cover photo



blog archive

main site

artwork

bio






Schwarz



View current page
...more recent posts

sam you made the pants too long


[link] [add a comment]

raised beds
cold frames


[link] [add a comment]

swamp thing


[link] [3 comments]

from james meyer minimalism art and polemics in the sixties ("Specific Objects" pages 140-141):

As Francis Colpitt has observed, for Judd, to take an interest in a thing is "to value that thing." "Does the work hold your interest?" Judd would ask. "Do you want to live with it and think about it?" Declaring that a work "needs only to be interesting," Judd means that it only be worth looking at. It may not be a good work, but it held ones gaze. A work that caused one to look again was even more interesting; a great work had a lasting interest. Judd seems to have adopted Perry's notion for another reason. A term of judgement, "interest" sounded more neutral, more objective perhaps, than effusive panegyrics favored by the writers at Artnews durring the late fifties.

[...]

In short Judd did not intend to supplant Greenbergian "quality" with a non-evaluative interest. He meant to suggest that a work that was interesting was worth looking at not "merely" interesting.

[link] [1 comment]

ultra-devo lux ltd edtn


[link] [add a comment]

14bus


[link] [add a comment]

edit: Erwin Hauer

pierced cement blocks of very vintage vegas

(modular constructivisim)
[link] [5 comments]

dwell regional modern home finder


[link] [add a comment]

one o'clock jump ella basie williams 1957


[link] [1 comment]

[ ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In its unhallowed brazenness Waters's Visit Marfa calls for a reconsideration of Judd's enterprise and, by extension, Minimalism as a whole. Its multiple assaults could be addressed, even rebuked one by one. Still, the allusion to Judd's bed should not be overlooked, particularly in light of the recent "Minimalist-art tour" of Manhattan offered by the Guggenheim's curators. The list of attractions, recounted in the New York Times, is in no way exhaustive. Happy tourists hopped from a restaurant designed by Richard Meier in TriBeCa to the Flavinesque window display of the Apple Store in SoHo, but they could just as well have glanced at the even more Flavinesque window of the Helmut Lang boutique a block away, and rather than visiting the Jil Sander store uptown, they might have patronized Calvin Klein on Madison Avenue, replete with excellent examples of Judd's furniture. The question is, in short: Has Minimalism merely turned decor? Have Minimalist sculptors become, as Barnett Newman would have said, just new "Bauhaus screwdriver designers"? The answer is yes, but only in part, and I am not certain that Judd was the foremost agent of this devolution, even if he did design furniture. Flavin's exhibitionist staging of his wedding in the rotunda of the Guggenheim during his own exhibition there is much more to the point. Indeed, as Lucy Lippard reminds us in her 1968 essay "10 Structurists in 20 Paragraphs," Flavin himself spoke of Minimalism as a longing for a "common sense of keenly realized decoration."

Let us say, first, that this scenario is inevitable. Meyer Schapiro long ago remarked on fashion's co-optation of modern art in the immediate aftermath of the 1913 Armory Show. Since then, the market forces at play--and not simply those of the culture industry--have grown exponentially. Second, being able to design good furniture does not mean that your art becomes mere design. Judd was adamant on this point, establishing a clear distinction between the two practices even if he admitted that both his furniture and his sculptures, particularly when in plywood, had a similar look. (On this score he was perfectly right: Although Mondrian's art was long thought of as design, no one in his or her right mind would return to this misconception on account of the similarity between his late canvases and the latticed tables and shelves he built in his studio.) Third, it is hardly a tragedy that current design appropriates certain features of Minimalism, even if this appropriation is a complete misprision .

I do not mind at all that architects look at Minimal art if this leads them to dispense with their ridiculous froufrous. Fourth, Minimal art is especially hard to install, which is what led Judd to architecture in the first place. For all its ponderous piety, his Marfa fiefdom does offer us a precise document of what he meant by marrying architectural and sculptural space, and it remains stunning. Judd was perfectly correct in thinking that the best way to ensure that his works would forever be seen in a proper setting was to provide it himself.

[link] [add a comment]

rip alex chilton


[link] [5 comments]

windorsky casement windows

via justin
[link] [add a comment]

reclaimed redwood waterpipe

via vz
[link] [4 comments]

burger town


[link] [add a comment]

crawford tx


[link] [add a comment]

coffee wiffer

via vz
[link] [add a comment]

whit-bi '10


[link] [2 comments]

Koons’s recourse to an air of collegiality and aesthetic assault is dictated by a distinct vulnerability in his position. His career and the plutocratic culture that it has adorned represent an epoch-making collusion of mega-collectors and leading artists, which has overridden the former gatekeeping roles of critics and curators and sidelined the traditional gallerists who work with artists on a long-term basis of mutual loyalty. With numbing regularity, newly hot artists have abandoned such nurture for gaudy, precarious deals with corporate-style dealers like Larry Gagosian, Pace-Wildenstein, and David Zwirner. In the boom era, buzz about the opportunistic exhibitions of such dealers and the latest sales figures from art fairs and auction houses were what passed for critical discourse. The situation mesmerized newcomers, by flashing promises of ascension to the starry feeding trough. Now that such promises can no longer be made, the posturing of “Skin Fruit”—roughly, noblesse oblige, laced with a left-libertarian raciness—cannot long deflect the mounting potency of class resentment. People are going to notice that the defensive elements, in this particular scrimmage of sensibilities, are members of the putatively vanguard aristocracy of wealth and social clout. The future of art, and the corresponding character of cultured society, seem bound to be determined by some smart, talented, as yet unidentified parties among the howling sansculottes. ♦

[link] [add a comment]

driftwood


[link] [add a comment]

the story of stuff


[link] [add a comment]

-1JM

John McLaughlin, “Untitled (#33)”, 1958
[link] [5 comments]

the cloud for agnes martin


[link] [add a comment]

The job of an art critic is to take perpetual inventory, constantly revising her ideas about the direction of contemporary art and the significance of the work she writes about. In these essays, which span three decades of assessment and reassessment, Rosalind Krauss considers what she has come to call the "post-medium condition"—the abandonment by contemporary art of the modernist emphasis on the medium as the source of artistic significance. Jean-François Lyotard argued that the postmodern condition is characterized by the end of a "master narrative," and Krauss sees in the post-medium condition of contemporary art a similar farewell to coherence. The master narrative of contemporary art ended when conceptual art and other contemporary practices jettisoned the specific medium in order to juxtapose image and written text in the same work. For Krauss, this spells the end of serious art, and she devotes much of Perpetual Inventory to "wrest[ling] new media to the mat of specificity."

[link] [3 comments]

take ivy again

via aw
[link] [add a comment]