|
|
Post by sleepboy on May 5, 2009 21:44:05 GMT -8
Art historians claim Van Gogh's ear 'cut off by Gauguin'Vincent van Gogh's fame may owe as much to a legendary act of self-harm, as it does to his self-portraits. But, 119 years after his death, the tortured post-Impressionist's bloody ear is at the centre of a new controversy, after two historians suggested that the painter did not hack off his own lobe but was attacked by his friend, the French artist Paul Gauguin. According to official versions, the disturbed Dutch painter cut off his ear with a razor after a row with Gauguin in 1888. Bleeding heavily, Van Gogh then walked to a brothel and presented the severed ear to an astonished prostitute called Rachel before going home to sleep in a blood-drenched bed. But two German art historians, who have spent 10 years reviewing the police investigations, witness accounts and the artists' letters, argue that Gauguin, a fencing ace, most likely sliced off the ear with his sword during a fight, and the two artists agreed to hush up the truth. In Van Gogh's Ear: Paul Gauguin and the Pact of Silence, published in Germany, Hamburg-based academics Hans Kaufmann and Rita Wildegans argue that the official version of events, based largely on Gauguin's accounts, contain inconsistencies and that both artists hinted that the truth was more complex. Van Gogh and Gauguin's troubled friendship was legendary. In 1888, Van Gogh persuaded him to come to Arles in the south of France to live with him in the Yellow House he had set up as a "studio of the south". They spent the autumn painting together before things soured. Just before Christmas, they fell out. Van Gogh, seized by an attack of a metabolic disease became aggressive and was apparently crushed when Gauguin said he was leaving for good. Kaufmann told the Guardian: "Near the brothel, about 300 metres from the Yellow House, there was a final encounter between them: Vincent might have attacked him, Gauguin wanted to defend himself and to get rid of this 'madman'. He drew his weapon, made some movement in the direction of Vincent and by that cut off his left ear." Kaufmann said it was not clear if it was an accident or an aimed hit. While curators at the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam stand by the theory of self-mutilation, Kaufmann argues that Van Gogh dropped hints in letters to his brother, Theo, once commenting : "Luckily Gauguin ... is not yet armed with machine guns and other dangerous war weapons."
|
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on May 18, 2009 17:41:38 GMT -8
Some very stupid people melted down a £3m sculpture and and sold it off as as scrap for just £1,500. Via Guardian.Bronze sculpture worth £3m was melted down and sold off as scrap for just £1,500, say police One of the most audacious British art thefts, the disappearance of a two-tonne Henry Moore sculpture worth £3m, has been solved by police, who believe that the internationally revered Reclining Figure sculpture was melted down and sold for no more than £1,500. The bronze sculpture was stolen from the 72-acre estate of the Henry Moore Foundation in Much Hadham, Hertfordshire, in December 2005. The theft baffled art and crime experts and sparked a global hunt for the culprits. Police feared at first that it had been stolen to order, but investigations suggest it was taken by a group of travellers from Essex and that the metal may have ended up feeding China's growing demand for electrical components. Detective chief inspector Jon Humphries, of Hertfordshire police, said it is believed the figure was "irreparably damaged" shortly after being taken away on a flat-bed lorry. Inquiries indicate that the statue was moved through a Dagenham scrap dealer in December 2005 and on to another Essex scrapyard. Shortly afterwards it was shipped abroad, possibly to Rotterdam and then further east, circumventing an order to Interpol to monitor all ports for the distinctive figure. Humphries said estimates suggested that the sculpture, three metres long and two metres high, may have made just £1,500 as scrap metal, a value that equates to just a few hundred pounds in current market prices. The Henry Moore Foundation is believed to have offered £10,000 for its safe return. Humphries, who led the investigation, said: "We have evidence and information suggesting it was cut up on the night, then taken to a location where it was irreparably damaged before it was shipped abroad. In my mind we've managed to kill off the mystery as much as is possible." Charles Hill, a former head of Scotland Yard's art and antiques squad and now a private art detective, added that he had been told by the notorious art thief Jimmy Johnson, whose family carried out a string of robberies at stately homes in 2005 and 2006, that a well-known group of travellers was behind the theft. Johnson alleged that the metal had been shipped to Rotterdam, then possibly to China. Richard Calvocoressi, director of the Henry Moore Foundation, said the theft remained a "source of great regret" and that "considerable efforts" had been made to find the sculpture. Moore, who died in 1986, was renowned for his monumental, rounded reclining figures. "Security measures have been considerably increased since the work was taken," added Calvocoressi. The latest developments come amid a huge rise in thefts of public sculptures, up by more than 500 % in the past three years, according to Ian Leith, deputy chairman of the Public Monuments and Sculpture Association (PMSA). Police and art experts believe that although some are taken for scrap, others are targeted by black market collectors. Leith believes there is clearly an illegal art collector market, with thefts occurring on average once a month. "It is not purely due to the bronze," he said. He added that because of the lack of an audit, local authorities and arts bodies were incapable of providing accurate information on stolen pieces. "How do we know what public art exists if we do not record what is there? There is literally a national gallery of art out there," said Leith. The PMSA is attempting to create an online database of pieces in public places, but is hampered by a lack of funds. |
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Jun 9, 2009 17:12:02 GMT -8
"Bamboozling Ourselves" is a fascinating 7-part story by Errol Morris at the New York Times blog about a bizarre Nazi art forgery intrigue... "Shortly after the liberation of Holland, Han van Meegeren, a painter and art dealer living in Amsterdam was arrested for collaboration with the Third Reich. He was accused among other things of having sold a Vermeer to Reichsmarshal Hermann Göring — essentially of having plundered the patrimony of his homeland for his own benefit and the benefit of the Nazis. To save his skin — the penalty for collaborating was imprisonment or hanging — Van Meegeren revealed that the painting sold to Göring and many other paintings that he had sold as works of the Dutch masters were forgeries. He had painted all of them."There are so many bizarre levels to this story. It reveals so much about human nature and how herd mentality rules the art world. |
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Jun 16, 2009 21:33:45 GMT -8
Chuck Close on how and why he sees in his unique way: "Neurologically, I’m a quadriplegic, so virtually everything about my work has been driven by my learning disabilities, which are quite severe, and my lack of facial recognition, which I’m sure is what drove me to paint portraits in the first place. I don’t know who anyone is and have essentially no memory at all for people in real space, but when I flatten them out in a photograph, I can commit that image to memory in a way; I have almost a kind of photographic memory for flat stuff. I’ve had my face blindness, or prosopagnosia, my whole life. Really, it’s been a nightmare situation for me. So I’m especially interested in talking to the other panelists and finding out how related this is to my other learning disabilities. It’ll be interesting to see what their take is on my situation. I’ve often thought that my works were similar to the situation in “Gulliver’s Travels,” when the Lilliputians are crawling all over the face of this giant man they don’t even know they are on. They know all of the information about this unique landscape — which just happens to be Gulliver’s face — yet they can’t put all the pieces together. It’s an apt metaphor for the way I see and the way I work."
|
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Jun 18, 2009 13:08:39 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Jun 19, 2009 22:13:06 GMT -8
I quite enjoyed Jerry Saltz's review of the Venice Bienniale in New York magazine. "The show, containing the work of 90-plus artists, doesn’t offend or go off the rails. Rather, it looks pretty much the way these sorts of big international group shows and cattle calls now look; it includes the artists that these sorts of shows now include. It’s full of the reflexive conceptualism that artists everywhere now produce because other artists everywhere produce it (and because curators curate it). Almost all of this art comments on art, institutions, or modernism. Basically, curators seem to love video, text, explanations, things that are “about” something, art that references Warhol or Prince, or that makes sense; they seem to hate painting, things that don’t make sense, or that involve overt materiality, physicality, color, or strangeness.
Any critic who says this, of course, is accused of conservatism, of wishing for a return to painting. I’m not for or against video—or any medium or style, for that matter. Nor am I wishing for a return to painting, which can never come back because it never went away.
...
Everything here looks dried up and checked out. Good art looks dead; bad art looks dead. Even Jeff Koons looks like he is making work that has no reason to be on this earth. It’s hard to say if the grandiosity of the settings, the shallowness of the taste, or the art itself made this show look so bad, but it is impossible to visit these two spaces without thinking that a phase of art is over and that it is time for art to start again.
...
At the tip of the Dogana is Charles Ray’s extraordinary 'Boy With Frog.' Seeing this boy coming to grips with otherness, life outside himself, and the world as he stands naked before us, frog in hand, is as uncanny and moving as it is revelatory. Ray seems to be saying, “Modern art is over, so I’m retrieving familiar forms and techniques to make something old new again.”
The most moving moment I had at the Biennale, however, came in the last minutes of my last day at the show. Just before closing time, as guards herded stragglers toward the entrance from the far end of the Arsenal where I was, three marvelous-looking vessels cobbled together from urban detritus motored past Mike Boucher’s wonderful sunken suburban house, and into the small lagoon. A band played a haunting song, a woman sang, a girl swung on a swing. The boats are the work of the artist Swoon, who was profiled in this magazine’s pages a couple of weeks ago. I’m told that Swoon wasn’t even invited to the show. She and her gypsy friends simply entered of their own accord and did what they wanted to do. Like the best work here, Swoon’s work doesn’t come out of academic critique; it comes from necessity and vision. These are the perfect tools for making things as old as time new again—including an art world turned dangerously into itself." |
|
|
|
Post by travislouie on Jun 20, 2009 1:58:33 GMT -8
Can self reflection be self defeating when it comes to artmaking?, . . .when you are only talking to yourself, . . .who says others will be interested in that conversation?
Some have worked so hard to create this conceptualized vision of art, . . ,. about their statements, about the new, . . . they forgot they had to make actual art too. They say art is what we tell you it is, . . .I say art existed before you and will exist after you. I always felt that concept not only requires communication, but communication that is full of enough artifice that we might be enticed to take a gander and maybe hang around a while. There's so much beauty in the world, . . .if you go out of your way to avoid it, . . .you might find people avoiding you. I've always believed that concept was not enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Aug 11, 2009 21:12:56 GMT -8
From the Guardian: Tate Modern Too Cold?At five storeys high and with more than 300 square metres of floor area, Tate Modern's Turbine Hall is an undeniably tricky place to keep warm. But, according to one former member of staff at the London gallery, the temperatures in the vast exhibition space were so low that they contributed to a serious deterioration in her health. Elizabeth Andrews, a gallery supervisor, has launched a claim for compensation against the Tate, saying that the cold, among a series of other factors, meant she became increasingly ill and eventually had to go on long-term sick leave. On occasions working in the Turbine Hall, where the electricity generators were housed before the former Bankside power station was decommissioned in 1981, she would wear a shirt, jumper and long coat but "I was still cold", Andrews told an employment tribunal yesterday. Andrews, 40, who has Crohn's disease and is registered disabled, said she was forced against her will to move from the smaller Tate Britain in nearby Pimlico to Tate Modern, and that her bosses failed to take into account her condition when making the decision. Crohn's causes the body's immune system to attack the intestines, causing problems including digestive complaints, back pain and tiredness. At Tate Modern, the heavy main entrance doors and the many escalators also caused problems, notably making her back seize up, Andrews told the London South employment tribunal in Croydon. Without any legal representation and supported only by her partner, Andrews told the three-strong tribunal panel that she had joined Tate Britain in 2003 as a gallery assistant, winning promotion to supervisor the following year. Her bosses there were sympathetic to her health problems, for example letting her work part time for a period and buying a special chair for her back. But in March 2007 Andrews was issued with a written warning for "rude and aggressive behaviour" following a confrontation with a colleague at a party. This meant they found it hard to work together and managers decided one of them should be moved, Andrews said. If both refused one staff member would be sacked, most probably her, she said she was told. "I was desperately unhappy about the move and thought this might have a detrimental effect on my disability, bearing in mind the reasonable adjustments that were in place at the Tate Britain had not been put in place at the Tate Modern," Andrews said. "Nevertheless, I thought I would see how it worked, but I was very unhappy about the move." In testimony punctuated by weeping, which at one point necessitated a 15-minute break, Andrews said that as soon as she began work at Tate Modern in November 2007 "it became clear that it was not suitable for me". She said: "It is a much bigger and colder building than the Tate Britain." Air conditioning in the CCTV room where, as a gallery supervisor, she spent time monitoring screens, made her back pain worse. She also had to cover for assistants' absences on the gallery floors, including the Turbine Hall, while the hours affected her health and made childcare more difficult, she told the tribunal. Her health and self-esteem were "badly affected" by the move, and managers refused to let her return to Tate Britain. "At Tate Britain I had status," said Andrews. "I only ever wanted to remain in the job I loved." The month after she began at the gallery, Andrews went on long-term sick leave, submitting a written grievance saying the transfer had been "extremely detrimental in terms of working time, childcare arrangements and health". An internal hearing found in her favour, saying conditions were very different at the two sites and her medical condition had not been properly considered during the process of the move. It was agreed that she could return to work at Tate Britain, which she did in March. The Tate's board of trustees, the respondents in the case, are contesting Andrews's claim for compensation, saying it has been lodged too late. Andrews's argument is that the way she was treated formed "one continuing act" and thus she was within time. Richard Hignett, representing the Tate, questioned whether Andrews had properly explored the way Tate Modern could accommodate her condition given that she had only worked 12 shifts there before taking sick leave. He suggested that the gallery had taken all reasonable measures to address her complaints and questioned why she had not raised the issue of her condition during an initial meeting with Tate Modern managers. The hearing continues.
|
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Aug 11, 2009 21:22:38 GMT -8
Wow, what a whiner. Try working at a Burger King or a Wal-Mart. Most people would kill for her job.
|
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Aug 12, 2009 0:07:17 GMT -8
While I would kill for her job, I am surrounded by three people with Crohn's disease and have a good idea of what she "could" be whining about.
I don't know the full story, but I can say from experience that it is quite hard to deal with a physical condition getting in the way of something you love. Those that work around you only have to deal with the problem at work, while you are there. While the person with the ailment has to deal with it 24/7. It's always difficult for people without the ailment to know what they are going through.
My hearing for example has degraded heavily, which was the main reason I left the music business. It causes a lot of problems, my pride surely get in the way of much of it. It wasn't until later when one of my colleagues lost a good majority of his hearing that he apologized to me, now knowing what I was going through.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Aug 27, 2009 10:44:22 GMT -8
Lunch with Jeff Koons.Excerpt This paragraph: “There is one work, 'Ilona’s *sshole,' which I have always particularly enjoyed.” (The photograph is as described, and also features a penetration scene, in ruthless detail). “To have the confidence to reveal oneself so intimately, to be so at ease with one’s own body. It is quite beautiful,” Koons says. Followed by this one: His work, he insists, is designed to appeal to everyone. “I have seen how works of art can be used against people, how they can be demanding and intimidating, by the suggestion that you can’t enjoy or understand them unless you have read this piece of literature, or know that piece of mythology. It is total disempowerment. But art has the ability to achieve the absolute opposite of that.” Don't know if those two quotes were meant to go together but I'm going to go out on a limb and say his photograph as described doe not "appeal to everyone."
|
|
|
|
Post by untilshewokeme on Aug 27, 2009 10:54:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by jemappellekat on Aug 27, 2009 13:48:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by steveinca on Aug 27, 2009 13:56:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by sbgallery on Sept 2, 2009 8:20:13 GMT -8
I say art existed before you and will exist after you. I always felt that concept not only requires communication, but communication that is full of enough artifice that we might be enticed to take a gander and maybe hang around a while. There's so much beauty in the world, . . .if you go out of your way to avoid it, . . .you might find people avoiding you. I've always believed that concept was not enough. Related, in my mind at least... My buddy Mark and I have had a conversation for the past 10+ years that never seems to resolve itself. Oddly enough, we both seem to change position on it fairly often, although we're always in opposition to the other. Go figure.  The point of discussion: Nothing is created, ever. Everything already exists in the universe. There are no artists, simply explorers. No one creates anything...it's simply a race to find yourself in the position to discover it first and present it. On the one hand, this certainly explains all the instances of two people creating nearly identical things with no knowledge of the other. On the other hand, it does seem to denigrate the artists' vision by implying that their act of creation is simply an egotistical way of claiming something. We've never resolved this. I doubt we ever will. But it's an interesting thing to talk about when you're in your cups and among friends. |
|
|
|
Post by jemappellekat on Sept 14, 2009 17:04:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Sept 17, 2009 20:35:40 GMT -8
Interesting interview in the Wall Street Journal, with Robert Poslky, who writes about collecting: Q: Looking back through the annals of art-world power, you say that collectors called the shots in the 1950s, artists ruled the 1960s, and dealers owned the 1980s. The auction houses took over during the past few years, but who’s on top now? A: Collectors. When there’s a real shake-up, we always go back to connoisseurship, to the ones who decide which art will stand the test of time. Most art that I see is a one-liner -– you see it, you nod, you get it, you move on and forget it. The good stuff that will be worth money makes you go back a second time. Collectors are going after art that’s well-executed and seems to have a soul. The rest? Forget it. It’s not getting sold now.
|
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Sept 25, 2009 20:47:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by ken on Sept 27, 2009 21:41:07 GMT -8
Yeah... I dunno, seems pretty contrived.  |
|
|
|
Post by thecreep on Sept 27, 2009 23:38:42 GMT -8
I think the whole idea of Pollock hiding his name in his paintings would make a great essay/thesis for school. It would be something that many professors would encourage, and I'm sure enjoy reading. But it would go no further than that.
Every once in a while its nice to write an essay that might not be groundbreaking, but at least entertaining and shows you tried. Like one I am writing currently is for Ancient Roman Graffiti. Nothing too crazy, but more interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by travislouie on Sept 28, 2009 3:20:09 GMT -8
I am reminded of John Cleese playing a Roman soldier threatening to castrate Graham Chapman if he doesn't conjugate the verbs in Latin correctly while he is writing graffiti on the walls. He's trying to write "Romans go home!"
|
|
|
|
Post by oldfartatplay on Sept 28, 2009 4:11:58 GMT -8
I am reminded of John Cleese playing a Roman soldier threatening to castrate Graham Chapman if he doesn't conjugate the verbs in Latin correctly while he is writing graffiti on the walls. He's trying to write "Romans go home!" |
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Oct 13, 2009 16:59:23 GMT -8
Posted up some of the art Obama chose for the White House for those interested.    |
|
|
|
Post by commandax on Oct 30, 2009 19:24:35 GMT -8
Adorable story about how Warhol gave one of his self-portraits to a teenage typist who worked for him for two years for free.
|
|
|
|
Post by gildoinc on Nov 12, 2009 15:21:21 GMT -8
|
|
