Art films

I'm not sure if you receive the OVATION channel on TV... in case you're not familiar with it... it is the "art" network covering dance, music, architecture, art, etc. Every now-and-then they feature some compelling visual art programming... the usual bio-documentary of the usual blue chip artists from the pantheon of history. But all-things-being-equal, in order to up-the-ante info-wise... these documentaries delve deeper and deeper into more and more obscure aspects of a given artist's time period and/or life, etc.

The best of all of these documentaries are without exception all BBC productions. For example.. there is a series "The Art of Spain" which covers from the Arab/Moor occupation of Iberia through the present in three or four one-hour installations. These are mostly history studies and not necessarily art discussions.

There is a series called "Every Picture Tells a Story;" which covers obscure factoids and details on a given artist's life and work. Currently, there are only a few in circulation/released. Among them... the one covering Manet is very informative. To see this one... (if you don't receive Ovation) go to Manet 

BUT... something that might be more down-your-alley would be "THE MONA LISA CURSE." This is a documentary featuring Robert Hughes' survey of how the art world/market (particualrly in the U.S.) changed between 1960 and the present. It has plenty of vintage footage and is very entertaining... but more importantly... it is significant for orientation. For example... the "change" in the art world/market has changed so drastically over our lifetime (literally since the late 60s) that whether one aligns with or against Hughes' aesthetics... his take on the change from art-as-unique-cultural-expression/object to art-as-pure-investment-commodity is accurate.

This is a one-hour documentary worth viewing.... you can see it online below in 12 installments...

Mona Lisa Curse 

Cezzane, Picasso, Velazquez, El Greco, Pollock

Well... as time proceeds certain "rends" become commonplace. For example, Cezzanne was still foreign to many eyes in the 1950s... much less Picasso at his more "daring."

Education of the viewer is imperative in order to "read," "digest" and thus being to "value" the work justly. Education of the artist is imperative in order to avoid blindly repeating decades old homework. Sometimes neither are "educated."

Beginning with Velazquez and his contemporaries Rembrandt and Rubens... an optical shorthand was employed. A chunk of white read as a highlight at 12 paces.... loosely scumbled raw umber over a washy ochre read as shadow on skin at 10 paces... willy-nilly calligraphic yellow-white brushstrokes read as fine lace borders at 8 paces...etc., etc. I consider these to be purely "optical" gestures. Gestures (brushstrokes) exclusively at the service of illusion and psychological texture. Velazquez was arguably one of the first artists to feature amorphic non-space(s) atmospheres behind his portrait subjects.

Now of course, the then "eccentric" El Greco was 50 years ahead of Velazquez and arguably the precursor of "modern space/ambience" if only because of his influence on the lynchpins of modernity (primarily Picasso). See the attached JPEG and tell me if this isn't a great great grand parent of Demoseilles de Avignon's treatment of atmosphere, sky, fabric and presence. But alas, El Greco was not "seen" to be an appropriate "example" in Velzaquez's court environment.

So... from Delacroix onwards... gestures become more and more performance recordings... until the ultimate painting performance "record" in the form of drip paintings issue from The Springs, L.I., NY courtesy of Pollack. The point being that by the time we fast forward to Basquiat the gesture is to be read the way we read a dance performance or a rather and more accurately... the way we read a soccer match or basketball game. Action... stop... start... upset... time-out... action... stop... upset... action, etc., etc.

The brushstrokes are no longer servicing illusionism exclusively... now they serve as both sign system AND performance record. Basquiat in particular is closer to Dylan than to Chopin. Meaning... one can not "hear" Dylan by listening to him the way one would listen to Chopin. One can not read Basquiat the way one reads Da Vinci.

These seemingly minor "differences" are after all important because as artists... it is significant that we continually refine.... tweak... purify... muddy... clarify... retract... on and on. All at the service of refining our animate resonance... our core animate energy... soul... whatever. Art is the poetic... plastic... birth child of the homo sapien requiring challenging gestation and issues like a real pregnancy.

I think THAT is why it is difficult to self-promote and pursue group shows, etc. It is like those television newstories that cover the female child beauty pageants wherein children of 3 to 6 are tarted up and taught to "shake that booty" on a runway. Most group shows, galleries, etc. feel exactly like that to me. The other "kids" misbehave... have "richer parents" with connections... and ultimately the judges are susceptible to meaningless flash.

Well you get the picture...

As for the skill set... remember... "picture making" is "picture making" whether you are drawing, painting, making a still image or a moving image. The act requires manifold skills... creative direction for subject matter, impact treatment and quality control... art direction for composition and color scheme/lighting/pacing... production for hand rendering/camera handling and technique definition...

The thing to do is to be honest with one's self and determine which of these skills are one's strong suit... and then being one's own best friend... make work that highlights those skills and therefore benefits the strength of the result.

It is extremely rare to find a sensibility that can excell at one of those skills... much less all three at the same time. That is probably why you feel like you are only at a six grade level; you need to focus on the very attainable results you can achieve and make those a stand out.

More and more I see and comprehend why Picasso went from figure to still life to portrait to small group of figures to still life to portrait to figures to still life to.... by keeping the "subject parameters" simple and non-complex... he could use all of his concentration to focus on the real subject which was of course "best technique for the style... which was a style-not-yet-known-as-a-style." Picasso discovered early on that the oscillation between what is "said," "implied" or "shown" and the object reality of how he communicates this through paint is precisely where the "idea" resides. He forces it to "live" in the act of "reading" the paint by forcing the viewer (of that time) to read pro-actively.

Club Moral 1984

During 1984, The History of Unheard Music performed at various venues across Europe. Mendoza and Pendleton found simple supplies at a small stationary store in Antwerp, Belgium--created an installation to accompany the evening show at Club Moral Gallery. It was quite cold during early December and the gallery proprietor was a wonderful woman who made us a memorable meal, a simple warm dish of pasta with cabbage that was so well appreciated the night of our arrival that I have been re-creating that dish for 25 years.

Girl with Camera, Post-Modern, John Lurie

He wrote:

Girl With Camera

Obviously with today's ubiquitous cameras every young girl is a Dora Mar or a Cindy Sherman...

This is most likely just one tiny example in the trend of uber-millions...

He wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding the unabashed narcissism oozing out of the photos in question. Truth be told... most contemporary art has (for the past 20+ years) had an overwhelming narcissistic bent; arguably some more than others. Obviously this can be traced back to Pablo, Dali, Mick Jagger, etc. and of course your good friend Julian who ploys and coys around in his PJs as if he's a humbled "broken" genius merely channeling the wonders that mere mortals can not ordinarily receive without the service of the "artist."

If advertising (i.e., modern communications) has taught me anything is is that any and all messages sent are paid for. Meaning if it is purposefully transmitted as "communication" then there is an agenda behind it. Granted, some agendas have altruistic concerns... we can generously place religions, political ideologies and fact based information into this camp. But an "unconclusional" transmission is ineffective. We are at a stage where non-sense has accrued sense and therefore (as evident in TV commercials) it is now the degree of cleverness in exploiting the non-sense that resonates over-and-above the usual "sense."

This has always been the purview of comedy. But remember, the old saw concerning 20th century art... "My kid cousin could paint that!" The realization that it makes no sense to treat the non-event as an event renders it non-sense and thus it is "comedy;" and as such begs for the response wherein in order to "make sense" of the experience... which is simply a primitive way of "mastering" the transmission... the non-sense quotient needs to be angled such that a "fraud of sense" has been perpetrated. Further, when one "see through it," then the ""joke circuit" is complete.

Remember, most people enjoy "modern" art not because they get it... but because it is amusing to "observe" the degree to which the "experience of new art" is entertaining, redundant, abhorrent, sublime, etc. In short, as Rembrandt observed... "all is vanity." Of course this is ultimately true because each artist regardless of what they do or make are at-the-end-day championing their opinion on what art is and more importantly about what "their" art is.

As I've indicated in previous conversations... the disconnect from participating in a "human endeavor" and the fervent embracing of the self-promotional is the hallmark of 20th century "art-as-entertainment." This as opposed to "art-as-philosophy," or "art-as-thought-enhancing-process" (e.g. Rothko, Motherwell, Messiaen... or even Richter to a point).

Now, what I found to be a correlation in those aforementioned photo sites was not the subject matter nor subject treatment... but rather the accumulative skill set. Again, truth-be-told... Michelangelo, Louis David, Carravagio, Titian, Tintoretto, Velazquez, Van Dyck and Rembrandt (among many others) were the supreme precursors of "film stills." They are most obviously "illustrating" scenes from religious, literature and history prior to the convenience and accuracy of the camera. The moving picture understandably is the winner in that game.... on a superficial level.

Much as current bio-pics can "out-experience" a magazine article, book or stage play; but the moving picture most times renders the viewer castrated, passive and unengaged. Only a painting or a fine photograph can "take on" the mantle of "otherness" and actually possess a "presence." To-be-sure, there are paintings that have a much higher palpable "object presence" than many living organisms.

So... I agree that since a craft is replicable... and since ideas are repeated in ad finitum... that the surest way to render one's output "bullet-proof unique" is to inject oneself completely into the work. Performance artists since the 60s knew this. Unfortunately, this combined with free market promotion/advertising has rendered art as tool that has come to be a celebrity spring board.

When the resonance of one's energy/soul/presence can only "attempt" to come to the fore through an acceptance of and participation in the non-sense act then there will be a myriad of "monkey-sees, monkey do-s." Therein again is why there is so much concentration on the so-called "edge," the exaltation of supposed taboo acts and behaviors (dangerous or questionable sexuality, occult, civil disobedience, etc.).

I've been studying a book on contemporary Chinese art. Very western approaches... very contemporary... and not so shabby. Of course there is a shitload of redundant redoing of European and American art ideas from the last 100 years. There is even one artist that literally makes installations almost as if they were using our Club Moral (see more on that in next post) Antwerp installation as a bible/blueprint. Seriously. Of course the only change being that the artist runs around naked through the installation covered in dripping paint.

Also, thanks for the Lurie link...

John Lurie: The Drawing Show

Agreed... very strange murder threat afoot and drawing, etc. Of course we'll eventually find out that both of them were in cahoots as a weird promotion of something or other... at the very least it has put Lurie back in "some" limelight albeit not a powerful beacon of a limelight as of yet. That's the other lesson... even weird and outright bad PR is better than being an unknown. Of course I being the prince-in-waiting for the mantle of most unknown/underknown/and never known wouldn't really know anything about "self-promotion."

I wrote:

I opened those Fickr links. I have to say that the work doesn't engage me at all. It's too self-conscious. Unlike Cindy Sherman, who transformed herself as an actor in the stills, these women seem to be the star of their own little world. I guess that is so much a refection of the time we live in. The images are too nice looking...too much process. I prefer to work in a more straightforward way.