Cherry Moon.
I got your titles right here II
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 ColdBacon |
I got your titles right here II |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 3740 (08/27/03 17:19:52) The Sauce |
Cherry Moon. |
||
|
wc |
Prince | ||
|
Posts: 893 (08/27/03 17:48:31) |
Damn it. It's the twins all over again. |
||
|
ColdBacon |
Re: Prince | ||
|
Posts: 3740 (08/27/03 19:43:01) The Sauce |
no. say it. Cherry Moon. It's Cherry Moon.
the best way to look at mars is over your shoulder, while walking slowly away from her. |
||
|
Tahhdd |
Re: Prince | ||
|
Posts: 109 (08/28/03 05:41:14) Dummfounded |
So we're naming these? What's the point? I mean, as a joke it's funny, but I really prefer to have Owens's paintings untitled. Aside from the fact that (and here's a gross generalisation supported by little experience) far too much of the intent of contemporary art is delivered through a droll or witty or sarcastic title, (and how smart or clever does one have to be to come up with a title that would make anything seem worth talking about to an art critic?) I vastly prefer the Owens paintings sans linguistic content. They seem more still to me that way, more ahistoric - if I look at this painting and I notice the little card says "Cherry Moon" or "neverending bowl of crunchberries" or "microbes at 200x" it engages a part of my brain I don't want engaged by these paintings.
|
||
|
nobullsavage |
Re: Prince | ||
|
Posts: 92 (08/28/03 07:06:55) |
tahhdd,
cb told me you were the rez art critic. now i get it. but do you think ahistorical is good in a general sense, or just in relation to Laura and a few other artists' work? First off, I don't consider her work ahistorical, but i do understand that in terms of its immediacy - you look at it, absorb it, aren't asked to figure out how it works in to a historical trajectory. The history is taken for granted. That's what's good about the work: It looks simple, maybe sometimes dumb, but actually you realize it is looking that way within a cognitive context of total consciousness of history. Hence, all the allusions to historical works (showing my own lack of mastery in that department by saying that the couple in the bed with the blue background that cb likes so much is actually a renditionn of an oil painting by - toulouse latrec?? not sure. see, that couple-in-bed reproductions was in my parents' room all the while i was growing up, so it's very familiar to me). So maybe you are saying the untitled titles are meant to dislodge the viewer from her experience of them as historical references? cb: how about your subtitle should be "control freak"? or has that already been used? |
||
|
ColdBacon |
Re: Prince | ||
|
Posts: 3740 (08/28/03 18:57:31) The Sauce |
tahhdd,
if i said beethoven op. 130 to you, would that mean anything? if you like beethoven, it would. does calling the piece op. 130 alter its meaning in any appreciable way? would it be a lot hard to talk about beethoven if i had to call the piece 'you know, that untitled one, you know, the third to the last string quartet he made.' yes. i agree with you. but we need to be able to call them something just so we can know which paintings we're talking about. i don't say it HAS to be like this. but i just hope ms. owens is aware of the profound difficulties she is about to impart to mankind. |
||
|
Tahhdd |
Re: Prince | ||
|
Posts: 109 (08/29/03 05:07:15) Dummfounded |
Calling something "op. 130" is different that calling something "cherry moon." Op. 130 is a just a convention for locating a piece within the composer's body of work, and has the same type of meaning as a mile-marker on a highway. It's handy. However, if right next to the mile-marker there's a brown historical sign that says "Most Photographed Barn in America," to steal someone's obvious example, it obviously changes the meaning of that mile-marker.
But, nah, there will be no difficulties - some intrepid indexer will assign each Owens painting a number and a year (or perhaps develop a much more intricate numbering system that could also code for media, size, and presence or absence of monkeys) which will become the standard reference. Each subsequent monographer will of course come up with her own pet names for each painting, which may more or less, depending on how catchy they are, enter the lexicon of Owens studies. That's not necessarily a good thing. I'll get to nobullsavage this morning, after a few cups of coffee. I promise the response will be full of equivocations, rationalizations, and willful naivete. |
||
|
nobullsavage |
Re: Prince | ||
|
Posts: 92 (08/29/03 06:47:11) |
Taahhd please don't let this prevent you from responding to my earlier entry, if you're still inclined.
But here's the thing: As soon as a painting goes through a gallery, the assistant at the gallery creates an inventory list for the new works, which get entered into the inventory catalog for the artist. On this list, after the title (in this case, Untitled) there is a description of the painting. Since this painting description is solely for gallery use, we can deduce that the gallery deems itself the only entity worthy of knowing what the painting looks like. To the rest of the world, it is not a painting of cherry blossoms and white puffs, it is PRODUCT. That's the downfall of painting right there. But CB, if you want to describe her paintings so bad, maybe you could contact her gallery and work out something with the assistant? She'd probably be happy for the help, as she has a lot of collector phonecalls to return. |
||
|
cse |
Re: Prince | ||
|
Posts: 438 (08/29/03 07:16:49) Robespiette |
Don't be absurd. The gallery makes that list so it can keep track of what's in it's inventory, not because it deems the audience unworthy of anything. If the artist wants their work to remain untitled, the gallery respects that.
There is no downfall of painting. |
||
|
nobullsavage |
Re: Prince | ||
|
Posts: 92 (08/29/03 08:01:27) |
cse, why are you defending the establishment?
|
||
|
cse |
Re: Prince | ||
|
Posts: 438 (08/29/03 08:38:48) Robespiette |
I'm not defending the establishment, I'm attacking your melodramatic indictment of the checklist.
But maybe you were just being funny, and I wasn't getting it. |
||
|
ColdBacon |
was being funny and i got it | ||
|
Posts: 3740 (08/29/03 09:28:37) The Sauce |
>presence or absence of monkeys
hilarious. NS, not cherry blossoms and white puffs. Cherry Moon. Cherry Moon. The painting is obviously Cherry Moon. you know who else is good, i mean, besides Miss McCaque, is Sesshu Toyo. Sesshu Toyo is okay. (i'm speaking particularly of his medium to light black period). |
||
|
wc |
Not defending the man | ||
|
Posts: 893 (08/29/03 11:36:13) |
But, yes, CSE is so totally right. I mean. Jeebus.
Good fucking lord. I heard that gallerists have invented a car that runs on water, but they're keeping it from the people because so many of their buyers have petrochemical money. |
||
|
nobullsavage |
Re: Not defending the man | ||
|
Posts: 92 (08/29/03 23:57:28) |
Usually I hate your links, coldlink, but please. if you're gonna drop names, let us have the 411. Who is this Asian artist of whom you speak?
Oh I like the segway - was that your invention? I never heard you have a segway between two songs in here. John Lennon - good call. Point taken. No hard feelings. and soooooorrrryyyyy about getting your "title" wrong. Cherry moon, cherry moon. I'm trying man, but these things take time. |
||
|
Katiedid |
unsubjected | ||
|
Posts: 20 (08/30/03 16:05:39) Tiddly Wink |
i must confess impatience with "untitled," including "untitled" followed by a number. i am ambivalent. sure, one might not want to impose one's own relationship with an image on an unknown viewer- thus, cindy sherman's "untitled film still" photographs, which are meant deliberately to make a viewer question what is going on. however, there comes a time when "untitled," rather than being evocative, becomes gratuitous. like subtitling books "a novel." that drives me crazy. what is it, besides a novel? overuse of "untitled" is like subtitling a piece "artwork." there is almost a worry that we will confuse art with something else, if the willful refusal to title didn't indicate the proper function of the object. it would even be more challenging to have artworks named what they are: "reddish black painting." "box of rocks." "dead shark floating in pool of alcohol." better than "untitled," at least at this juncture.
museums, at least, never retitle things. they give them acquisition numbers, often based on the year the artwork joined the collection, and in what order. then in checklists it gets the number, the "untitled," the dimensions, the materials, and so forth. i say, bring back titles. make friends with all the curatorial assistants the world over! |
||
|
drb |
"op. 130" & "cherry moon" | ||
|
Posts: 125 (09/09/03 16:34:55) |
Tahhdd
op 130 is different from cherry moon. but I feel in the oposite way to that which you imply. a painting of a cherry branch infront of the moon titled cherry moon is has no refernce outside the pianting itself. it is mearly a description of the painting and so does not put the painting in any specific context. but to a beethoven buff op. 130 is a specific reference to a point in beethovens life and career. whether it be an early or late work, where he was, what he was doing at the time and how his music might have been influenced be external circumstances. this puts the piece in a specific historical context. where as cherry moon just means cherry moon. Not that I disagree with you on the goodness of untitled works. it means no distractions for the virgin viewer. |
||
|
ColdBacon |
Re: "op. 130" & "cherry moon" | ||
|
Posts: 3740 (09/09/03 19:15:28) The Sauce |
drb may continue to post on this forum.
|
||
|
wc |
and you point was? | ||
|
Posts: 893 (09/11/03 07:50:26) |
drb can do whatever the fuck drb wants to do, you hear? And so can d armbruster. (Sometimes I get them mixed up, both have that d, you know.) |
||
|
Tahhdd |
This hot chick, Whitney Biennial I was hanging out with... | ||
|
Posts: 109 (03/25/04 07:05:45) Dummfounded |
I didn't know where to put this, so instead of starting a new thread I stuck it here. I finally saw a "laura owens" last weekend at the overcrowded Whitney Biennial, and I was kind of...disappointed. Granted, this one didn't have a monkey, and maybe I was really hoping for a monkey, but that shouldn't have ruined the painting for me.
The problem, I think, was that what I liked about Owen's blending of different traditions in the reproductions was that it appeared seameless - it wasn't some yucky pomo soup. Up close, however, the different techniques don't seem to gell as much as I thought they would, and some of the painting looked a little awkward (though, yeah, naivete is part of the charm). Anyway, the 4 other people I was with walked right by it without comment, but maybe that's because they wanted to get out of the "masturbation room" in which it was hanging. Also, if you go, hang out on the bean bags in Sue de Beer's room with your friends. V. relaxing. All video installations should have bean bags to sit on. |
||
|
ColdBacon |
Re: This hot chick, Whitney Biennial I was hanging out with. | ||
|
Posts: 3740 (03/25/04 18:04:23) The Sauce |
this could have been a new thread.
|
||
- General Freakish Comments
- Art
- Photography
- Architecture
- Literature
- Philosophy
- Poetry
- Music
- Movies
- Television
- News
- Politics
- Rants
- Humor
- Humor Worth Anything
- People
- Products
- Drinks
- Food & Wine
- National Security
- Fashion
- New York City Restaurants
- Boston Restaurants
- Houston Restaurants
- Restaurants in San Francisco
- Cities
- All Things Dave Eggers
- All Things Balkan
- What's The Laura Owens?
- What's The Kai Althoff?
- Eminem (mental age over 15)
- Eminem (mental age over 2)
- Eminem (Mental Age Over 1)
- Obituaries
- What's New At ColdBacon
- What's New Buenos Aires?
- Suggestions/Corrections (bad links, etc)
- The T-Shirt Project
- Another Forum II
- Social Experiment
- Most Guys Suck Forum
- Overflow Forum
- The Wish List
