![]() |
![]() |
| Nicholas McLeod, The Farm (2010) |
![]() |
![]() |
| Nicholas McLeod, The Farm (2010) |
At the BWA City Gallery in Bydgoszcz (which has the most poignant introduction of any art gallery I’ve seen so far: “WHAT”), the Polygonum exhibition which opens on October 14th to showcase the Polish region’s visual talents has some tasty discoveries.
“Movemental” by Tomasz Dobiszewski does look a little like a furniture catalogue. And yet there is something wrong with this catalogue. It does not clarify, it does not simplify, but multiplies, undoes the tight order of things. It lets the picture breathe, opens it up, as if it was obvious: the reverse is necessary, the negative, the outline – everything our gaze seems to take for granted. Dobiszewski adds nothing, he just cuts out and moves,allowing the rhythms to become juicier through the absurd joy of things fitting like in a reverse puzzle. Do things become undone, this way, or are they put more clearly into their necessity? After all, this is the space for the space this is.

Another tasty moment requires distance.
Evidently, it’s not about the painting. But the painting seems an important introduction (and the floor, and the floor). This creature, to the right (unfortunately I didn’t write down the name or author), stands as its own double. It should not be approached (really, definitely, in cases like this I understand why beauty needs distance). As any mirage, it is only what it seems, a reflection, a game of angles, a line and a line and a line. It rings a bell, and another, and I wonder, is there a way of keeping it there, of not getting closer, of remaining within the illusion that there is something beyond, just a little more plenty.
Bloodshedding pieces of black-and-white happiness.
The unfair balance of the picture.
The wider picture. The bloody wider picture always giving it the color that wasn’t there in the first place.
Notice: the wider picture is never the first place. It comes as we back up, until we are nowhere to be found, impressed by the relation of the Thing with that wide horizon, that swift encompassing of the Other into the Thing.
The unfair balance of the picture. Nothing should ever be framed. Frames should be prohibited, forcing us into oblivion, into focusing on the End nearest us. Who knows how many Santa Clauses are necessary?
The unfair balance of the picture.
The pictures are by, in order of appearance, Diane Arbus, Miko?aj Chylak, Diane Arbus, Fischli & Weiss.
Le Monde des Montagnes (The World of Mountains), an ECAL graduate project by Camille Scherrer
Nothing to stop us from getting lost. From deciding we no longer belong here, and using all our knowledge and craft to make this place just confusing enough to dream.
Be it an augmented reality, be it a book, a picture that can actually be moving. Be it our imposing of what’s in our head, or rather, what dropped by for just a second, only to fool us into believing we own it, we are it.
Nothing to stop us from finding our way. With every single hesitating step we so confidently make into this our augmented reality, with more of you than I could ever have hoped for, with less of me than you would expect, with just enough of us to get the picture.
And move on. As if nothing really happened. As if.
(via)
Who is it for?
Oh, what a dreadful question.
How embarrassing, how belittling, how pitiful.
1: what is the music?
2: can’t we think of circumstances where it doesn’t matter?
3 (with some leftovers): but aren’t we losing something essential here? Some mistery we break to put it all into the social gesture, as if art really could be effective, as if it ever were, but what does that mean, how do we measure it, but doesn’t it become too close to being measurable?
4: can’t it be enjoyable? Can’t it be blatantly focused on the audience?
This, of course, does not mean it can’t be personal. On the contrary, one could openly use this focus and transform it through the connection of the two sides, as in Dan Graham’s Performer/Audience/Mirror. But this ever-sacriligeous focus on the audience need not be objectifying, or at least not so openly. Think of applying the concept to the personal, the intimate. What sort of audience are we then?
Part 2 etc
How close to us. Ever closer.
Until, say, we reach the peak, we go beyond the intimate, beyond the sapiens, we give the monkey a camera, dreamfuly believing this is what the monkey sees, dreamfuly hoping (with a tad of gentle self-irony) that this picture, taken by our object, of us, brings us closer, tells us something more about this subject, when in fact it once again brings us back to who we are, as an audience, an audience that acts.
(more pictures taken by Nonja can be found here)
From Chicago’s pride, the Millenium Park, comes a cruel, yet fascinating, story of public art gone wrong.
BOTH of the public sculptures it opened recently, one by the Van Berkel atelier, and the other by Zaha Hadid, got damaged by the all-too-loving public.
Looks quite nice from above, doesn’t it? If you go to ground level, it’s even more inspiring. Here’s a look at Hadid’s work:
The entire structure, made of aluminum, is covered with cloth. Now let’s take a look inside this spaceship.
Get the picture?
One of the key statements of the manifesto of a group of artists presenting the exhibition Unusually Rare Events is that the artist does not need to think about the spectator when creating the work. Agreed. However, when creating a public work of art (mind you, to some extent any work of art is public), he might want to consider that his work will possibly not only be appreciated like this:
And those, of course, are the “nice” visitors.
The question arises: should we stay with “public-proof” solutions? Hire teams of guards to keep the aura going? Or maybe consider every mark and hole as part of the (pardon the pun) holistic concept of the work of art?
Now I wonder how these marvellously designed shoes by Zaha Hadid feel:

Not to mention the London Aquatics Centre, to be one of the main venues of the 2012 Summer Olympics.
(via)
Teaser
Does writing the theory of relativity from memory make one a math genius?
Let us distinguish between outstanding memory capabilities and phenomenon of art, as we do between crafting the rook and playing chess…
…”Stephen Wiltshire, ma main man”
Do the innate absolute criteria of fine art judge Stephen Wiltshire’s art, or is it only the jealousy of one private subjective ego?
Stephen Wiltshire became famous after appearing in some TV show where he presented his remarkable photographic memory abilities. First, I would like to honestly state, that I am truly empathic and happy for his success and have nothing in person against him. He really seems like a cute guy. What I am more concerned about is the definition of art in regards to Stepen Wiltshire’s abilities. I’ll break this down to art’s three basic components, as I perceive them.
The three aspects of fine art
Formation
Stephen Wiltshire’s art scales from basic sketching lessons to advanced architectural drawings at the most. Some of his works are no more than elementary car design sketches or urban views. No innovation of technique and no originality in the perception of reality and it’s translation to art. Just plain sketching you might see scattered abundantly around the internet.
Have you ever seen an architect or a car designer selling their sketches as works of art for prices ranging up to 13,000 pounds? I suppose not.
Content
Plain urban views or different motive transportations. No depths of issues, no message, no meaning, no purpose; just some “pretty things” to gaze at.
Awareness
Having evaluated the first two ingredients of fine art and concluded that they sum up to nothing in Stephen Wiltshire’s case, we are left with the most important one of all.
How does an artist approach a work of art? Well, I assume that there are numerous subtle nuances which define each and every artist of the past, present or future, but the basic grid is the same: you approach art with deep awareness.
What is the motive, the purpose, the essence, the meaning? What is it that which you want to say and what atmosphere will help you convey that message? How will you create that atmosphere and how will the compositional architecture, color scheme, shape formations, light, textures and perspectives influence the atmosphere you are trying to create?
The deeper the awareness the deeper the message will be and the more profound the essence is. So also, the more subtle the philosophy and the more complex the theoretical aspects behind the art work, that much more spiritual awareness and conscious self-awareness must be respectively present in order to realize that work of art.
Let’s see…
On the other hand, when all you want is to copy something from one place to another – with no emphasis on the technique and style, with no intent of purposeful content, with no awareness to the derivative criteria of creation – all you need is the hand-eye coordination awareness, hence the basic instinctual human consciousness.
So far as the context of art is concerned, there should be absolutely no meaning to whether the copying is from another picture using a translucent paper or directly from nature, or as in Stephen Wiltshire’s case using the memory as the copying source. I mean, does writing the theory of relativity from memory make you a math genius?
…”So, you…you’re the Rain Man?”
Being the artist an autistic-savant automatically boosted the value of his art, simply because there has never been in the recorded history of art another one like him. People might have said to themselves: “Well, there is nothing unique about his art, in neither venue, but hey, he’s autistic and he remembers stuff… Oh hey, and it’s just like that guy in that movie… I mean, wow!”
Well-greased marketing also helped to obscure from the art establishment and the general public the fact that actually, so far as art and artistic standards are concerned, there is nothing here to make so much fuss about. Had any other non-autistic artist presented such art to any respected gallery or museum in the world, I think that he would have gotten the cold shoulder.
Plainly saying, in this day and age art is mostly a gimmick, which without the appropriate marketing will not see the light of day, not to mention fortune and fame.
findigart.com
Created by findigart On 07/30/09 At 03:17 PM
I hadn’t been in Greece long before I started planning the next venture. Someone had contacted me over the internet about doing a statue for them. I didn’t know what it was all about, but during the summer we exchanged a lot of e-mails and gradually I got the picture. An angel for the tomb of a friend. I thought about how cool it would be to do this piece at a small prep school with a nice art center, the Wooster School in Danbury, CT, sharing the technical creation of a statue with some students. I worked up a proposal, asking for work space and offering what I thought would interest students.
I had an in there, one of my old clients from NYC knew someone on the school’s board of directors, and since I was an alumnus, the two things seemed likely to give me a good chance of success. I started researching pre-schools for my two kids, and tried to figure out how much transplanting my family from Italy would cost. The last piece of the puzzle was the school’s art teacher. I had spoken to a few people there, and had only to propose the idea to her. I did, and received no response whatsoever.
Now you can speculate all you want about why she closed the door, but in any case I’d talked about doing this statue in the US and that had been the attraction for the client. I knew its eventual destination was Mexico. With my plans derailed, I had to come up with something even more attractive, without raising the costs.
Somehow, the idea of doing it in Mexico came out of the woodwork. I talked to my wife about moving the family there, but when I read the State Department travel warnings, it got me thinking, well, this one is not for the family. I wasn’t going to be in Juarez or Nuevo Laredo, or Monterey or Chihuahua, the hottest trouble spots, and although little Delicias was right smack in the middle of all of them, it wasn’t really on a through road. So all I’d have to do was sculpt away, not drink the water, and stay off the streets after dark for four months. At first I was going to drive, but in the end I parked my Honda with its flashy NY plates in Houston, and flew to Chihuahua. TSA confiscated 3 out of four of my bags, you know, marble tools packed in suitcases with socks, underwear and t shirts padded around it doesn’t look good on an x ray screen, but after a few days I got it all back. And how is an interesting sidelight.
There’s a big difference between the conduct of officials in the US and those of other countries. Now just imagine, you’re entering customs, and you want to know if what you’re doing is considered work or not. You want to know if tax is due on the tools, many of them brand new because Mexico is 120 volts and all my Italian tools were 230. The customs guys and the baggage guy filling out the lost luggage report start talking about sculpture and what I’m going to be doing there. They actually get excited! So the question of tax doesn’t even come up, they give me 180 days instead of the sixty I asked for, ‘just in case…’ and lo and behold, when the bags finally show up the baggage guy actually drives them himself from Chihuahua all the way to Delicias, with friends. And promises to come back every so often to see how the work is progressing. I’m beginning to like Mexico. Try to imagine this happening with any official, anywhere, in the US. I think our priorities here are round the bend, and that this is the main reason why so many people in the US have gone postal.
I do see a few Hummers with all black windows around this town, and wonder who owns them. But I know they won’t have anything to do with me, if I don’t with them. My setup is a marble studio just like the ones I used to work in back in Italy, except that this time, my room is behind the front office. It’s true I can’t go outside after the workmen leave for the day, because they release four junkyard dogs into the gated enclosure I’m living in, but then again, I’m not here for the nightlife, and they pretty much guarantee there won’t be any unexpected visitors.
My client and I drove from the airport in Chihuahua to Delicias and checked into the Casa Grande, a four star place. We went to see the brother and sister of the deceased, visited the cemetery where the statue would go, and stayed for four days more in the hotel. Then he flew back to Houston, and I was on my own. The block didn’t come right away, so I passed the time carving little things, some of which are here.
The day after he left, I glanced at the headlines in the local paper, and they were about seven kids at a high school in Juarez, who’d had their hands tied behind their backs, been executed, and left alongside the school’s soccer field for the other kids to see. Of course the drug world exists for all teens, but in Mexico it has far worse consequences. Each day there was another story, sometimes two or three, about people found dead here, there, and everywhere, always shot with more than one kind of weapon. Thankfully, not in Delicias. This becomes a part of the culture an artist has to absorb, and in doing so, enter into the mentality of the people around you. Beauty is in fact, an escape, which is why in so many oppressed places and times, beautiful art was produced and desired. In the sterile world of country clubs, of keeping up with the Joneses and their flat screen TVs, of getting that new Prius or better, there really isn’t any need for art. What amazes me about Mexico is that I know I can sell every piece I make here. It hasn’t ever been like that for me in the places I went chasing after the money. Yes, there were buyers, and of big pieces, but how many thousands would pass by something I spent months making, without even glancing at it? Not here. The red carpet is rolled out for artists more than for anyone else.
By my third day working, a family comes in and sees a bas relief of a girl’s face I did in a couple of hours placed on a shelf in the office. They ask if I could do a portrait of a deceased member of their family, in the same way I’d done that one, and hand me a postage stamp size photograph to work from. I have no idea what to charge, and no one seems to want to tell me. But by night time, during a ride around town I didn’t think I’d be taking, the son of the owner tells me a hundred dollars is too cheap. I’m a bit surprised, because everyone around here drives thirty year old pick up trucks with broken windshields, and you can get three Coronas for a dollar. I didn’t imagine you could make more than a hundred dollars a day this easily here, however, in Delicias, art and the dead are highly honored, and both worth spending money on.
Not so in someplace like Mexico City. An artist will have the same problems exhibiting there and selling their work as in any cosmopolitan setting anywhere in the world. I start to wonder if perhaps the best places to produce art are the remote ones, where you won’t be contaminated by anything except what moves you to create in the first place, and perhaps a desire to serve someone else’s needs. Wanting to show in a ‘major’ venue, is pretty much the same as wanting that big flat screen, so you can tell everyone you have one. It’s pretty far removed from what art is supposed to be all about, and if it becomes the driving force in what you produce, you can count on it corrupting, in one way or another, what might have been beautiful and pure.
You can see art corruption in another form if you visit the Menil collection in Houston. While the taste of the Menils is worthy of being called great, subsequent curators who made acquisitions after their deaths brought down the level of the whole significantly. When you consider that all curators of all museums are beholden to numerous corrupt entities, it should surprise no one that their choices of what to acquire are often suspect. No works are ever bought just because they’re good. The main corrupting influence comes from the largest donors to those museums, who have the leverage to see that what they want gets bought, because it serves no one, particularly the curators themselves, to refuse their requests.
One of the greatest, and purist, collections in the United States is in the Frick museum in NYC. Before donating his property as a museum, Charles Frick insisted that no artworks be added, nor any moved from their assigned spots within the building. These masterpieces remain a testament to the clear vision of one man, as he did so well to foresee, and their placement within what used to be his home is nothing short of divine.
Ah, Mexico! These four months have just begun, and all I’d ever believed about this country has proved to be baseless and unfounded.
Except for what I found out in the days that followed. It started with a report that there’d been a shooting right here in Delicias. It seemed that at midnight, right next to a huge statue I’d been to look at that afternoon, three men were sprayed in their car with machine gun fire from another car. Well, I told myself, it was on the outskirts of town, not anywhere near where I was living and working. And the hour was one where all good people ought to be in bed. My block still hadn’t arrived, and that was making me a bit nervous anyway, not the best time to start reasoning what’s safe and what isn’t. I’d spoken to the Mexican expediter, Armando Carrillo, many times and he’d seemed friendly and eager to please. But ever since I’d paid him, he’d been on vacation in Cabo San Luca, and I’d only been able to talk to his stand in, who was neither friendly nor helpful. I’d called many times, and although I was assured I’d get a call back, I never did. I’d been here more than a week, having been told my two ton block of pure white Carrara would be here before I was, and was not anxious to be here if I couldn’t work on what I came to do.
The next day, two people were executed on the street where my studio is. The local police chief was killed the same day, at two in the afternoon, in a separate incident. A lot of these killings are done with ‘cuerno di chivos’, or AK-47 assault rifles, by killers arriving in groups of brand new, buffed out and loaded pick up trucks. I see these trucks all over the place, but none are owned by anyone I know, since anyone who’s working isn’t making enough to buy one.
They say that every day in Mexico, ten people are killed this way. In Delicias, in the last three days, there have been nine. It’s time to cut and run. I can do this statue back in Italy, and besides, I miss my family. Get me to the airport!
Created by Andrew Wielawski On 12/25/08 At 12:21 PM
There is a difference in my creative art process between “copy” and “replication.” Let me explain. As artist I start off with digital tools, use oil paints as an intermediate step, then end up with a digital derived final product. So how does this compare and differ from the commonplace procedure of reproducing paintings by copyists? I’ll try to clarify so here goes-
I started off in painting and sculpture, earning a master’s degree in Studio Art (Northern Illinois University, 1975). This developed an affinity as well as artistic sensitivity for the expressive powers of the paint medium. But with the introduction of the personal computer (PC graphics) in the 80s, I decided to emerge along with it as digital artist. I abandoned my paint tubes and brushes. In the beginning I was a purist, never scanning or importing photographs (of course back then there was no digital camera). I took pride in starting with clusters of pixels on an otherwise blank monitor screen. But times have changed and my attitude and approach has evolved along with the medium. My work now is truly “multi-media” or as they said before, “mixed media.” I am now free to use whatever resources are available to make innovative imagery.
Which brings me to the issue of “original” and “reproduction.” How do these terms relate to my idiosyncratic approach to producing art?
Other artists who create a painting may have their work later duplicated by another individual, whether willingly or not. The first painted image is the “original” and the subsequent effort(s) is a “copy.” In this case the medium is the same. Both are paint on canvas. Today because of economics and the advancement of technology, the original can also be “duplicated” through digital photography and digital printmaking. Archival quality print editions called “Giclees” can be offered at a more affordable price to many collectors instead of just one. The original painting so popularized by the multitude of identical print imagery thereby also appreciates in value, or price.
My art making process differs. I start off with a completed digital image on the computer monitor display. My “original” is represented virtually by photons of light called pixels that are directed in visual attributes by computer data stored as files. My “original” is actually a bunch of numbers in a computer data base. Its display as a picture on the screen is merely temporary. When the image file is closed or the computer turned off, there is no picture. There is no visual/visible art. In the “early days” my digital art was either printed or photographed off the monitor. The latter method was used to frame hardcopy prints for my 1988 solo exhibition at the Shanghai Art Museum. It was by the way, the first digital art exhibition in China, thereby making Chinese art history.
But from this standard way of capturing the digital image and being able to touch it, frame it, and display it, my work has evolved. Maybe it was because of my earlier studio work in painting and drawing at Northern Illinois. Besides, after remaining the purist as a digital artist, it started to feel stale. I wanted to experiment outside of conventional digital imagery. Supported by an aesthetic theory and philosophy through years of exploring the psychology of art, I moved on to develop my systems approach that incorporated other media besides the digital. My work also embraced a team approach, with me as primary artist and image-making visionary.
I either start from scratch in front of the monitor with a blinking light cursor waiting to be led. Or I can load into ram memory a former digital image and take it further or into a new direction. Alternately I can use my professional photography skills and import imagery from my digital camera. After manipulation with mixed bag of graphic software, I arrive with an image that I judge with confidence in having made the transformation from merely “computer graphics” to literally fine art. I go ahead and “save” a work of art, still in its initial, or “original” state and form.
Somewhere over the decades I evaluated a purely digital image to still be too machine-like, too technically perfect to achieve my specific goal as a digital artist. I aspire to achieve works that convincingly simulate the appearance of paintings manually produced on canvas. So in order to “soften” the unyielding calculated imagery generated through the dictation of mathematical functions, I farm out my digital pictures to be actually painted-by-hand. The task is executed by selected collaborators who are masters in their craft. Remember that in my case the digital image is the original. Therefore the subsequent painting cannot be a “copy,” as this term requires the existence of an actual painting. So just what is the painting of a digital image, for the role that it performs in my creative process?
It is a “replication” of the digital image. It is also, however, transient like the original. The digital image disappears when the file is closed. The knock off painting is merely a means to an end. As good as the craftsman is in replicating the digital “blueprint,” there is subtle variation from the original digital that cannot be avoided. Such “error” in the translation between media is intentionally added by me, the “digital painting designer.” For one thing we are using a different media to transpose the digital. The computer picture is projected dots of light into the human retina. Color and form of a painting are light waves reflected off opaque surfaces (of paint and canvas). One image is made of pixels of light, the other of paint. Then there is human error that cannot be avoided, as the infinite amount of visual information of a detailed digital image cannot be completely captured by the limits of both the paint medium as well as the accuracy and skill of the individual artisan. The human as computer printer is imperfect. As I said before, this margin of error in the replication process is not only anticipated but also desired. Because of such deviance the high-tech, hard edge look of the digital imagery can be “cut” or reduced, giving the secondary image a hands-on feel and appearance. Through the hands of humans my digital picture is “softened” and soothed. By using the limitation of the paint medium, my simulated digital “paintings” are more convincingly perceived as paint.
But the painting produced from the digital picture is not the end of my process. The object is digitally photographed, ironically converting the picture back to pixels. After personally enhancing the captured image with software, printing test prints to proof and doing the subsequent adjustments, this final digital file of the original digital image is offered as a limited edition Giclee print. I define the print as “derivative” of the whole process. I dub it “derivative” art and my artistic intent, process and final imagery as the new art of “Derivativism.”
To summarize, other artists have paintings “copied” or “reproduced.” I instead create a digital image, have it “replicated” in order to “derive” a final digital (once again) print. It can be tossed (in 2006 I literally destroyed 175 canvas paintings), or sold (they are beautiful and masterfully crafted) to an admirer. Or, as documentary of my long-term process leading to an extensive series of print editions, the intermediary paintings could be exhibited in a hall of their own. In such a paradoxical way would they compliment as well as elevate an audience’s appreciation of the monumentally scaled (40”x50”) derivative print collection. The Giclees would be the featured works, installed as the main exhibition of my future digital art museum.
Everybody expects artwork to be signed. So, you may ask, how is the art signed? I back off as Rodney Chang, multi-media conceptual artist. Instead I sign “Pygoya” for the team of Pygoya Productions.
“Sailing in Cyberspace,” 2003 – original digital 
“Sailing in Cyberspace,” 2003 – 40″x50″ Giclee canvas print
photo courtesy, V Salon, Manhattan, New York City, NY
Created by Pygoya On 10/09/08 At 10:33 AM
…there is enough machine within our eyes
to fill a thousand junkyards full
to make the stone break into plastic clouds
of colored dust
and happy play
…there are enough straight lines that bound a shape
to make us speak right to the point
to get us thinking we are right or wrong
beneath the clouds
See more of Jan Vormann’s Dispatchwork here.


