SZ Cultural Calendar

[philip nod]

[Faust]

marc jacobs - 2004

motherfucker

[hanajibu]

Joan Miro "Painting and Anti-Painting" @ MoMA, open to members through tomorrow and the public Sunday — then it is going to be mayhem crowds. Mind-blowingly awesome, the range of works on display...yet it only spans ten years.

Also they're installing these massive screens for Pipilotti Rist's video installation in the 2nd floor lobby, I think that properly opens on the 19th but it's pretty wicked thus far. Several-floor-tall violet curtains all over the place.

[Faust]

I would like to talk about this more, hanajibu. It seems that one of the prerequisites of successful contemporary art is its size. Like for anything that is museum worthy, it has to be fucking humongous, and I can't help think that the artist is trying to impress the viewer with the size of the work, because he can't impress him with the work's substance.

[kira]

didn't you know that size is everything?

For some work, size is important and is relative the idea being expressed. When it comes to collecting this is not always the case. There are those collectors that really seem to try to understand and appreciate the work in entirety, in whatever size the artist determines relevant. However, there are others and maybe those are the ones driving the market right now, that always want the big drawing because they are buying to buy and someone told them to buy the big one, the bigger is better notion.

Sometimes in an extremely expansive space, visually seeing something overwhelmingly large can be quite nice and very powerful. But there is also something quite beautiful about seeing a wonderful photograph, for example, in a smaller size. It then becomes more about the object and experience for me rather than just experience.

[Faust]

didn't you know that size is everything?

For some work, size is important and is relative the idea being expressed. When it comes to collecting this is not always the case. There are those collectors that really seem to try to understand and appreciate the work in entirety, in whatever size the artist determines relevant. However, there are others and maybe those are the ones driving the market right now, that always want the big drawing because they are buying to buy and someone told them to buy the big one, the bigger is better notion.

Sometimes in an extremely expansive space, visually seeing something overwhelmingly large can be quite nice and very powerful. But there is also something quite beautiful about seeing a wonderful photograph, for example, in a smaller size. It then becomes more about the object and experience for me rather than just experience.

What you say is true. I was thinking mostly about artists like Jeff Koonz. I mean, if the fucking flower puppy wasn't two stories high, would people care? Same goes for the oversized Xmas decoration, known as the Hanging Heart.

[justine]

Would Dali's clocks be a big deal if they weren't soft?

I will definitely check the Miro show, thanks for the tip.

Unfortunately it's almost finished, but I highly recommend Jennifer Steinkamp @ Lehman Maupin on Christie below Houston (http://www.lehmannmaupin.com/#/exhib...fer-steinkamp/)

[Faust]

Would Dali's clocks be a big deal if they weren't soft?

I will definitely check the Miro show, thanks for the tip.

Unfortunately it's almost finished, but I highly recommend Jennifer Steinkamp @ Lehman Maupin on Christie below Houston (http://www.lehmannmaupin.com/#/exhib...fer-steinkamp/)

Not the same thing. I would argue that the degree of impact of Dali's paintings would vary only slightly depending on the size of the painting, whereas no one would give a shit if Koonz's Christmas decoration was a size of one that goes on a Xmas tree.

[justine]

Not the same thing. I would argue that the degree of impact of Dali's paintings would vary only slightly depending on the size of the painting, whereas no one would give a shit if Koonz's Christmas decoration was a size of one that goes on a Xmas tree.

Maybe maybe. I'm having a hard time dissociating size from the work itself though. I like Koons, but I'm definitely not an Art connoisseur.
As for the Koons decoration, you just might have gave him a new idea to make few bucks this Christmas season ; or expect to see a giant Christmas tree decoration ball at his next show :)

[philip nod]

lots of museum are getting bigger and bigger, most cater to and build huge rooms for epic intallations by serra for example. as the museum becomes the artwork, artists are being allowed and encouraged to work on grand scales. koons puppy is a masterpiece which was made in 1992 for documenta IX before this trend, he simply wanted to pun off the guard dog by creating the most loveable creature possible covered in live flowers, one that exceeds expectations in every way, the way koons oftens chooses to illustrate the big theme "love". and if i remember correctly make a gesture to his son ludwig stranded in the italian porn stars hands. how he got this thing to work is almost a miracle. to see it in front of gugg bilboa from a few block away is among my top ten art experiences.

[kira]

lots of museum are getting bigger and bigger, most cater to and build huge rooms for epic intallations by serra for example. as the museum becomes the artwork, artists are being allowed and encouraged to work on grand scales. koons puppy is a masterpiece which was made in 1992 for documenta IX before this trend, he simply wanted to pun off the guard dog by creating the most loveable creature possible covered in live flowers, one that exceeds expectations in every way, the way koons oftens chooses to illustrate the big theme "love". and if i remember correctly make a gesture to his son ludwig stranded in the italian porn stars hands. how he got this thing to work is almost a miracle. to see it in front of gugg bilboa from a few block away is among my top ten art experiences.

so awesome. what a way to see the bilbao.

[Servo2000]

Not the same thing. I would argue that the degree of impact of Dali's paintings would vary only slightly depending on the size of the painting, whereas no one would give a shit if Koonz's Christmas decoration was a size of one that goes on a Xmas tree.

I'm not sure I agree with that - it seem to me that a two-story tall Dali piece would be absolutely monumental. I can't really imagine it having much impact either if it were the size of a postage stamp.

Ultimately, those are just examples of why I'm confused at why we're "separating" scale from being a formal element of a piece? It seems as integral to an overall work as "color" or "surface" in those terms and it seems unusual to think of it in contextual terms but then consider any piece that could have its primary formal element completely changed and still function in the same manner.

[hanajibu]

I would like to talk about this more, hanajibu. It seems that one of the prerequisites of successful contemporary art is its size. Like for anything that is museum worthy, it has to be fucking humongous, and I can't help think that the artist is trying to impress the viewer with the size of the work, because he can't impress him with the work's substance.

speaking specifically of Rist's installation, her new videos are meant to be immersive so the massive scale, filling the entire 2nd floor atrium I believe, makes sense. and while I am sure it will look cool when it debuts in a few weeks, the most compelling stuff I saw - by far - were these tiny tempera-on-Masonite works, courtesy of Miro.

from what I've heard from friends regarding Bilbao, the Koons 'Puppy' and the Bourgeois 'Maman' are far more interesting than the art inside the museum.

[maldoror]

I'm not sure I agree with that - it seem to me that a two-story tall Dali piece would be absolutely monumental. I can't really imagine it having much impact either if it were the size of a postage stamp.

Ultimately, those are just examples of why I'm confused at why we're "separating" scale from being a formal element of a piece? It seems as integral to an overall work as "color" or "surface" in those terms and it seems unusual to think of it in contextual terms but then consider any piece that could have its primary formal element completely changed and still function in the same manner.

and not sure that I agree with the dali example, but, besides his holographic alice cooper work, I'm not really one for Dali in genera, and can't imagine that particular work having any special impact at any scale. I mean, I had some good times in high school dropping acid and staring at the hallucinogenic toreador, but we all grow up, right? amazing technician granted, but artist not so much . . . however, besides that particular example I absolutely agree with your sentiment, i.e., scale being an integral formal element of a work. conversely to all the "if this were smaller it wouldn't work" that's being thrown around, I've recently been thinking about the kiyoshi hasegawa drawings I saw in kyoto and how their smallness was so essential to their impact. a bigger work is often easier to see quickly and then move on feeling like you "got it." a smaller work (vermeer now also comes to mind) demands a higher level of attention. the viewer cannot merely glimpse it from across the gallery/museum space and move on, one has to get up close and intimate with it to make any real sense of the technical composition of the image, the painting as painting, drawing as drawing, etc. of course, only certain formal concepts require this kind of intimacy, and koons's, for example, is certainly not one of them. on the contrary, the bigness of koons's small objects is crucial to the concept of the work, the same way the transposition/perversion of material construct is. kind of facile imo, but there are other, more interesting aspects to koons's works than the formal object itself (and it's the introduction of these concepts, being the ghosted history of production as manifest material (despite its ultimately immanent essence) that interests me in koons in the first place)

[Faust]

I'm not sure I agree with that - it seem to me that a two-story tall Dali piece would be absolutely monumental. I can't really imagine it having much impact either if it were the size of a postage stamp.

Ultimately, those are just examples of why I'm confused at why we're "separating" scale from being a formal element of a piece? It seems as integral to an overall work as "color" or "surface" in those terms and it seems unusual to think of it in contextual terms but then consider any piece that could have its primary formal element completely changed and still function in the same manner.

I am not separating it - I just have a feeling that sometimes it becomes a predominant formal element for some pieces that would not be anything interesting if not for their scale. I suppose I have a problem where scale overshadows content (or more specifically, tries to hide lack thereof).