Sergio Munoz-Sarmiento, from the CLANCCO site I mentioned and linked to in the previous post, has posted a Buchel argument which refers to both anaba and JL of Modern Kicks, and he's re-posted it on both of our blogs in our comments sections (Modern Kicks here, me here).
Sergio doesn't link to our blogs so that his readers can decide how well (or not) he is representing us, and his blog only allows approved comments, so...
Sergio –
I was thinking that the installation, and the experience of it, was to be the artwork… but you are saying that the individual objects which were to comprise the installation are each artworks, independent of each other, and that their individual artistic autonomy is not conditional upon realization of the proposed installation.
Andre Breton defined the ready-made as “manufactured objects promoted to the dignity of objects of art through the choice of the artist”, and Marcel Duchamp never clearly defined the term.
I’m curious about how your claim applies to objects such as the house, one of the objects that Buchel has clearly expressed his rejection of… including in his statement released to the Boston Globe - “firstly, this is not the house that Christoph selected”. Two paragraphs later Buchel says “the museum ended up saving a few hundred dollars on purchasing a cheaper option of mobile home that was not approved by the artist”.
Your rape analogy is not clear to me... if, as you state in the rape comparison, “the intent of either party is irrelevant”, than couldn’t it be argued that whatever intent those objects may have initially signified became irrelevant once Buchel abandoned the project? Wouldn’t they revert back to non-art? Again, I’m not clear on what your point was there.
“To continue to argue that Büchel was not physically present when the art objects were obtained and installed is to continue the romanticized and worn our argument of authenticity, aura, and the hand-made art object—a theory eviscerated by Duchamp and which any first-year art student from any two-year institution quickly learns. As Emma Bloomfield rightly points out, “I have never heard of a ready-made be called ‘a material.’”
Ugh, Clannco, maybe I gave you to much credit when I asked those questions on your blog.
To continue arguing? Who is arguing that, or who are you saying is arguing what? I’m not getting what you’re trying to say. My belief is that the art is whatever Buchel says it is, and if he isn’t saying the unfinished installation is art, and isn’t claiming the individual objects to be art, than none of it is art, and the museum can do whatever it wants with it. I’m so into ideas of replication, reproduction, and approximation in absentia that I’d be thrilled if the museum would take the tarps off the disavowed house, clear everything else completely out of the gallery, and open the exhibition as Christoph Buchel Approximately.
Who is Emma Bloomfield? You lost me.
“The fact that the museum executed his commands to obtain and purchase the objects based on his drawings and model solidify the fact that the objects at this point were no longer materials but evidently art objects.”
I read Buchel’s statement as evidence that the museum in fact failed to execute his commands to obtain the desired materials.
“follow Skadden Arps’ wounded lead…”
Wrong. My first post on this was May 16, after visiting the museum and after reading the Geoff Edgers article, but before the museum had announced it’s decision to cancel the Buchel show and open Made at Mass Moca. I did eventually notice the Skadden ISP showing up and checking out those Buchel posts, but had no idea who they might be working for or if they were even involved, including when I posted a June 18 shout-out to them. I am not aware of any efforts by Skadden to make contact with or influence any media.
“is what any first year law student learns during the first week of law school”
+
“also known to any first year law student under contract law”
+
“which any first-year art student from any two-year institution quickly learns”
=
Super Annoying. Assuming the voice of authority is NOT working.
PLUS: here is JL's response
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In the fuller response to Sergio's comments that I'm planning I'll take up some of the same issues, but I'd just like to note one of the many inaccuracies in his piece, namely the idea that you and I are arguing the same things to the same conclusions. We have touched on similar points, but my ultimate conclusion is actually something not far off from Sergio's position as stated in his analysis of MASS MoCA's arguments. So, for instance, you're absolutely right that his statement the various items in the gallery are themselves independent artworks--and for a guy who hurls a lot of contempt around, that's a pretty stupid remark--rather than elements that were supposed to part of a single larger artwork, the installation, is incorrect. But still, I think Büchel has a proper claim (if the facts are as he says) because these objects constitute an incomplete artwork that MASS MoCA interfered with and now seeks to display against his will and in violation of his moral rights as codified in VARA, etc. In any event, we'll see what the court says.
good thing sergio isn't working for buchel, cause skadden would eat him for lunch.
sergio still hasn't "approved" my comment yet... what a chicken.
Post a Comment