Previous: On Stage in Osaka and Tradition and Transformation at the MFA (15)

Next: Roundup, no chaser (10)

Modern Kicks butt

Post #806 • June 8, 2006, 10:10 AM • 16 Comments

Feeling a bit dry today, so go have a look at this morning's prodigious post by JL on Peter Fuller. And if you missed yesterday's links towards Bunny's new piece, well, click that thing.

Comment

1.

JL

June 8, 2006, 10:22 AM

Wow, thanks. I should note that, while I'm grateful for the positive reaction, I wouldn't be surprised if many others felt like they were reading someone's old term paper when looking at it. So, fair warning and all. Bunny's review is terrific, of course--conflicted, but great. I had the good fortune to see that show in Boston and alternated between being so attracted to some of the work and so overwhelmed by the subject that I never was able to write anything of consequence about it.

2.

oldpro

June 8, 2006, 11:03 AM

Interesting post, JL, and you are lucky to get a Bunny response.

Fuller seems to have his heart in the right place, but once I see those strings of abstract adjectives and nouns my head starts to swim. I can only deal with facts and specifics.

3.

JL

June 8, 2006, 1:53 PM

Thanks, oldpro--and I agree I was lucky Bunny responded. It's always a pleasure to read her words.

Fuller was an interesting guy, but he certainly was wound up. I've been known to throw around an abstract noun or two myself, but he was really into it--though to be sure, a very gifted critic who could really see as well.

4.

George

June 8, 2006, 10:09 PM

Off Topic:

Bad As Sculpture at Prinecton

5.

Noah

June 8, 2006, 10:42 PM

Great post, JL. I look forward to the next installment.Thanks.

6.

ahab

June 8, 2006, 10:59 PM

I don't know, George. I actually think that's a pretty good start to a sculpture, minus the yellow striped plates the thing is welded to. It's the technical details in the caption that worry me: like "to a tolerance of plus or minus .010 inch", or "support electromagnetic loads in the range of 7,000 pounds per inch", or "25,000 pounds of Stellalloy are used during the pour". These stats are off the chart - ..d.o.e.s..n.o.t..c.o.m.p.u.t.e..

I enjoyed the Smedley piece. I mean I started reading it and couldn't stop until there weren't any sentences left. You must know the old saw, "leave 'em wanting more."

7.

Bunny Smedley

June 9, 2006, 12:57 AM

Gosh, thanks for all that.

As for JL's Fuller piece, it's excellent. I'm really looking forward to the next instalment.

How sad, though, that Fuller died as young as he did. One of the things that was best about him was that his views never ossified and he was endearingly capable of changing his mind about a lot of important things. It would have been interesting to see where his journey would have taken him had it gone on longer.

8.

George

June 9, 2006, 1:09 AM

Re#6
Ahab, it was a typo, I meant "Bad Ass sculpture..."
The other stuff was fun to look at.

9.

ahab

June 9, 2006, 1:37 AM

If, then when, anyone tries out the Bad As... link in #4, enjoy the images but watch out for serious doodoo when stepping into the captions. Some have innocuous National Geographic style scientific explanations, but the sticky stinky ones try to artify the research - it's a quest to justify precshiousss projectsss by appealsess to the one ring that rules them all: Cultural Relevance... gollum!

10.

George

June 9, 2006, 11:33 AM

re #9,

Sure, but I didn't take it all that seriously, just thought it was interesting stuff to look at.

11.

Marc Country

June 9, 2006, 11:52 AM

That resonating rice video linked a few threads back would fit in well with these Princeton "art of science" images.

12.

ahab

June 10, 2006, 2:04 AM

I am consistently amazed by nanotech images, a couple of which can be seen at the art-of-science link. Cute little one-millionth of an inch sculptures.

13.

craigfrancis

June 10, 2006, 4:00 AM

I tried reading Bunny's review, but after about three thousand words I began to wonder if she'd ever start talking about the art. Sorry.

14.

oldpro

June 10, 2006, 10:35 AM

Too bad, Craig. One of the delights of her writing is the meandering, informed considerations of an exhibition and its circumstances, which go off in all directions. It is like slowly ambling through a show with an educated, articulate person with a good eye and a curious mind. And, in about 7000 words, she does talk about the art. Quite a bit, in fact.

Maybe Sister Wendy would be more to your liking.

15.

craigfrancis

June 10, 2006, 11:54 AM

I find that the context of art isn't really very important for me, and that if something doesn't work visually than it's not worth my trouble... so I guess all the meandering wasn't for me.

OP, is that Sister Wendy line really required? I mean, you could have just disagreed with me. Good Grief!

16.

oldpro

June 10, 2006, 12:04 PM

Sorry, Craig. No, it was not required. Sometimes I just can't help myself. I am of course also much more interested in the art than the context but I find Smedley usually fun to read one way or the other.

Sister Wendy does talk about the art, however. In fact, she knows all the dirty stories associated with the subject matter.

Subscribe

Twitter @franklin_e

Instagram franklin.e

Offers

Other Projects

Legal

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