From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 02/15/01-02:24:42 PM Z
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Lukas Werth wrote:
> About Rockwell: I read he tried several times in his life to establish
> himself as a painter in high art (several trips to Paris), but didn't
> succeed. And when asked about whether his pictures were / were meant to be
> art, he answered at best ambiguously. He seems to have admired Pollock
> (witness "the conaisseur") - which is beyond my comprehension.
> However, the point I wanted to make was just that pieces made for other
> ends (including also purely personal motives) may be afterwards seen as art.
Actually, Lukas, I'll see you and raise you on that (a term we non-poker
players like to show off with), in fact I can hear my own voice telling
the class: THE VERY BEST ART WASN'T MEANT TO BE "ART" !!! Or so it can
seem. One of my all-time favorite works of photography is the little album
of Cucumber Seed experiments by Liberty Hyde Bailey circa 1905 seen in
MoMA show with its pasted-on labels. I went back four times plotting to
steal it. Did I say it was CYANOTYPE?
During the 70's & '80s, when I much disliked the dregs of AB-Ex and other
drivel clotting the art scene, the best art around (if you asked me), was
record album covers. I have a couple of books -- do you know Hypgnosis?
So naturally that golden moment passed.... record album covers today are
mere faded remnants of that glory, no cliche too tired, too blanded out.
Even sex is blanded out.
PS. Rockwell's problem, or one of them, was he wasn't snide and angry and
cynical enough. Artworld will NOT NOT NOT allow, even hold it against
Renoir. Etc.
best,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:39 PM Z CST