WHAT IS ART TODAY?
As voyeur you are already participating in this art, if you wish to consume the art please click and continue
PICASSO & POLLOCK
Pablo Picasso 1881-1973
Jackson Pollock 1912-1956
Jackson Pollack's "Blue Poles" is another piece that fascinates me.
The first time I saw this piece, I thought it was rubbish: a drop sheet for a house painter! Without comprehending the piece, I did what I had done with Picasso and began to look at why Pollock did what he did.
Pollock's technique and palette were very different from earlier artists. His technique of dripping, splashing and pouring paint onto the un-stretched canvas, along with the scale of the painting itself, could be regarded as a performance. Pollock didn't use traditional tools or colours, moving away from the palette of nature, and using sticks and cooking basters, or just pouring paint directly from the can. He believed his abandonment of traditional painting tools reflected the realms of unconscious experience but also responded to contemporary life. As he stated: "The modern painter cannot express this age, the airplane, the atom bomb, the radio, in the old forms of the Renaissance or of any past culture."
Marcel Duchamp 1887-1968
In the May 1917 issue of 'The Blind Man', an avant-garde magazine run by Duchamp and two friends, an article was published which explained the theory behind the readymade. Though the article was anonymous, it was almost certainly written by Duchamp himself. An excerpt read: 'Whether Mr Mutt with his own hands made the fountain or not has no importance. He CHOSE it. He took an ordinary article of life, and placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view - created a new thought for that object.'
Piero Manzoni 1933-1963
Andy Warhol 1928-1987
In my mind, the success of Andy Warhol as an artist can be partly attributed to the art dealer and gallery owner Irving Blum. It is thanks to Blum that the paintings were preserved as a set. In July 1962, Blum held his first gallery show of the 32 Campbell's Soup paintings in the ferus Gallery of Los Angeles, California. Irving had already sold four or five, but they were still in the gallery. However, before the gallery show, Blum decided to keep them together as a set, called the clients, and was able to buy them back. Blum contacted Warhol and asked how much for the whole series. Warhol quoted him $1000, which Blum paid in ten installations over ten months. The last time the paintings were purchased, it was in 1996, when the Museum of Modern for $15 million (partially purchased, partially as a gift).
It only took one person believing in the work's success. Before Irving Blum, Warhol's series had only received a lukewarm response at best. Some responses at the time: "The exhibition caused a mild sensation in Los Angeles. The more daring members of the youthful art and film community were intrigued by their novelty. Most people, however, treated them with indifference or outright disdain. A nearby art dealer parodied the show by displaying a stack of soup cans, advertising that you could get them cheaper in his gallery."
"His pop art work differed from serial works by artists such as Monet who used series to represent discriminating perception and show that a painter could recreate shifts in time, light, season, and weather with hand and eye. Warhol is now understood to represent the modern era of commercialization and indiscriminate "sameness". "His variations of multiple soup cans, for example, made the process of repetition an appreciated technique: "If you take a Campbell's Soup can and repeat it fifty times, you are not interested in the retinal image. According to Marcel Duchamp, what interests you is the concept that wants to put fifty Campbell's Soup cans on a canvas."
The K Foundation Burn a Million Quid
What is Sacrifice?
A piece in The Times on 5 November 1995, coinciding with the Glasgow screenings, reported that the K Foundation had no solid answers about why they had burnt the money and what, if anything, the act represented, but concluded: "The K Foundation may not have changed or challenged much but they have certainly provoked thousands to question and analyse the power of money and the responsibilities of those who possess it. And what could be more artistic than that? In the same issue, the newspaper's K Foundation art award. witness, Robert Sandall, wrote that the Foundation's award, million pounds artwork and the burning were all "entertaining, and satirically quite sharp", but "the art world has chosen not to think [of it as art]...."
I think of it as one of the great art pieces of all time, as it redefined my view of community and the standards we set ourselves.
One Red Paperclip
ART & COMMODIFICATION
Artist; aged two?
Consumer of the image and the iconography
The "Messiah" Stradivari Violin
A Sign of the Times?
|Jonas Salk Martin Shkreli|
Evolution of Art
THE PICASSO PROPOSITION
I am asking what it is about our culture at this time that is important. We do everything through Facebook and Twitter: how does the internet play a part in what is art today? I take my cue here from the One Red Paperclip project, which needed the Internet and its following. If I tried to do this without the Internet, it would be impossible, as I need the voyeurism to validate my position. Just like the Merde d'Artiste was not validated as art until it was purchased, those watching me sell my art and buying the pieces I sign will prove that my undertaking is art.
Critic versus Consumer
This piece intends to appeal to critics of art, and those who invest in art. Put simply: if you are a critic and see the value of an idea and the artistic merit, then this work appeals to your artistic nature. However, if you are a consumer and can’t see the value in the idea but see it as a fetishized commodity and want to make a shrewd investment, understand that only 22 or so people can partake out of 7.5 billion people, and that each piece will be associated with the value of a Picasso!
Sangre Del Artista
VOYEUR & CONSUMER
Throughout history art is not always immediately appreciated or valued. To demonstrate the critics wrong, that the K Foundation art revolutionized my methods of thought and feeling towards the world. I will give back to the K Foundation (Bill Drummond & Jimmy Cauty)the million quid that they burnt, and also donate a further 10 million quid in Aid if this process proceeds to its ultimate conclusion.
As voyeur you are already participating in this art. If you choose to consume the art, simply click on the link at the below. For me the real reward is to sign a Picasso. In six degrees of separation to be one degree from Picasso is reward in itself.
|Number 01- $100 USD |
|Number 02- $200 USD |
|Number 03- $400 USD |
|Number 04- $800 USD |
|Number 05- $1600 USD |
|Number 06- $3200 USD |
|Number 07- $6400 USD |
|Number 08- $12800 USD |
|NUMBER 09- $25600 USD |