"The relations of the parts of a work to each other may be thought of as the rythm of the work and the relations of the parts to the whole of the work may be considered its meter."
"Every work of art is located in space somewhere. A work of mine disappeares when placed in storage exactly the way your lap disappeares when you stand up. My sculpture is completed only when it is experienced by someone other than myself. Art, like justice, must be seen to be done."
"I was aware of poetry as an art before I was aware of sculpture as an art. Before I could read, I delighted in the shapes of poems on the page. Later, in poetry and sculpture, I attempted, not to arrange elements to express a previous experience, but to arrange elements to create a new experience never encountered before."
"Objectivly, my work is part of a human tradition that extends back to the dawn-time of our existance. Stonehenge in England provided my most powerful early experience of sculpture."
"Every work of art that exists is someplace. Occupies some space. Any sculpture can be analyzed in terms of form, structure, place, and material. For me, there can never be an art of ideas because ideas are linguistic constructs. Art for me must always be a material intermediation between human sensibilities, in real space and time".
"I work in the horizontal plane because that offers a more efficient disposition of a given mass than a vertical stack does. The area above a horizontal work becomes much more part of its territory than does tha area around a vertical stack."
"The mass of materials has always interested me. The mass of an object on the earth and on the moon is the same, its weight is different. My sculpture has a great deal to do with the relations betweeen mass volume and area. A gram of gold can be beaten into a 6 square foot sheet or a wire 1.5 miles long. The properties of matter fascinates and inspires me."
References: Carl Andre unpublished annotations for Ace gallery. Written upon the occasion of CA's exhibition in 1997 at AG NY. CA is showing a new series of aluminium pieces at Ace in LA 1/12 - 4/15 2002 and this was transcribed from the anouncement.
All of this still sounds good and relevant but to be perfectly honest you would have to substitute "hegemonic" for "efficient" in the 6th paragraph. This is especially true now that museum guards don't let you walk on Andre's floor-plate pieces.
I'm sorry, but someone has to point out the other irony of paragraph 6. (and 7) Andre was charged with the murder of his wife. He allegedly threw her out of their apartment window.
This is a typical sample of the sort of comment I can add to an art discussion:
He eats at Col Legno all the time. Always wears overalls.
Of course this post (a transcription of otherwise unpublished musings) was about an artist working brilliantly in modular form, a frequent subject on this page. To be hegemonic, the "don't walk on the brass" directive must have come from the artist and not the museum. I would be interseted to know the paper trail for that issue. The charges of irony have followed Andre since 1985.
I can remember standing on the plates at MOMA 20 years ago with no guard interference, but now it's disallowed; I doubt it's Andre so much as cash-poor institutions trying to preserve their "property." By the way, I usually avoid '80s/academic words like "hegemonic" but this is an example where it exactly fit. Spreading out the mass horizontally isn't efficient at all, it hogs the space. Andre uses the word "territory," but "hegemony"--an actual dictionary word--has the added connotation of political influence. As Steve reminds us, that's one thing Mr. A has in abundance (with or without the '60s proletarian overalls).
was part of the idea of his art that you could experience it from within it breaking down those barriers between viewer and viewed? and if so was this a unique position for a sculptor at the time or was he part of a movement?
sometimes poking fun at the artspeak is easier than trying to understand it (not to mention funnier). then again, something like steve finding the irony in the horizontal wife splatter is some high concept thinkology. so if moma used yellow police tape to keep museum goers off of his piece then the conflict of interest would be acceptable to his dead wife? what if enron had underwritten the exhibit?
Utilizing unwanted floor space and indeed inviting interactive traffic of this sort seems far from greedy. "Go ahead walk on me, walk all over me, ignore me and walk right through me." This is part of what I get from the floor pieces. If the interactive aspect has been revoked by a subsequent owner they might as well have returned it to the storage bin.
It is a weird decision for an institution to deploy guards to protect a sculpture that was originally intended to be walked on interactivly. That's at least half the piece.
Actually, those are coppery, not irony.
dave - the irony point is well taken. that observation has been in place since the time of AM's death and should inform but not sidetrack discussions of CA. the early work showed a great debt to Brancusi, specifically the piece "endless column." he and his buds, Flavin, Stella LeWitt etc early works all predate the term "minimal art." Andre's breakthrough (imho) was the floor pieces starting with rows of firebricks but the interactive/environmental metal plates really were the clincher which would lead into the postminimal era. he had estabilshed his own territory within the group. (add grains of salt to taste)
"the irony point is well taken. that observation has been in place since the time of AM's death and should inform but not sidetrack discussions of CA."
Agreed. I wondered if Tom was actually reffering to the death of AM with his hegimony comment. I only meant to clarify for those folks who might be unaware.
Andre is one of my fave artists of that era and the death of his wife, tragic as it is, does not figure into my feelings of his work. That said, I have no desire to share one of those delicious Col Legno pizzas with him.
Thanks / also ca made a piece on the spot by stacking a couple of rocks for..... (you wanna finish this one steve?)
My "hegemony" comment was addressed to the work. I don't agree with Bill that the floor-pieces are meant to be out-of-the-way and overlooked. By being elevated slightly above ground level and made of solid metal, they establish boundaries, guards or no guards. It's not like a low pile carpet, that you might walk over completely unawares. I know Andre "allowed" people to walk on them back in the day, but it was usually with the titillating feeling that you were getting away with something--that is, violating the aura of art. The true test of their spatial "efficiency" is whether you can place other artists' work on top of them. If you can't (and I doubt even man-of-the-people Carl would go that far), then they're not space-efficient.
Well I'm not sure that any horizontal surface that has art sitting on it is efficient.
I think I agree with you. No matter what Andre's intentions were, it's impossible to walk on those works without being aware that you are walking on a work by a famous artist. And he was certainly famous by the time he made those pieces.
"Every work of art is located in space somewhere. A work of mine disappeares when placed in storage exactly the way your lap disappeares when you stand up. My sculpture is completed
only when it is experienced by someone other than myself. Art, like justice, must be seen to be done."
I love that paragraph, I swear I've read it before though. It reminds me of the way I think of film, a sort of vast container which holds space, time, emotion, sound, hard work etc. And it all sits so neatly in a little can on a shelf when not being viewed.
|
"Every work of art is located in space somewhere. A work of mine disappeares when placed in storage exactly the way your lap disappeares when you stand up. My sculpture is completed only when it is experienced by someone other than myself. Art, like justice, must be seen to be done."
"I was aware of poetry as an art before I was aware of sculpture as an art. Before I could read, I delighted in the shapes of poems on the page. Later, in poetry and sculpture, I attempted, not to arrange elements to express a previous experience, but to arrange elements to create a new experience never encountered before."
"Objectivly, my work is part of a human tradition that extends back to the dawn-time of our existance. Stonehenge in England provided my most powerful early experience of sculpture."
"Every work of art that exists is someplace. Occupies some space. Any sculpture can be analyzed in terms of form, structure, place, and material. For me, there can never be an art of ideas because ideas are linguistic constructs. Art for me must always be a material intermediation between human sensibilities, in real space and time".
"I work in the horizontal plane because that offers a more efficient disposition of a given mass than a vertical stack does. The area above a horizontal work becomes much more part of its territory than does tha area around a vertical stack."
"The mass of materials has always interested me. The mass of an object on the earth and on the moon is the same, its weight is different. My sculpture has a great deal to do with the relations betweeen mass volume and area. A gram of gold can be beaten into a 6 square foot sheet or a wire 1.5 miles long. The properties of matter fascinates and inspires me."
References: Carl Andre unpublished annotations for Ace gallery. Written upon the occasion of CA's exhibition in 1997 at AG NY. CA is showing a new series of aluminium pieces at Ace in LA 1/12 - 4/15 2002 and this was transcribed from the anouncement.
- bill 1-25-2002 12:45 am
All of this still sounds good and relevant but to be perfectly honest you would have to substitute "hegemonic" for "efficient" in the 6th paragraph. This is especially true now that museum guards don't let you walk on Andre's floor-plate pieces.
- tom moody 1-25-2002 1:27 pm [add a comment]
I'm sorry, but someone has to point out the other irony of paragraph 6. (and 7) Andre was charged with the murder of his wife. He allegedly threw her out of their apartment window.
- steve 1-25-2002 5:51 pm [add a comment]
Anna Mendieta
- alex 1-25-2002 6:22 pm [add a comment]
- anonymous (guest) 12-18-2002 10:09 pm [add a comment] [edit]
This is a typical sample of the sort of comment I can add to an art discussion:
He eats at Col Legno all the time. Always wears overalls.
- jim 1-25-2002 6:53 pm [add a comment]
Of course this post (a transcription of otherwise unpublished musings) was about an artist working brilliantly in modular form, a frequent subject on this page. To be hegemonic, the "don't walk on the brass" directive must have come from the artist and not the museum. I would be interseted to know the paper trail for that issue. The charges of irony have followed Andre since 1985.
- bill 1-25-2002 7:27 pm [add a comment]
I can remember standing on the plates at MOMA 20 years ago with no guard interference, but now it's disallowed; I doubt it's Andre so much as cash-poor institutions trying to preserve their "property." By the way, I usually avoid '80s/academic words like "hegemonic" but this is an example where it exactly fit. Spreading out the mass horizontally isn't efficient at all, it hogs the space. Andre uses the word "territory," but "hegemony"--an actual dictionary word--has the added connotation of political influence. As Steve reminds us, that's one thing Mr. A has in abundance (with or without the '60s proletarian overalls).
- tom moody 1-25-2002 8:41 pm [add a comment]
was part of the idea of his art that you could experience it from within it breaking down those barriers between viewer and viewed? and if so was this a unique position for a sculptor at the time or was he part of a movement?
sometimes poking fun at the artspeak is easier than trying to understand it (not to mention funnier). then again, something like steve finding the irony in the horizontal wife splatter is some high concept thinkology. so if moma used yellow police tape to keep museum goers off of his piece then the conflict of interest would be acceptable to his dead wife? what if enron had underwritten the exhibit?
- dave 1-25-2002 9:23 pm [add a comment]
Utilizing unwanted floor space and indeed inviting interactive traffic of this sort seems far from greedy. "Go ahead walk on me, walk all over me, ignore me and walk right through me." This is part of what I get from the floor pieces. If the interactive aspect has been revoked by a subsequent owner they might as well have returned it to the storage bin. It is a weird decision for an institution to deploy guards to protect a sculpture that was originally intended to be walked on interactivly. That's at least half the piece.
- bill 1-25-2002 9:36 pm [add a comment]
And you won't trip over it when you're stepping back to look at a painting.
- steve 1-26-2002 2:24 am [add a comment]
Actually, those are coppery, not irony.
- alex 1-25-2002 8:57 pm [add a comment]
dave - the irony point is well taken. that observation has been in place since the time of AM's death and should inform but not sidetrack discussions of CA. the early work showed a great debt to Brancusi, specifically the piece "endless column." he and his buds, Flavin, Stella LeWitt etc early works all predate the term "minimal art." Andre's breakthrough (imho) was the floor pieces starting with rows of firebricks but the interactive/environmental metal plates really were the clincher which would lead into the postminimal era. he had estabilshed his own territory within the group. (add grains of salt to taste)
- bill 1-25-2002 10:29 pm [add a comment]
"the irony point is well taken. that observation has been in place since the time of AM's death and should inform but not sidetrack discussions of CA."
Agreed. I wondered if Tom was actually reffering to the death of AM with his hegimony comment. I only meant to clarify for those folks who might be unaware.
Andre is one of my fave artists of that era and the death of his wife, tragic as it is, does not figure into my feelings of his work. That said, I have no desire to share one of those delicious Col Legno pizzas with him.
- steve 1-26-2002 2:31 am [add a comment]
Thanks / also ca made a piece on the spot by stacking a couple of rocks for..... (you wanna finish this one steve?)
- bill 1-26-2002 2:35 am [add a comment]
um....I would if I knew what you were referring to. At least I think I would.... the cryptic nature of your comment leads me to think it might be private....It's no secret that I'm paranoid and have many enemies out there...let's let the whole thing drop.
- steve 1-26-2002 7:06 am [add a comment]
My "hegemony" comment was addressed to the work. I don't agree with Bill that the floor-pieces are meant to be out-of-the-way and overlooked. By being elevated slightly above ground level and made of solid metal, they establish boundaries, guards or no guards. It's not like a low pile carpet, that you might walk over completely unawares. I know Andre "allowed" people to walk on them back in the day, but it was usually with the titillating feeling that you were getting away with something--that is, violating the aura of art. The true test of their spatial "efficiency" is whether you can place other artists' work on top of them. If you can't (and I doubt even man-of-the-people Carl would go that far), then they're not space-efficient.
- tom moody 1-26-2002 3:21 am [add a comment]
Well I'm not sure that any horizontal surface that has art sitting on it is efficient.
I think I agree with you. No matter what Andre's intentions were, it's impossible to walk on those works without being aware that you are walking on a work by a famous artist. And he was certainly famous by the time he made those pieces.
- steve 1-26-2002 7:17 am [add a comment]
"Every work of art is located in space somewhere. A work of mine disappeares when placed in storage exactly the way your lap disappeares when you stand up. My sculpture is completed
only when it is experienced by someone other than myself. Art, like justice, must be seen to be done."
I love that paragraph, I swear I've read it before though. It reminds me of the way I think of film, a sort of vast container which holds space, time, emotion, sound, hard work etc. And it all sits so neatly in a little can on a shelf when not being viewed.
- steve 1-26-2002 7:22 am [add a comment]
ok at least we have clarified the issue. Is the work hegemonic? I still say no because of their thinness and the other nature of their place on the floor.(that unobtrusive quality is however negated when the "dont walk on them" rule is enforced and you have to walk around them / but we belive that was not the artists decision) I also think they are efficient because the plates are off the shelf modules. Thats how metal is sold in 12"X12" (or 16x16") plates. they stack neatly untill needed and placing them side by side to make low lying fields or in line in strips maxamising their impact. like rolling flat a ball of clay. The salon style of hanging shows maxamises the efficiency of the wall by filling it top to bottom edge to edge. The field painting fills in the cracks and becomes environmental. enveloping. all that was left was the floor and nobody wanted it. it's the other white wall. I dont think it is a fair test of efficiency as to whether you can place another work on top of it / I cant think of any works that can be layered.
- bill 1-26-2002 4:38 pm [add a comment]
But was this statement really unpublished? I think I've read that quote somewhere. Maybe it just seems familliar because it makes such good sence to me
- steve 1-26-2002 4:52 pm [1 comment]