It's funny that a fresh kind of appropriation theory is thriving on the Internet, what with the ease of copying and mashing-up sound and image files, while the gallery world seems doomed to repeat the tropes it already knows--with only conspicuous "value added" labor as a selling point. I haven't see all this work in person, but here's a few examples of this bad recycling of content in the art world: (1) Sharon Core at Bellwether, who meticulously photographs baked goods in the identical set-ups of famous (but basically lame) Wayne Thiebaud paintings (Thiebaud was always a prettied-up, calendar art version of Pop, and Core appears to be making a calendar of the calendar); (2) Dan Fischer, who does finicky pencil drawings of famous artists posing with their work (or in the case of Cindy Sherman, Felix Gonzales-Torres, and a few others, drawings of the works themselves); and (3) Sharon Lockhart, who's suddenly, inexplicably devoted to the art of Duane Hanson.
In all of this work, we're not talking Sherrie Levine rephotographing Edward Weston, or Elaine Sturtevant researching methods and materials to "repeat" Warhols, Stellas, and Beuyses, both of which projects were touted as critiques of male authorship and prerogative in the art world. (If it is that, it's about 20 years behind the discourse.) Nor is it anything as relevant to current technological practice as the theory around sampling or what Rick Silva calls "uploadphonics." No, it's apparently just an advanced form of fan art, as well as collector bait--if you can't afford a Thiebaud or a Gonzales-Torres or a Hanson, here's the next best thing. And the craftsmanship--ooh, to die for.
What's really interesting in all of this continued trend of appropriation is the emphasis it places on our inability to discern quality and originality. If we read Baudrillard correctly when he says, "Simulation is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal." then I think we can understand to some degree where the problem lies. Much, if not all (except for Vic Muniz and a few others), of the artwork utilizing appropriation fails to ever become a "model of a real without origin," instead it accepts being a mere imitation, and unfortunately there are enough viewers that accept this "collector bait" because they have little understanding of the difference. A good example of a work that succeeds as "a model of a real without origin" is Ross Knight's sculpture that welcomes you at the Sculpture Center. Fortunately there are artists like Knight that know the difference, but his craftsmanship is ...
...like that of an earnest fourth grader running amok with a bandsaw. Actually it's an intriguing mix of clunky and adept, especially now that he's stretching cable and pouring concrete and stuff. Thanks for your comment, I added a link in your post to my earlier take on the Knight piece.
|
It's funny that a fresh kind of appropriation theory is thriving on the Internet, what with the ease of copying and mashing-up sound and image files, while the gallery world seems doomed to repeat the tropes it already knows--with only conspicuous "value added" labor as a selling point. I haven't see all this work in person, but here's a few examples of this bad recycling of content in the art world: (1) Sharon Core at Bellwether, who meticulously photographs baked goods in the identical set-ups of famous (but basically lame) Wayne Thiebaud paintings (Thiebaud was always a prettied-up, calendar art version of Pop, and Core appears to be making a calendar of the calendar); (2) Dan Fischer, who does finicky pencil drawings of famous artists posing with their work (or in the case of Cindy Sherman, Felix Gonzales-Torres, and a few others, drawings of the works themselves); and (3) Sharon Lockhart, who's suddenly, inexplicably devoted to the art of Duane Hanson.
In all of this work, we're not talking Sherrie Levine rephotographing Edward Weston, or Elaine Sturtevant researching methods and materials to "repeat" Warhols, Stellas, and Beuyses, both of which projects were touted as critiques of male authorship and prerogative in the art world. (If it is that, it's about 20 years behind the discourse.) Nor is it anything as relevant to current technological practice as the theory around sampling or what Rick Silva calls "uploadphonics." No, it's apparently just an advanced form of fan art, as well as collector bait--if you can't afford a Thiebaud or a Gonzales-Torres or a Hanson, here's the next best thing. And the craftsmanship--ooh, to die for.
- tom moody 2-19-2004 11:02 pm
What's really interesting in all of this continued trend of appropriation is the emphasis it places on our inability to discern quality and originality. If we read Baudrillard correctly when he says, "Simulation is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal." then I think we can understand to some degree where the problem lies. Much, if not all (except for Vic Muniz and a few others), of the artwork utilizing appropriation fails to ever become a "model of a real without origin," instead it accepts being a mere imitation, and unfortunately there are enough viewers that accept this "collector bait" because they have little understanding of the difference. A good example of a work that succeeds as "a model of a real without origin" is Ross Knight's sculpture that welcomes you at the Sculpture Center. Fortunately there are artists like Knight that know the difference, but his craftsmanship is ...
- Aaron Yassin (guest) 2-23-2004 7:44 am
...like that of an earnest fourth grader running amok with a bandsaw. Actually it's an intriguing mix of clunky and adept, especially now that he's stretching cable and pouring concrete and stuff. Thanks for your comment, I added a link in your post to my earlier take on the Knight piece.
- tom moody 2-23-2004 11:50 am