Coca-Cola at Fine-Wine Prices?

[JW Dewdney]

Sorry - I shoulda said CIA. I get those two mixed up - even though they're worlds apart in certain ways. Well - I think it makes a certain amount of sense. Culture begets political view and, in many cases, dissent. There was a lot of stuff going on in the world at the time which was QUITE critical of capitalism and mass culture. You could say it was sort of an early form of what punk rock was TRYING to be (nihilism at it's core). I think the most visible expression of it was the Situationist Movement (also COBRA)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationist

Small, it was - though very potent! An argument could be made that it was the SI or Situationist International that made May 1968 even possible in the first place. Kind of fascinating to read about! But regardless, the CIA are no dummies. They know how opinions are swayed. They know how tastes are made, so I think it makes good sense to put the serious capital into directing public tastes.

It would be interesting to find out the relationship between the CIA and NEA. I think also that the river will generally flow where you dig a trench - that is to say... if you support certain kinds of work with funding, you'll get some pretty encouraging results.

I've never read Guilbaut's book and don't plan to if he seriously suggests that abstract art was an FBI plot. The two best books I've read about the world of contemporary art in general, and in particular how art "isms" start, become "in," make people (mostly dealers) rich, and then go into hiding when it's time to find a new one and start the cycle all over again, are Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word" and Calvin Tomkins "Off the Wall." Both make the point that contemporary art at its highest level is a world that consists only of two very very tiny groups, those who get rich selling it and those who are already rich and so can afford to buy it. Everything and everyone else - critics, publications, museums, etc. - exist to serve these two groups. Of course they serve their own interests as well - if not for the two primary groups the critics would have no jobs, the magazines would cease to exist, the museums would be limited to showing the same old stuff over and over, etc. etc. - but that's just a happy coincidence.

[Colin Graham]

Think of Jeff Wall like Cezanne or Van Gough or Monet. Those guys were tired of placing value in the surface appearance so they got very nerdy and started playing around in techniques of painting like Jeff Wall does with his digital photo illustrations...are they even photographs? for all we know he might have made that picture out of 45 different negatives as this is the way he builds pictures...a little bit like how those early modern painters did...or its like coltrane jazz...its unlistenable wanking for those who dont play saxophone. I really like Jeff Walls stuff.

Hey, I love Coltrane too, and Ornette Coleman, Eric Dolphy, and Sonny Rollins. Also Jean Sibelius and Igor Stravinsky, also X-ray Spex, Sonic Youth and the Butthole Surfers. I cant even hum.... I'm sure there were plenty of musicians that detested Coltrane, but I suspect they knew he could play. I know Wall has an eye, and is responsible for some world class compositions, but the question for me is what makes his work more than mere illustration? How is Sudden Gust of Wind original, or After Invisible Man?

[paulr]

... but the question for me is what makes his work more than mere illustration? How is Sudden Gust of Wind original, or After Invisible Man?

I'm not sure I understand the question. What it is about the work that would make it 'mere illustration' ... (and what you do you mean by that)? And what would make it unoriginal? 'After Invisible Man' is unlike anything i've ever seen before. Is it derrivitive of something you've seen?

[Martin Miller]

Paul, "After Invisible Man" is intended by Wall to illustrate a scene from Ralph Ellison's novel, Invisible Man. I won't argue that is "mere" illustration. I think it is an immensely imaginative work despite being avowedly illustrative. Actually, it is my favorite image of all Wall's work. Admittedly, I have only seen it in reproduction, but it still managed to engage me.

[Colin Graham]

I think it's an amazing photograph, and very powerful, but much of it's gravitas comes from Ellison's book right? It's not his own vision. That's my point. I also really like the Gust of Wind piece. But again, it's a reworking of another piece of art, a Katsushika Hokusai woodblock carving. I'm not trying to be a snob about it, I was wondering if I was missing something, and thought maybe someone could shed some light on it.

[tim atherton]

well - this is a reworking of - you know - that passage from the bible



and this is based on a story from Greek Mythology




and this - probably the most revolutionary and influential painting of the 20th Century - was based in good part on a postcard (i.e. a photograph) of a group of African women in the same poses.




I don't think any of them are "illustrations" (in the most reductive and narrow sense of the word) Nor are they unoriginal.

[r.e.]

A pretty fine work of art that draws rather directly form an earlier work of art: http://poetrypages.lemon8.nl/life/mu...ebeauxarts.htm

You can assume that Wall has read that. It is routinely taught to Canadian high school kids, at least outside Quebec, as part of the basic English curriculum. Hey, maybe it even influenced him.

Sorry if Breughel's The Fall of Icarus doesn't look like much on the internet. In real life, it ain't a bad painting

Then there's Shakespeare's plays, Joyce's Ulysses, etc., etc., etc.

[tim atherton]

A pretty fine work of art that draws rather directly form an earlier work of art: http://poetrypages.lemon8.nl/life/mu...ebeauxarts.htm

based on an even older story...

[r.e.]

based on an even older story...

Yup

[Colin Graham]

Interesting examples. Of course it's true that most art is derivative; I guess Wall's seems more 'literal' by very nature of the properties of photography, and I'm sure I am penalizing it unfairly because of it.

I am often more interested in my reaction to art than the art itself, no exception here. Been an interesting thread with a broad spectrum of reactions from everyone and it's helpful to me on many many levels to try to look at mine as plainly as possible. Hope I wasn't a crashing bore.