Previous: research (42)

Next: beyond geometry (6)

return of lascaux

Post #462 • January 26, 2005, 6:49 AM • 23 Comments

I'm going to try to do a real post later this afternoon - I have a lot of images to put up. In the meantime, I want to express my gladness about finding that Out of Lascaux has returned. OoL was one of the original artblogs and gave Artblog.net some of its first links. Welcome back.

Comment

1.

bookworm

January 26, 2005, 5:43 PM

I'm going out of town for a week so will miss the latest but wanted to say before I leave...
I loved the show at Bernice Steinbaum. Les Christensen.
A mannerist Tom Freidman.
Especially, "Knowledge is Power" - "Ignorance is Bliss"
Also liked the medicine cabinet "Know your pain"
Best thing I've seen here for a long time (my humble opinion, just happens to be my kind of thing)...
Have fun everyone, while I'm gone!

2.

johnpolito

January 26, 2005, 11:04 PM

Sorry to break the train of thought but I read the comments on the Marcaccio piece at MAM and wanted to comment on that.

You sound like a bunch of middle-aged (or older) Mr. Driesdales! The lamest comment is the one that thought it would have been better if it had been all black! Or OldPro who never answers the question of who his favorite artists are! Tough choices. Hmmm. Milton Avery or Nell Blaine?

Interesting that the graininess of the digital image is so disturbing to some people. What the hell is that all about? Try stepping back a few feet.

I'm sure George Bush would hate the Marcaccio and that Bill Clinton would love it. If you hate the Marcaccio you are probably John Ashcroft.

Anyway, I dislike a lot of art too-- but maybe the anonymity of the internet tempts some of you people towards highly flawed, self indulgent, bombastically expressed points of view.

3.

oldpro

January 26, 2005, 11:21 PM

I don't think the anonymity makes any difference, JP; plenty of people write that kind of thing and proudly sign it.

4.

Franklin

January 26, 2005, 11:48 PM

Just by way of correction, "the lamest comment" referred to above was mine, and not an anonymous one. I like neither Marcaccio's work nor Ashcroft's, although for entirely different reasons.

Your suggestion regarding the viewing of grainy prints might work just as well as turning the volume down on a static-filled radio broadcast.

I don't know who Mr. Driesdale is, but while I'm not middle-aged or older, I don't consider either to be a character flaw.

5.

johnpolito

January 27, 2005, 12:10 AM

I'm a little jammed up at work but I will answer later!

6.

oldpro

January 27, 2005, 12:39 AM

I think your answer will be more interesting to the readers if it confronts specific matters at hand rather than characterizing the writers, JP.

Avery is pretty good, depending on what painting you are referring to . Blaine never did much for me.

7.

oldpro

January 27, 2005, 12:46 AM

Franklin:

JP may be referring to Mr Drysdale, the skinflint banket on "Beverly Hillbillies".

If so, the obscurity and the misspelling would certainly conspire to make the reference difficult to understand.

8.

oldpro

January 27, 2005, 12:46 AM

That's "banker", not "blanket". Geez!

9.

Jack

January 27, 2005, 2:34 AM

Mr. Polito, the thrill, nay, the veritable frisson of having you burst upon Artblog with an off-topic comment about a defunct thread from last year is, well, indescribable. One could say incredible, but we live and learn. It really was dreadfully thoughtful of you to take time out to berate the poor benighted fools who disagree with you--not to mention, presumably, Bill Clinton. I mean, what higher authority is there? Well, there IS Oprah, but one needn't invoke divinity. You're too good to the unfortunate.

I'm especially grateful for this pearl of wisdom: "If you hate the Marcaccio you are probably John Ashcroft." What can I say? It's all so clear now.

Then, as if you hadn't done enough already, you even throw in a diagnosis: "maybe the anonymity of the internet tempts some of you people towards highly flawed, self indulgent, bombastically expressed points of view." Surely, you know whereof you speak. I hesitate to sound ungrateful, but you really, really shouldn't have.

10.

Buffy

January 27, 2005, 4:02 AM

Does anyone know where in SF David lovins is showing?
Much thabx and peace!
B

11.

lolo

January 27, 2005, 7:17 AM

i went by the art center on lincoln road this evening (south florida). im new to exhibits but its something i truly enjoy. and i got linked to this website from kristin thiele's website. i have to say, the exhibit was amazing. i loved it all. not sure if this post belongs in this area but, whatever :)

12.

alesh

January 27, 2005, 9:53 AM

maybe the anonymity of the internet tempts some of you people towards highly flawed, self indulgent, bombastically expressed points of view.

I actually thing that's a good thing. A non-anonimity optional forum (does that make sense??) is, in many ways, ideal for debating stuff, because different personalities can hide under different levels of anonimity. (You've got total non-anonimity, like Franklin and me, quasi-anonimity, like Oldpro (lots of people know who he is), and near-anonimity, such as one-use pseudonyms we get sometimes (note, however, that Franklin can use "server records" to match up identities of anonymous users with previous posters).) I think it's a neat enviroment that way.

There's a lot to like about the Marcaccio piece, Johnpolito. And yet, I found myself in (rare!!) agreement with the Artblog Chorus about it's ultimate faliure. I'm all for talking about it; let's hear why you think it's good . . . and why, after all this time, you think it's important enough to bring back up.

13.

Franklin

January 27, 2005, 2:43 PM

Jack - you, sir, are the Bruce Lee of sarcasm. Wataa!

14.

oldpro

January 27, 2005, 5:23 PM

I agree with you Alesh, but I would further suggest a kind of converse to what you are saying. I might ask to Franklin to actually post the "Blog Rules" as a daily subject so we could hash them over.

They needn't be very complex, because virtually everything should be allowed. Possibly there could be 3 rough categories:

1. Allowed: just about anything
2. Allowed but discouraged: calling names, characterizing the person rather than the thoughts, and maybe a few other things.
3. Verboten: a very limited list, perhaps only straight advertising, using someone else's name or alias, exposing someone's alias, and probably a couple things Franklin would be aware of.

This would act as a guide and not limit free expression in any way.

15.

Franklin

January 27, 2005, 10:36 PM

Oldpro, I consider those guidelines reasonable. But "verboten" brings with it the problem of enforcement.

I delete advertisements as soon as possible. I scold people who impersonate screen names. As for outing someone, I don't feel inclined to protect anyone's anonymity from other readers. Everyone knows who I am and I say what I like. What happened with Guy on the last post seems rational - the readership found his comment off-topic and nasty, and they let him have it. Guy's a friend of mine, but I tend to think that the shot at Carlos didn't relate to the discussion and came off as a bit trigger-happy.

I consider advertisements and non-sequitur posts as littering and I'm the only one who can clean them up. Everything else I prefer to let the community regulate, and I try to lead by example.

16.

natural spring water from the french Alps

January 28, 2005, 12:30 AM

I'm sorry, Carlos de Villasante, that you were assaulted by Guy's harsh wordst, but I was highly entertained by it. It's like a reality TV show.

17.

oldpro

January 28, 2005, 1:43 AM

Franklin,

I just thought it might be a good ideas to let the bog have a go at what we all think is OK, not so OK and really dirty deeds. i wasn't really talking about enforcement. Everything legal should be allowed, unless you so choose. That's another matter.

18.

alesh

January 28, 2005, 3:47 PM

Here (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006036.html#006036) is an interesting comment on moderating blog "communities." clearly at odds with Franklin's philosophy, but not uninteresting.

19.

catfish

January 28, 2005, 4:00 PM

Interesting URL, alesh. But I think that's too many rules. I can never get the 10 commandments straight without seeing them in print, but I can remember the 2 they were boiled down to in the new testament.

20.

oldpro

January 28, 2005, 5:39 PM

That's about right, catfish. Interesting to read and reasonable advice - though some of it pretty obvious - but I don't like the sound of "disemvowelling", whatever that is.

I think the main virtue of a blogmaster, aside from posting interesting topics, is staying out of the way with an occasional rough nudge, more or less like Franklin does.

21.

johnpolito

January 28, 2005, 7:25 PM

Wow! This thing blog works! Some good points made. I'm still curious-- what does oldpro thinks MAM should be showing. OldPro, if you could be in charge of the program what would the next 10-20 shows be?

I found the Marcaccio show to be amazing-- I have certainly never seen an exhibition that takes into account so many variables and does so with such seamlessness. For instance, the way it interacts with the room's shape and size, the way it is clearly a painting but feels like an installation, the way it is able to contrast the inherent coolness of digital imagery with the red meat of thick painting, (the way it feels passionate and intellectual at once). Therre is just so much to talk about in this show. LIke the piece or not it engages the viewer and creates strong reactions. I was in there during a school tour and the highschool kids were blown away by it. a 17 year old's reaction isn't everything but I think kids see things that our eyes might not be trained or may not be willing to see. The "problem" if that's what you want to call it, the problem with the Marcaccio is that it's not so much composed as it is edited together-- with superfast cuts and transitions that causes fatigue in viewers over a certain age-- me being one of them. But I blame myself-- not the piece-- that might be a major difference being loving it and hating it.

It is an ambitious painting experiment and its success must obviously depend on the viewer's ability to simply enjoy a wild and admittedly bumpy ride.

I would be very curious to see Richard Serra's reaction but then it would be interesting to see Frank Stella's reaction too. I think PIcasso would love it. He would say this is what I hoped would happen. He might look at a Payton or a John Currin and say so what??

Marcaccio deals with fundamental issues of the 20th C.-- cubism, collage figure/ground-- and succeeds at contorting them in a punchy, novel, content driven way that opens doors. That's all I'm saying.

22.

Franklin

January 28, 2005, 8:24 PM

It doesn't surprise me that the highschoolers enjoyed the Marcaccio - teenagers like big, bombastic things. I did too. But we see things that they don't as well - namely, once you've seen enough bombast it doesn't work on you like it used to. Yes, I do call the choppy editing a problem and maintain that better composition would make the disjointed quality come off as a virtue instead of a weakness.

Marcaccio deals with fundamental issues of the 20th C. - no, he references them, at most, but he doesn't deal with them, which would entail making the object function far better than it does. Punchy, novel, content driven - absolutely. Good - not so much so. Opens doors - forget it. He's walking through a door that was opened for him by Frank Stella.

23.

oldpro

January 28, 2005, 8:52 PM

Franklins contrast between "deal with"and "reference" is a good one in general. The difference should be noted whenever one is taking account of the influences of any artist.

If you don't mind, JP, I will take a raincheck on scheduling the next 20 MAM shows.

if you want an example of a solid, focused show with artistic and didactic interest, done at a time when the material was out of favor (and therefore more interesting and probably more available) I would suggest the "80s" show Bonnie Clearwater did a few years ago at MoCA. I did not care for most of the art in it - neoexpressionism produced no great artists - but it was a pleasure to go through and look hard and re-evaluate, and there were a lot of things I had never seen.

The show had weight, focus, timeliness and, as I remember, a pretty good catalog, and it was actually curated by the museum. I guess the operative word would be "professional". It was a professional job. I don't expect great ar t around every corner, but I do expect professionalism. I don't see much of it here.

Subscribe

@franklin_e

franklin.e

Offers

Other Projects

Legal

Design and content ©2003-2017 Franklin Einspruch except where otherwise noted