|
Post by drevil on Dec 24, 2012 23:18:35 GMT -8
Really nice (and epic) post. It is always really interesting to me to hear how current work is similar to past work. Even more interesting is hearing and thinking about the differences that move the current work beyond the past work though. This, I think, is the much more difficult analysis to undertake. I am also truly interested to hear some thoughts on the magnet things though. Seems the next logical step is a coloring book. . I kid, I kid. (No pun intended.)
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Dec 25, 2012 6:10:16 GMT -8
I will take a stab at some "differences" that I see with the pennies.
To me the Warhol dollar canvases shown above are really similar on some levels. They are, on one level, grids of US money imaged onto canvas. Two obvious differences are the subject ($1 bills v pennies) and imaging method (silkscreen v oxidation). I don't really see any other major, physical differences.
Taking the subject. I suppose that the meaning can be fairly different between the two. D has imaged the pennies to the point where they have become meaningless and people start seeing them as a whole or at least large groupings/globs. Darm has made images of pennies themselves meaningless via art in much the same way as they have become meaningless in society as a whole, as alluded to by Mose above. I imagine that the read of the Warhol canvas would not likely be the same by most or all people.
Is this a reasonable read? Is this even important? I don't know.
Do I want a canvas on my wall that physically degraded US currency to make an aesthetic statement about the meaninglessness of that same US currency? Seems pretty anti -American to me and also an entirely different outcome to me than the Warhol again (who I have heard was a big fan of money).
|
|
|
Post by afroken on Dec 25, 2012 12:57:52 GMT -8
Ryan, thank you for such an informative and enjoyable post. Your knowledge is phenomenal and this forum is a richer place for it. Anything I follow that up with is just going to come across as glib. My points of reference for Nick's work stopped at Warhol/pop, post-minimalism and the significance of verdigris from a historical perspective, but that hasn't stopped me from enjoying it hugely. When I got to see his show in London I knew immediately that it was something pretty special and that he's a young artist with great promise, which is why I felt compelled to start a thread on here, knowing full well that it wasn't going to be to everyone's taste. I'm really looking forward to reading what you have to say about the magnet pieces as I'm sure it will be deeply insightful.
|
|
|
Post by mose on Dec 26, 2012 6:34:12 GMT -8
Thanks Afroken.
I just want to make sure I say that in no way is what I wrote 'the' interpretation. I would not dream to be that egotistical. It's just what has run through my head when contemplating this work. I figured posting would help up the conversation, which is what has already started and so I am very happy.
I'm out with the kids shortly, but am looking to set aside some time tonight to review my thoughts on the magnet pieces. Spoiler alert, I think they are rather interesting, perhaps even fantastic.
|
|
|
Post by mose on Dec 26, 2012 7:09:04 GMT -8
Do I want a canvas on my wall that physically degraded US currency to make an aesthetic statement about the meaninglessness of that same US currency? Seems pretty anti -American to me and also an entirely different outcome to me than the Warhol again (who I have heard was a big fan of money). Jumping on your train of though, I like the concept of the the degraded images but on an even grander scale than just addressing currency. Could it not be viewed as a statement on the degradation of America itself? And, as such, I would argue that it is not anti-American, but rather pro-American, in-line with the following quotes(just a sample of many with similar ideas): “I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” - James Baldwin “The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonorably, foolishly, viciously.” - Julian Barnes With regard to money, and by extension the American economy and financial institutions, can one really argue if these works are indeed criticism aimed in that direction? I'll end with one final quote: "The hand that gives is among the hand that takes. Money has no fatherland, financiers are without patriotism and without decency, their sole object is gain.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Dec 26, 2012 7:28:55 GMT -8
There is, IMO, a very fine line between damaging iconic symbols of America and criticizing America. Flag burning may be protected by the First amendment as free speech, but most Americans are still very uncomfortable with it (to say the least). Same analysis applies here IMO.
|
|
|
Post by rizza79 on Dec 26, 2012 7:42:42 GMT -8
are these penny canvases done in a way to last the test of time? does he use any archival materials? I get the idea and they are some of the first work that grabbed my eye when I came across the Still House group, but I question the level of quality production wise. I haven't seen one in person and don't own one, but I would be interested to hear from those that do.
|
|
guymo
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by guymo on Dec 26, 2012 8:17:49 GMT -8
Do I want a canvas on my wall that physically degraded US currency to make an aesthetic statement about the meaninglessness of that same US currency? Seems pretty anti -American to me. As a non-American, in fact a Brit with almost no sense of patriotism, the very fact that this thought could be generated by these works is really interesting to me. Mose has already responded with some appropriate historical quotes, but as a naive response from myself: it seems to me that if some oxidised copper coins can provoke patriotic discomfort, then that is a discomfort that ought to be provoked every once in a while, whether one regards that as a critique, a challenge, or just plain pointing out that it's there. While I'm here: many thanks to mose for a great contribution to this thread, one of the best internet forum posts I've *ever* read because of its combination of knowledge and well-pitched writing. This is a great thread.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Dec 26, 2012 8:40:40 GMT -8
Let me just clarify a couple things before people start making unjustified assumptions. It will also provide, I think, a more full disclosure.
I really like the pennies and would likely own one if not for a "strange" interaction with Isaac at Still House. Ultimately I am happy that the opportunity was "taken away" from me as the only one I could get was too small and overpriced for the work of an unreped artist, IMO. I also had concerns about the ability of these to hold together over time as they are ultimately just chemical deposits on cloth, I think. Congrats to those who scored big ones before the window closed though. Size is very important here.
Also, I am a big fan of free speech. Just stating my read of these canvases, which happened to come out as it did above when I approached them as objectively as possible. Sorry if I offended anyone, just think this forum needs more analysis and less of the "I love it" garbage that is often shared without saying WHY.
|
|
|
Post by afroken on Dec 26, 2012 9:05:57 GMT -8
Not to mention the throw away negative garbage that gets posted all too often.
Your analysis is an interesting one, although you lost me with the flag burning comparison. No analysis is required to know what emotion that comes from. Or does that mean that every artist that's ever used a 'real' US flag in their work is guilty of the same desecration? But back to your original point, I was told by his gallery in London that much of his work is autobiographical and that the pennies represent his feelings towards living in such a dense populous as NYC. Nick is mixed race Chinese so perhaps there's an element of alienation in there. Who knows?
With regards to the long term integrity of the work, it does naturally shed excess salt crystals over a period of a few weeks. This does affect the surface texture somewhat although not the impression left by the oxidisation. Mine has completely stopped shedding, and being quite a dense piece it dumped a whole lot of salt, and its made no difference to the visual integrity of the piece. My initial concerns have completely subsided but I won't pretend that it wasn't worrying at first.
Having said that it's verdigris, which is bound to react with the environment over time and possibly change colour, maybe darken a little or maybe even revert to a copper colour. Only time will tell but I don't have a problem with that aspect at all. I think it's inherently part of the work so I'm a comfortable with the possibility.
Personally I wouldn't let the materials used or archival concerns put you off but you have to be prepared for the piece to change quite rapidly at first and then more slowly over time.
|
|
|
Post by droow2 on Dec 26, 2012 9:23:52 GMT -8
just think this forum needs more analysis and less of the "I love it" garbage that is often shared without saying WHY. Exactly why I don't come on here anymore. I'm personally not interested in listening to some elitist arthole pontificating his navel on why something's good. I have eyes, I can see. If i don't like something I don't need someone explaining 'what I'm missing' Some of the threads on here are in serious danger of disappearing up their self-ingraciated arse. Right, off to make myself ill with turkey.
|
|
guymo
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by guymo on Dec 26, 2012 10:02:45 GMT -8
Sorry if I offended anyone, just think this forum needs more analysis and less of the "I love it" garbage that is often shared without saying WHY. FWIW, I don't see any evidence that you have offended anyone and can't imagine that you would have done, though I have been wrong before I thought your response was interesting, and I thought this was turning into a really good thread for exactly the reason you mention. I've never seen the point in posts that just say "great piece", either. For me, this thread is good to read because it is giving me some insight into how people respond to these works. Mose gave some historical positioning and points of comparison / contrast, some of which I could have dug up with enough thought, most of which I couldn't; and you raised the patriotism point which I would *never* have come up with, but which is again interesting. This is waaaay more interesting than "that looks nice" or "that's garbage" or "a five year old could have done it". So I like this thread and I don't think you should be apologising for anything --- good contribution as far as I'm concerned. Better than mine, anyway
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Dec 26, 2012 10:47:38 GMT -8
Not to mention the throw away negative garbage that gets posted all too often. Your analysis is an interesting one, although you lost me with the flag burning comparison. No analysis is required to know what emotion that comes from. Or does that mean that every artist that's ever used a 'real' US flag in their work is guilty of the same desecration? But back to your original point, I was told by his gallery in London that much of his work is autobiographical and that the pennies represent his feelings towards living in such a dense populous as NYC. Nick is mixed race Chinese so perhaps there's an element of alienation in there. Who knows? Interesting to hear his take. Though it leaves me at a complete loss as to why he chose pennies.
|
|
|
Post by mose on Dec 26, 2012 10:57:10 GMT -8
I could see the pennies in these works as stand-ins for people in a city like New York, and especially non-wealthy. All packed in tightly in rows, all with slight variation but basically the same, and all treated equivalent to their economic status - meaning they are practically worthless.
To me, that would bring these works around to be explored in relation to something like Ai Weiwei's sunflower seeds.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Dec 26, 2012 10:59:19 GMT -8
And regarding the Verdi Gris: My concern would be that I am eventually left with a blank canvas. How well does it bind to the cloth? Will gravity eventually win out? Does it actually stain it or integrate into it at all? If I bought one I would definitely consult a professional archivist for advice at some point.
|
|
|
Post by afroken on Dec 26, 2012 11:43:57 GMT -8
It definitely stains it. You can clearly see that. Worth mentioning that the canvas is primed and has an even surface, so it's not directly on to the linen. It would be interesting to hear a professional archivist's perpective though. I might just contact one.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Dec 26, 2012 11:51:21 GMT -8
I could see the pennies in these works as stand-ins for people in a city like New York, and especially non-wealthy. All packed in tightly in rows, all with slight variation but basically the same, and all treated equivalent to their economic status - meaning they are practically worthless. To me, that would bring these works around to be explored in relation to something like Ai Weiwei's sunflower seeds. Maybe. I'm still not sure why he would pick pennies as opposed to anything else though. My understanding with the Wei Wei seeds is that they have a strong historical message and connection via how Mao projected himself as the sun in Chinese society and his citizenry as sunflowers. Not sure I see a parallel here that would instill similar significance to pennies in particular.
|
|
|
Post by sin on Dec 26, 2012 13:07:01 GMT -8
love this thread for the record.
i myself am guilty for calling some of these works type of works crap. which is rather valueless to the conversation.
mose's addition of detailed historical information was really helpful in putting the pieces in perspective and the discussion around artchival quality based on the nature of the medium is interesting.
the part of the thread that really spun me up was the drevil comment regarding damaging inconic symbols and critisizing america. would any work that damages iconic symbols of america be critizing of it? and frankly whats wrong with critizing any institution? isnt that one of the great values of art is its ability to inspire questioning of constructs?
reagard the quality of the works or lack thereof I can appreciate the penny work but just as my concerns with the burst in price of invader work or my critisism of lucien smith pieces (as unelequent as they were) these magenet works that are not about the assemblage but rather taking $50 of materials and selling it to someone for thousands completely lose me and I'd love to hear Mose's historical perspective on these pieces. im more than happy to eat my hat after some additional information but i cant for the life of me reconcile how someone can take something worth 50 bucks, disasemble it and then send it to you at a price I dont even want to imagine, is worth it and is art.
|
|
|
Post by afroken on Dec 26, 2012 13:35:02 GMT -8
There seems to be a mistaken perception on price with these artists. You could buy four 4x5 foot penny canvases or two 9x7 foot Smith rain paintings for the the price of the average Invader Rubiks Cube piece. These are young artists just starting out so the work costs what you would expect and without any of the unjustified over night price hiking that we have come to expect from many urban art dealers, despite increasing demand. Even Tauba Auerbach's work is cheaper per square foot than Invader at primary, although of course in her case getting access is pretty much impossible and auction results will ensure that prices don't remain low for long.
|
|
|
Post by rizza79 on Dec 30, 2012 18:45:23 GMT -8
I think Nick has a few more upcoming group shows. One in Brussels and one at Zach Feuer
|
|
|
Post by |peetov| on Dec 30, 2012 22:03:07 GMT -8
great post mose. thanks so much for sharing your knowledge and thoughts on the works. you summarized what would literally have taken me years of learning and reading and studying to find out on my own. a real gem of a post.
|
|
|
Post by mose on Jan 1, 2013 15:45:37 GMT -8
Taking the Warhol comparison/contrast farther, here is a quoted section from the most-excellent book 'Pop Art: A Continuing History':
"...Warhol found a much simpledr and more direct way of replicating an image by using a photo-mechanical process, that of screen printing. He applied the process first to paintings representing rows of dollar bills or two-dollar bills, ordering a screen to be made from a hand-drawn facsimile of a bank-note (as the laws on counterfeiting forbade their photographic reproduction) and then using it as a standard unit to be printed one by one on a strict grid system. For Warhol, as for the minimalists and other artists during and after this period, the grid itself - as a pure expression of serial repetition this dispensed with relational methods of composition - functioned as a sign for modernism in the context of abstract and representational paintings alike. The procedure used by Warhol in the dollar-bill paintings was rich in irony: not only was he literally printing money, matching the technique to its subject, he was also drawing attention to the status of art itself as a mere commodity, 'money on walls'. The buying and selling of contemporary art, and especially of American art, was for the first time becoming big business in New York. Other artists continued to speak of their transcendental and spiritual ambitions. Warhol, by contrast, blandly but shockingly avowed the more worldly monetary transactions that others cared about just as passionately but preferred not to admit to publicly. What may have seemed at the time to be cynicism on Warhol's part could as accurately be described as brutal honesty."
Anyone find relation to the Penny Paintings?
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Jan 1, 2013 16:58:59 GMT -8
Taking the Warhol comparison/contrast farther, here is a quoted section from the most-excellent book 'Pop Art: A Continuing History': "...Warhol found a much simpledr and more direct way of replicating an image by using a photo-mechanical process, that of screen printing. He applied the process first to paintings representing rows of dollar bills or two-dollar bills, ordering a screen to be made from a hand-drawn facsimile of a bank-note (as the laws on counterfeiting forbade their photographic reproduction) and then using it as a standard unit to be printed one by one on a strict grid system. For Warhol, as for the minimalists and other artists during and after this period, the grid itself - as a pure expression of serial repetition this dispensed with relational methods of composition - functioned as a sign for modernism in the context of abstract and representational paintings alike. The procedure used by Warhol in the dollar-bill paintings was rich in irony: not only was he literally printing money, matching the technique to its subject, he was also drawing attention to the status of art itself as a mere commodity, 'money on walls'. The buying and selling of contemporary art, and especially of American art, was for the first time becoming big business in New York. Other artists continued to speak of their transcendental and spiritual ambitions. Warhol, by contrast, blandly but shockingly avowed the more worldly monetary transactions that others cared about just as passionately but preferred not to admit to publicly. What may have seemed at the time to be cynicism on Warhol's part could as accurately be described as brutal honesty." Anyone find relation to the Penny Paintings? After reading how Nick himself views these, no. We can sit around projecting meaning and importance on these for years. However, you can probably do that with most art. Honestly, after reading how Nick thinks about these I have lost most interest. I want artists to work hard. But more importantly I want artists that think harder about what they are doing and what they are trying to accomplish. I don't see that here. I see a young man with some talent (or plain luck) meandering around looking for direction. Maybe in 5-10 years. Or maybe never. Happy New Year all.
|
|
guymo
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by guymo on Jan 2, 2013 0:44:14 GMT -8
Honestly, after reading how Nick thinks about these I have lost most interest. What did you read?
|
|
|
Post by afroken on Jan 18, 2013 10:29:49 GMT -8
Amazing....
|
|