tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8694556.post113132724636140987..comments2023-11-05T07:44:36.996-05:00Comments on anaba: Surface Charge - Lisa Sigal, Odili Donald Odita, Karin Sander, Ragna RobertsdottirMartinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13383812070175961882noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8694556.post-1131412282257028572005-11-07T20:11:00.000-05:002005-11-07T20:11:00.000-05:00It bores me even more to know that this, like the ...<I>It bores me even more to know that this, like the Sander polishings, is something that just keeps getting reproduced in different places. I resent the ooh-aah promotion as one-time-only! site-specific! transformative! non-products when they are, in fact, no different from any other painting or sculpture that can be delivered and sold.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not commenting on the specific artists involved here, as I don't know their work, won't see the show, etc. But as to your general point: yeah, that's one of the most tired things going. The ostentatious denial of commodification, followed by . . . commodification. So, so tired of it.<BR/><BR/>I'm reminded of that show VH-1 used to do, "Behind the Music." I have a memory of an ad they ran for one episode on the Sex Pistols (or perhaps just Johnny Rotten, or something.) Anyway, there was the Sex Pistols/Public Image LTD frontman, firmly saying to the camera something like (I'm going from memory), "If you don't want to be a pop star, then <I>stop</I>. It's the easiest thing in the world." I think of that when considering work that gets into the whole "commodity" thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8694556.post-1131402910118617752005-11-07T17:35:00.000-05:002005-11-07T17:35:00.000-05:00I think the question that begs to be asked is "How...I think the question that begs to be asked is "How unique is an Art that is obviously anything but unique?" It's not even so bad that it's just another painting that can be bought and sold, it's bad because it's the same painting over and over again. This might've worked in the early 20th century for people like Harry Houdini who could perform the same stunts in different cities and audiences, but at least a traveling circus knows the limitations of its gimmicks. <BR/><BR/>I had a really positive response about the show, I thought it was really good, but at no point was I expecting the specific works you mentioned to be necessarily new or unique. I think Sol Lewitt tried to sell that, decades ago, and apparently someone's still willing to buy into it. "Oh, look at what can be done with cubes..." we all said.<BR/><BR/>I think the overall feeling I had was that I was really glad that such a high-profile type show was being put-together in "such a small-town art environment like" Richmond. The downside of it is that there's a fair amount of showmanship and the sense of being contrived. Hell, you could argue that it was the finest example of Art-World take-out we've ever seen.<BR/><BR/>Would Karen Sander dare explore new work in such a "remote and isolated" place like Richmond, Virginia? How much can we expect hi-profile innovation in a market so far removed from Chelsea and L.A.? These are tough questions for the artists involved... Even if they woke up and said "Eh, it's Richmond... I think I'll throw that old rag up on the wall..." it goes without saying that much of the Richmond cultural elite would stand behind the curators and feel inclined to say "Yes, yes, we love old rags! Thank you, thank you, it's so great!" <BR/><BR/>I suppose we could be upset about the art "table scraps" that we're getting here in the capital of the South, but remember that it could always be worse: we could be in Carolina...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com