http://www.personism.com/2007/12/29/whats-more/ You just go on your nerve. Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:33:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 http://www.personism.com/2007/12/29/whats-more/#comment-40203 John Sarsgard Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:11:59 +0000 http://www.personism.com/2007/12/29/whats-more/#comment-40203 Time and place are important elements of the discussion. Art is created, and events in history happen, at or over some particular time. Creators and participants may be a small number or many, but they're finite, and eventually gone. Unlimited numbers of people over an unlimited time may have feeling for the art or particpate in the telling of the history. The feeling and telling are so much more accessible than the creation of the art or the events of history. Can my feelings for Monet's haystacks be more real than his feelings were. I'd say yes, and Claude would probably disagree, but he's no longer around, and that's part of the point. Feeling the art and telling the history aren't more real than creating either, just different. But then there is the art itself, and the history itself, apart from the participants. How does that compare to the feeling and the telling? Still pondering that part. Time and place are important elements of the discussion. Art is created, and events in history happen, at or over some particular time. Creators and participants may be a small number or many, but they’re finite, and eventually gone. Unlimited numbers of people over an unlimited time may have feeling for the art or particpate in the telling of the history. The feeling and telling are so much more accessible than the creation of the art or the events of history. Can my feelings for Monet’s haystacks be more real than his feelings were. I’d say yes, and Claude would probably disagree, but he’s no longer around, and that’s part of the point. Feeling the art and telling the history aren’t more real than creating either, just different. But then there is the art itself, and the history itself, apart from the participants. How does that compare to the feeling and the telling? Still pondering that part.

]]> http://www.personism.com/2007/12/29/whats-more/#comment-40037 Bullet Shih Mon, 31 Dec 2007 22:56:10 +0000 http://www.personism.com/2007/12/29/whats-more/#comment-40037 I am currently reading "The Girl with the Gallery" by Lindsay Pollock about the gallerist Edith Gregor Halpert who originally showed Lawrence's series, and she makes it pretty clear that Edith took great pains to keep the series intact. A better question is whether it is better for a gallerist to get 26 photos published in Fortune or none at all? Is it better to sell the series in two tranches or let the artist who at that point had limited commercial success sell his own works. I believe that it is only the thoughtfulness of the gallerist that the works remained intact and preserved in the collections the MOMA and the Phillips. In response to the above question, I believe that the answer is that art is both the medium and the message. It is both history and the telling of history. If the question is "What is more real?", I would answer for Edith Halpert who stated that there are only two types of art, good art and bad art. Reality is Hugh Hefner living on TV with three bimbos, reality is a Mona Lisa coffee mug, reality is a series of 60 small works displayed in their entirety at two to three times original size, and reality is getting your teeth knocked out by the "imaginary artist", Lester Hayes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Hayes after catching a pass up the middle of the field against the 1980 Raiders. Happy New Year I am currently reading “The Girl with the Gallery” by Lindsay Pollock about the gallerist Edith Gregor Halpert who originally showed Lawrence’s series, and she makes it pretty clear that Edith took great pains to keep the series intact. A better question is whether it is better for a gallerist to get 26 photos published in Fortune or none at all? Is it better to sell the series in two tranches or let the artist who at that point had limited commercial success sell his own works. I believe that it is only the thoughtfulness of the gallerist that the works remained intact and preserved in the collections the MOMA and the Phillips.
In response to the above question, I believe that the answer is that art is both the medium and the message. It is both history and the telling of history. If the question is “What is more real?”, I would answer for Edith Halpert who stated that there are only two types of art, good art and bad art. Reality is Hugh Hefner living on TV with three bimbos, reality is a Mona Lisa coffee mug, reality is a series of 60 small works displayed in their entirety at two to three times original size, and reality is getting your teeth knocked out by the “imaginary artist”, Lester Hayes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Hayes after catching a pass up the middle of the field against the 1980 Raiders.
Happy New Year

]]>