting discussion than I've had here in awhile. Despite the fact that, yeah, as you said: the qaulity of discussion we've had about it is really not merited by the quality of the piece itself!
But I should clarify one thing about the term "serious art" which I used above: I own a lot of pieces by young up-and-coming unknown artists. A couple prints on newsprint I bought for $25 (Ben Woodward), a puffy-pen painting on a magazine ad from the 1950s (can't recall the artist's name), a sock doll by Zoe someone, but not the Zoe Strauss who was in the Biennial last year, about $50 as I recall. They are all, to me, very serious pieces of art despite low prices and cheap materials. But there is some kind of searching evident in all of them: that's an emotional and unproveable term, I know, but that quality of a search for something bigger is what makes them important and interesting to me. I don't care if that Hillary piece is cast in plaster or carved in marble, displayed in the Museum of Sex or the Louvre: in either case, it doesn't strike me as serious, searching, work.
Hillary, Babe! You vex me!!
CF, why vexed?
ok...so I have this interpreted as seeing someone of power infused with sex...
but isn't that the problem we have had with the belief in a female president?!? (and yes sadly I have heard people really questioning her female attributes rather than her abilities.)
while no I do not hope she is our next pres...(as of now) I do hope a minority does reach that hilltop SOON. and I do hope that we are able to argue the attributes of her policy...not her femininity
Seriously, it's a BUST, she has female breasts, breasts are part of a bust. It's idealized - IT"S SCULPTURE, it's suppoed to be idealized - it's a modern classical bust.
Americans gotta chill the fuck out about sex.
This isn't directed at anyone in particular, just anticipating some kind of morality backlash.
anticipating?
The religous right protests Disney for being too inapropriate.
inappropriate, rather.
i doubt if a senator will ever be elected president. they have too many skeletons in the closet. too many votes than can be spun against them. ie senator vadoretro voted against giving one billion dollars to the troops. he is unpatriotic and supports terrorism. oh he wanted to give them two billion, oh nevermind...the dems will win with a governor from the south who is a populist. a little like hillary's stay at home husband...
I think she'll do just fine in her duties as commander and chief no doubt, but I have no confidence in her blow jobs abilities.
vado- actually, I remember in AP government senior year of high school learning that statistically, senators and governors have the best chances of being elected president.
I'm still undecided on Hillary: frankly, I wish a stronger progressive candidate would emerge- someone with charisma, reasonable policies, and not so much negative history. But if it doesn't happen, I think I'd support her.
that's just wrong. funny, but wrong. *sigh*
long live the queen!
Barak Obama! Sen. Illinois (D)
The sculpture is more sexy than that photo.
I'm still inclined to Vote....Liberman/Nader...or Nader/Liberman...
I don't think anyone will be flashing sexual parts....Least I hope not....as it would be disguisting....
i believe the last president to be elected out of the senate was jfk in 1960.
cf she's a woman..dont call her babe.
bush supporters have been really quiet lately [last year or so] --- i wonder why! [are you hiding?]
so whose those bushies hope'n to fill those big W shoes! condi? jeb?
The bigger problem here is what that object says about the state of the art world: when Jeff Koons did Michael Jackson and Bubbles it was ironic and new and had a cool slick quality that made it interesting. This guy does lousy Britney and Hillary likenesses with odd sexual content and people get all worked up: as sculpture, it's sensationalist crap - let's please ignore it.
I'm still hoping for a Hillary v. Condi election this time round. Go sisters.
LB - do you really feel this Hilary sculpture is oddly sexual? It's not a great likeness I agree, I mean it resembles more my third grade teacher but I think making a modern bust, a neo-classical art form typicaly reserved for important male figures, especially heroic male political figures is actually fairly intriguing and as far as sexual content well - so shes got breasts and they're slightly idealized but not perversely so at least not anymore than a classical bust. It's interesting I wonder if your reaction to this sculpture is colored by your opinion of the Britney sculpture.
And to the Britney sculpture - definitely creepy sexual overtones - but I think that was more of a reaction to our obsession with Britney as a sexual object, and how preverse that is when combined graphically with preganancy. It's a pretty clear and damning critique of our present culture I would say, despite once again the only vague resemblance to a likeness of Britney Spears.
Ooops, I did it again - I guess I can't ignore it.
Thanks for intelligent discsussion urbanspec (and your comments on another thread made me crack up last night - that thing about jasoncross's pants chapping him...anyway...)!
The thing I hate about this guy's work is he's using unauthorized representations of celebrity with unauthorized sexual content to get people to look. That's the entirety of his content: to get people to look. He can say he wants to spark discussion about sexuality and celebrity but honestly I think the only celebrity he's interested in is bolstering his own. Maybe that's why anyone makes art, but he's using other's accomplishments to give him a jumpstart and I've never appreciated that approach.
The likenesses are bad, there's no life-breath in these human portrayals. They exist to be scandalous, and not in a healthy way like for example the work of Mark Quinn.
If this was a bust commissioned by Hillary for public display, I'd feel very differently about it. But looking at it in context, I hate it and think it's self-serving crap by someone calling himself an "artist".
if i were making comparisons of the hilary bust to other historical precedents, i would (as a degreed art historian who studied under the chairman of the neh) compare this piece to roman republican sculpture of the first century b.c., rather than neo-classical sculpture, which in a historical context ran from 1760-1850. except for the boob lift, i don't see the idealization that is found in neoclassical sculpture.
LB - I would say that artist intention (seeking celebrity for instance) is only a part (how big a part is certainly debatable) of the importance of any given art work. I would argue that in fact it is how an artwork is experienced culturally, through public discourse and professional critique, as well as personally through intellectual, emotional, and physical response that an art work's importance should be judged.
I think criticizing the "unauthorized" nature of the work is a unfair - it is in the nature of contemporary art to employ the images of the surrounding world with all of their inherent cultural meaning, be they famous human beings or monumental places, or scientific concepts, or sliced up cows.
Thanks for the Mark Quinn reference, I don't know his work but I'll check it out.
Vado: you probably know a hell of a lot more than me about the history of art. But let's give it a go, let's say that the modern western interpretation of sculptural form orginated in greek classicism. But we won't get into that specifically since you reference the Romans, who are obviously the next in the historical line. So, with respect to the Republic the following can be said:
"In the Republic, public sculpture included honorific portrait statues of political officials or military commanders erected by the order of their peers in the Senate. These statues were typically erected to celebrate a noted military achievement, usually in connection with an official triumph, or to commemorate some worthy political achievement, such as the drafting of a treaty."
And,
"Official imperial portrait types...were carefully designed to project specific ideas about the emperor, his family, and his authority. These sculptures were extremely useful as propaganda tools intended to support the legitimacy of the emperor's powers."
So this sets up a historical framework for the meaning of this type of art.
Now if we move to the neo-classical, which is a revival more directly of the Greeks than the Romans, but we'll overlook that for now we can say this:
"In neoclassicism, the male body is burdened with a range of political, social, and sexual meaning." which is expanded. "The suspension of heroic action and the frozen contemplation of male bodily beauty are underscored by the smooth and polished marble surfaces that heighten the sensual quality of the figures. Both works are based on the beau idéal (beautiful ideal)--a tenet of neoclassical sculpture that sought to combine the most beautiful parts of antique statuary and the most beautiful aspects of living models. The beautiful ideal attempted to satisfy a need, at once intellectual and erotic, to forge in art a representation of the beautiful male body." - this by definition is idealized.
So I would say upon reading the historical lineage of this form of sculpture a fairly powerful statement is created by the Hillary bust (once again regardless of the desires/aims/goals of the artist). There is an unmistakeable historical context which imbues the sculpture with meaning, with respect to representation of politcal power, propoganda, and sensual idealization of form, on top of gender politics. I mean there is a lot of shit going on here!
Sorry this post is so long - but this is good stuff. Vado - what do you think? Are these statements accurate?
yes the roman republic honored its leaders as all civilizations do. however, stylistically the realism found in the republican scu;ptures is not found in "classical", "neoclassical" or "roman imperial sculpture". i was merely pointing out that, in my view, the work resembled roman republican sculpture, rather than neoclassical sculpture. i would argue that this bust of hillary is not based on the "beau ideal". as far as the work carrying meaning in respect to political power, propaganda and sensual idealization of form and of gender politics, well perhaps the artist should have based his work on the venus of willendorf.
Well, I think that the Hillary bust does in fact resemble NeoClassical busts more so than roman republican sculpture, not just in form but in cultural content, and that it is the bust's manipulation of that content that makes it legitmately interesting.
You would argue that the bust is not based on the "beau ideal" but don't because....you're shy?
Hey, I love the Venus, but what does a prehistoric sculpture of fecundity have to do with anything?
i would argue it doesnt because i am comparing it to roman republican sculpture rather than neoclassical. therefore, the beau ideal would not apply. fecundity and gender politics, that is, in appropriating the historical and applying a post modern varnish, any image is fair game.
urbanspec, I don't know much about art history, so I'll just address your first two paragraphs, though my comment may end up incorporating some of what you and vado are discussing anyway.
I would say that artist intention (seeking celebrity for instance) is only a part (how big a part is certainly debatable) of the importance of any given art work. I would argue that in fact it is how an artwork is experienced culturally, through public discourse and professional critique, as well as personally through intellectual, emotional, and physical response that an art work's importance should be judged.
I think criticizing the "unauthorized" nature of the work is a unfair - it is in the nature of contemporary art to employ the images of the surrounding world with all of their inherent cultural meaning, be they famous human beings or monumental places, or scientific concepts, or sliced up cows.
I agree with your sentiments, of course, but I am married to a sculptor, so I find it impossible to remove intent from content. That's the way I engage with the art world, I basically have no dispassionate critical distance. In the case of the Britney sculpture, I'm not as concerned with the maker as I am with the Hillary: Britney is a celebrity, Hillary is a politician, in fact she's a Senator. Any information we read about a political figure should always be tracked back to its source, because that helps one understand the motive behind putting the info out there.
If this was an official aka authorized portrait, a la the Presidential portrait that happens every administration, it would be worthy of an entirely different level of consideration (more like the neo-classical intent you discussed: to portray someone in a certain light for idealized political reasons). But it's not: it's made by an artist who specializes in scandalous celebrity images, or so it appears to me. In that regard, it pisses me off because I think this country deserves and needs to have a serious discussion of female sexuality, power, and political issues, as well as a discussion about sexuality at elder ages, but stupid objects like this one will only derail that discussion (except of course among the brilliant citizens of Archinect, who could have an intelligent, illuminating, interesting discussion of serious cultural issues while looking at a doorknob, that's how good we all are!).
I'll add too: the best "sexual" sculpture I've seen in a long long time is this one:
Wim Delvoye. And that's in Indianapolis, kids!
interesting stuff.
my position regarding intent is in line with urbanspec's (I think).
...to expand:
Intention belongs not only to the artist,
but also to the viewer and exhibitor.
From the start, this adds complexity to the experience of any work of "art." Not only do each of us bring our own personal conditioning to the reading of a work (as lb has demonstrated above), we are also subject to setting - in this case, a thread on archinect, co-presented by cf and urbanspec. Thankfully this particular setting encourages discourse and rumination, rather than a distant, detached glance in passing.
also, lb, I find your position re: political art interesting - Any information we read about a political figure should always be tracked back to its source, because that helps one understand the motive behind putting the info out there.
for you (lacking a "dispassionate critical distance"), the artist's intent is an important aspect of aesthetic experience.
do you feel the same way regardless of the subject matter?
lb, isn't there another version of the same sculpture, indoors using stuffed deer? or is there more than one artist placing deer in the missionary position?
in reference to your position on the unauthorised nature of the work I would have to disagree about the validity of the perception of a politician as subject manner, I think the public focus on sexuality as the defining characteristic of female politicians is a subject worthy of comment, hopefully as you say in a serious manner. however it is disappointing that the sculpture never really gets past the cheap shots that characterise most discussion about women and sexuality in politics. perhaps it was his intention to highlight the shallowness of the discussion, but in that case it seriously lacks any real irony, apart from the simplistic idea of using the form of a bust as a reference to historical political representation.
LB - like the human-organ-musical-instruement amalgam motif in your man's art.
In the end Vado I'm just saying the sculpture fits with an historical type - although the artist doesn;t do a lot with it - the Mark Quinn stuff is a lot better - I hope that the Mary Boone gallery here in NYC has a show of his soon.
And as far as intent goes, LB you're actually critiquing the work not on the artist's intent, but on what you believe was his intent based on your interpretation. So, when I said before that artist intention is a small part (perhaps irrelevant? AP?) to the meaning of a piece of art you would have to agree because you have completely discounted his declared intention. Which I think AP would have a word or two to about.
I would like to hear about any successful explicitly political art (as in about politcians) focussing on gender issues that any of you know about.
Agreed, urbanspec, my critique is based on my interpretation of intent. Whose isn't? As for this artist's declared intention, a brief google when I first saw your image posted above didn't give me any meaty results, and I don't find the work interesting enough to continue searching. So yes I've formed a shallow critique that I think is sufficient to the piece, for me, because I don't think the piece is very good, and it's presented in the Museum of Sex (which goes to AP's point about context), which adds to the titillation factor and reduces the "serious art" factor. As to your last sentence, I don't really know of any contemporary explicitly political work that is good art, period, though lots of it generates good discussion, as witnessed on this thread.
Wim Delvoye also did the stuffed version of Trophy, upside down. and I agree with your second paragraph, does that make us in agreement even though you say you disagree with me? Now I' a little confused and it's pre-coffee on a Monday morning, what am I doing trying to discuss this now?!?
AP, yes, every made object I look at I perceive by thinking about the maker's intent. To me art is defined by intent, and (to me) most contemporary art has a search for fame for the artist as a pretty large intentional component. I tend away from this type of work, because it feels less authentic to me. But that's contemporary life: most artists want to be famous, and who can blame them? I'd love to have been the photographer who shot those first pictures of Brad and Angelina on the beach in Africa and sold them to the Star for a reported half a million, but I don't think those pictures were art. I'd put the Hillary bust on roughly the same level - though, again, it is sparking an interesting discussion here, and for that I think the artist has achieved a certain kind of success, though, again, (again) I owe that more to the level of inquiry on the part of archinecters than to the quality of the work. I also tend to not like the architecture designs of people I think are assholes, so there you go. I'm not dispassionate.
Yes, this sculpture fits with a historical notion of political busts, and yes, that is an interesting comparison. It would be more interesting if it was of better quality - and it's of poor quality because the artists isn't a very skilled craftsman, there's no subtlety here, either materially or in content. It initially appears to present serious cultural issues of sexuality and power - but its presentation context unfortunately erodes that discussion. If Hillary - or any major female political figure - had directed an artist to do a portrait of her that would raise these topics, that would have been more interesting and culturally significant.
And now I'm getting some coffee and getting to work.
OK, urbanspec, I've had some coffee: I've explained why I dislike this piece to the point that even I'm annoyed at hearing myself talk about it. Tell us why you like the piece: what is good about it?
Well, you're gonna hate me here, but I don't really have strong feelings about the sculpture itself, although now that I've expended so much time discussing it I'm going to have to go see it. I should really check out the Museum of Sex anyway.
My first reaction was just against the drama I thought would ensue over it's percieved sexual overtones - I was worried it would become another "omygodboobsondisplay" kind of argument vs. an actual discussion about what the work means. I actually, through this discussion, have develped the opinion that the work is quite mundane.
Then I got schooled in Art History by Vado.
And then I got all hot and bothered about your desire to dismiss it out of hand so I wanted to argue against that which really fueled most of the rest of my arguments.
My personal opinion about the sculpture, since you ask, is that I don't find it very moving and outsdie of this discussion which I did find very interesting I will probably not give it all that much more thought. We kinda hashed it out here and I think delved about as deeply as one need with this particular work. I think you're right that Mark Quinn is infintely more interesting, and I intend on looking more into his work.
Thanks for sticking it out.
Did this constitute a thread hijack by the way?
God no, not a thread hijacking. This was IMO a more naturally developing and interesting discussion than I've had here in awhile. Despite the fact that, yeah, as you said: the qaulity of discussion we've had about it is really not merited by the quality of the piece itself!
But I should clarify one thing about the term "serious art" which I used above: I own a lot of pieces by young up-and-coming unknown artists. A couple prints on newsprint I bought for $25 (Ben Woodward), a puffy-pen painting on a magazine ad from the 1950s (can't recall the artist's name), a sock doll by Zoe someone, but not the Zoe Strauss who was in the Biennial last year, about $50 as I recall. They are all, to me, very serious pieces of art despite low prices and cheap materials. But there is some kind of searching evident in all of them: that's an emotional and unproveable term, I know, but that quality of a search for something bigger is what makes them important and interesting to me. I don't care if that Hillary piece is cast in plaster or carved in marble, displayed in the Museum of Sex or the Louvre: in either case, it doesn't strike me as serious, searching, work.
That's all.
Virtual high five.
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.