Previous: art anatomy (9)

Next: artblog.net phone home (21)

the quotidian considered

Post #656 • November 10, 2005, 3:16 PM • 11 Comments

This is an astute observation. One wonders whether we'd be better off if the situation was reversed, with art striving for the sublime and architecture for the quotidian. Things are never that cut and dried, though. (Via Artsjournal.)

Comment

1.

that guy

November 10, 2005, 6:11 PM

Its not so much the ordinary that is infused in so much contemporary art that bothers me. Its when the ordinary is presented or executed in such a lame ho hum way. Whiteread's work is bad, not because she casts buildings/boxs (whatever else she casts) But because the result is lifeless and dull. The viewer isn't given any reason to take a second look. This is one stop shopping mall art, for our one stop shopping mall culture. Sign of the times I guess. Doesn't mean I have to like it, or even pay attention to it.

2.

oldpro

November 10, 2005, 7:07 PM

I don't know about ordinary and sublime, but when Whiteread casts the inside of a box and it gets to be "art" and costs $10,000 (or whatever it costs) I guess it isn't ordinary any more, is it? Whether it is "sublime" or not, who knows.

It's crappy, boring art, for sure, whatever the source.

3.

mek

November 10, 2005, 8:06 PM

this is off topic but i couldn't resist:

Sculpture sets contemporary auction record of 23.8 million dollars

4.

oldpro

November 10, 2005, 11:22 PM

Go to Artnet.com and look at all the recent auction prices. They are truly amazing.

5.

Kathleen

November 11, 2005, 9:48 AM

I really like Racheal Whitread's work.

I like Georges Perec too, but he's a hard read sometimes. I think that Virginia Woolf also dealt with the "infra-ordinary".

6.

that guy

November 11, 2005, 10:51 AM

The auction prices are crazy.
That you like Whiteread makes sense Kathleen.

7.

mek

November 12, 2005, 11:51 AM

oh yes i like Rachael Whitread also. i am with kathleen's camp. well maybe it's just us two actually. we have a small campfire in these here parts. two marshmallows.

8.

Kathleen

November 13, 2005, 12:10 AM

Mek, that's a very funny image! I love it.

9.

blowfish

November 15, 2005, 9:13 PM

Why would the quotidian work of Whiteread need to be more than what it is?

In simple definition the purpose is just that - ordinary.

10.

tundow narraw

November 15, 2005, 9:32 PM

"why would the quotidian work of Whiteread need to be more than what it is?

In simple definition the purpose is just that - ordinary".

In response to your comment Blowfish, I think the whole idea of working with the ordinary has been done by numerous artists, however its what makes the work stand out that matters. One name comes to mind; Claes Oldenburg.

11.

blowfish

November 15, 2005, 9:36 PM

In response to your comment Blowfish, I think the whole idea of working with the ordinary has been done by numerous artists, however its what makes the work stand out that matters. One name comes to mind; Claes Oldenburg.

I agree that Oldenburg worked with ordinary items but in the way that he presented them it was transformed into being an extraordinary piece of work. Thus it is just the same ole thing.

Subscribe

Twitter @franklin_e

Instagram franklin.e

Offers

Other Projects

Legal

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