Tuesday, 15 April 2014

Damien Hirst



DAMIEN HIRST



Young British Artists/ Britart (Late 1980s/1990s)
Combination of breathtaking business-savvy opportunism and shocking ideas. An explosion of extreme bad taste dressed up as art. The public loved it. Two of the most famous YBAs are Damien Hirst (b.1965) and Tracey Emin (b.1963). The group's main sponsor was the art collector Charles Saatchi.













– Adam Reid

Saturday, 12 April 2014

JEFF KOONS






• Neo-Pop Art (late 1980s onwards)
Huge plastic sculptures of children's toys and lots more in the same vein, exemplified by the works of Jeff Koons (b.1955).




So what is it about Jeff Koons that has so captured art world’s imagination as Balloon Dog sells for record $58m?

His early heroes were Salvador Dali and Andy Warhol




It was a crowning moment in Jeff Koons’s long and extraordinary career. While Francis Bacon’s $142m triptych depicting Lucian Freud was grabbing the headlines, at the same Christie’s sale in New York, the man who has turned banality into high art was this week enjoying his own triumph. He did it with one of his celebrated series of toy balloon dog sculptures – 10ft tall and constructed of stainless steel but faithfully reproducing the contours and shiny plastic colours of a party balloon toy. It went for a staggering $58m (£36m) – the highest sum ever paid for a work by a living artist.
So what is it about Koons that has so captured the art world’s imagination over the past three decades? He was avidly ambitious from a young age; his early heroes were Salvador Dali, whom he met once while the Spanish surrealist was in residence in New York, and Andy Warhol. From Warhol he borrowed the idea that, in a godless world saturated by media, art itself was just another commodity, albeit one with extraordinary added value. And while Warhol made silk screen prints in his “factory”, Koons took the industrial metaphor much further, employing dozens of skilled artisans to manufacture works such as the balloon dogs without any hands-on input from the artist himself.
Nearly three years ago, Koons threatened legal action against a bookshop in San Francisco selling bookends with a balloon dog motif. But as a lawyer for the bookshop pointed out: “As virtually any clown can attest, no one owns the idea of making a balloon dog.” Originality of inspiration is not part of the Koons recipe: most of his work has its origins in pre-existing works of art or kitsch. But although critics often use the words “arid” and “sterile” to describe his art, pieces such as the balloon dog have enduring fascination, and not only for the collectors who watch their value rise and rise. The one exhibited for years outside Venice’s Palazzo Grassi, overlooking the Grand Canal, became one of the watery city’s more endearing monuments. The artist himself claims to find emotional release through his work. “I think art takes you outside yourself, takes you past yourself,” he has said. “I believe that my journey has really been to remove my own anxiety.”
Born in York, Pennsylvania, in 1955, Jeff Koons studied art at Maryland School of Art and in Chicago, idolised the Pop artist Ed Paschke and became his studio assistant, then moved to New York where he worked on the membership desk of the Museum of Modern Art.
But then his career took a different turn. Instead of starving in a garret or waiting on restaurant tables while his talent flowered, he became a Wall Street commodities trader. In contrast to the artist of popular imagination, the world of commerce was his natural home. Here was an artist who felt no shame about making money but on the contrary made a profound study of what the contemporary artist needs to do to become rich. And then he did it.
Since the Romantics, we have been in the habit of seeing the artist as a rebel, a distillation of popular resistance to the dreary rules of trade, a prophet who sees and allows us all to see a reality that is greater and deeper. Koons’s hero Dali was perhaps the last, wildly camp embodiment of that model. Even Andy Warhol, his other hero, retained some shreds of the Romantic mystique, with his mysterious and reclusive persona, his white hair and gnomic utterances. But with Jeff Koons we have entered a new, hard-headed age.
Koons’s work has travelled through many phases. The fascination with industrial production was present from the outset: an early show contained vacuum cleaners fresh from the store, exhibited in brightly lit Plexiglass cases. Soon after that he hit the rich lode which he has been exploring ever since, launching his mission to rehabilitate kitsch for the delectation of the art-buying classes, and beginning his fascination with the painstakingly accurate re-creation of existing artefacts in unlikely materials. These included classic corny ceramic statuettes – Bob Hope, Louis XIV, the German pedlar figure known as Kiepenkerl – refashioned in stainless steel, twice or five times the size of the originals: instantly understandable, indestructible, eminently collectable.
Later he extended the theme by inventing kitsch objects of his own, most famously the ceramic Michael Jackson and his pet chimp, Bubbles. Koons has always been content to batten on images which are already of mass fame and mass appeal. His dalliance with the Hungarian-Italian porn star Ilona Staller is typical of this unabashedly parasitic approach.
La Cicciolina, as she was better known, was already famous in Italy when he discovered her, having moved on from a scandalously high-profile career as a porn star to become the country’s most improbable MP. He persuaded her to pose with him for a long series of tableaux, Made in Heaven, executed as elaborately staged and lit photos, as oil paintings and as glass statuary, of the pair of them having sex. They also got married. Whether Koons saw that as part of the artistic performance or whether it was merely a rare, human aberration is unclear, but the marriage ended soon and in bitter tears, with a fight over custody and maintenance that went on for many years. La Cicciolina had dreamed of settling down with her wealthy and wholesome American and becoming a respectable housewife. What Koons had in mind in the longer term is unclear.
Whatever the emotional fallout from that messy affair, its effect on Koons’s career was – as he doubtless intended – to cement him in the public imagination as a scandalous character quite as securely as Warhol or Dali before him. And this firm foundation of notoriety has enabled him to launch his siege on the citadel of the contemporary art market, which achieved its most remarkable success this week.
When creativity in the classic sense is not an issue, where does inspiration come from? As any good commodity trader could tell you, it comes from close analysis of the market. Amy Cappellazzo, the former curator from New York who has transformed Christie’s, wrote in Artforum some years back that contemporary art is “an asset one can borrow against, or trade on and defer capital gains taxes on”. She went on: “Art’s recent financial appeal stems from the idea that high-quality works of art were undervalued and that … their worth would increase in value as a result of a) heightened demand for scarce objects; b) an enormous roll-up of private wealth that remains unprecedented; and c) the market necessity for a new asset class that could trade among individuals globally.”
But how is an artist to get his work into this “new asset class”? The key, according to art market expert Olav Velthuis, is the needy condition of the mega-rich buyers, who have “a tremendous surplus of economic capital” but “an equally large deficit of social and cultural capital”. Vastly rich but painfully insecure, they want art that will, without a shadow of a doubt, win them the prestige they crave, without challenging their critical faculties.
A shiny toy balloon dog, 10 times life size and made of stainless steel? What could be more desirable?
A Life In Brief
Born: Jeffrey Koons, 21 January 1955, York, Pennsylvania
Family: Son of furniture dealer Henry Koons, and Gloria Koons, a seamstress. In 1991, he married porn star La Cicciolina (Ilona Staller) with whom he has one son. Now married to Justine Wheeler, an artist. They have six children
Education: Received BFA at the Maryland Institute College of Art in Baltimore; studied at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago
Career: Worked as a Wall Street commodities broker when his early works were not enough for him to make a living. This week his sculpture Balloon Dog sold at auction for $58m, the most ever paid for a work by a living artist
He says: “All that matters in life and in art is human interaction”



– Adam Reid

Sunday, 30 March 2014

Punk's homage to Elvis Presley

"The rise of Punk reflected the crisis of the traditional white male working-class culture in the deep recessions of the late seventies and early eighties, particularly in Great Britain. It was developed between 1974 and 1976 in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. It still has a strong following today and many genres try living up to the punk attitude. It uses fast, hard-edged music, typically with short songs, stripped-down instrumentation, and often political, anti-establishment lyrics. Punk embraces a DIY ethic; many bands self-produced recordings and distributed them through informal channels.
Untitled
In these pictures I am looking at the similarity between the two albums and why this was done. The clash blatantly reference Elvis with their album cover. This is a sort of homage to Elvis and Rock and Roll, but in a way that it mocks the past it references also. Elvis is shown playing a guitar and singing, but in the clash’s album cover the bassist Paul Simonon is seen destroying his guitar. The destruction of the guitar in my opinion was to signify the bands opposition to commercial music, as the guitar itself was most likely the best representation of commercial music at that time."

I found this on music in the postmodern era, and how new genres of music use earlier styles or even play on them to sometimes rebel or reinforce what the original artist represented in their music. I selected this part specifically because  it relates to music, however, the whole text is useful for our topic.
Crowder, M. (2013) Postmodernism and Postmodern Music [date accessed: 30 March 2014] http://crowderdesign.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/postmodernism-and-postmodernist-music/

Wednesday, 26 March 2014

The Standord Experiment.

Hi everyone

Im going to post a video documentary on an experiment done in the 60's. Which later became very controversial and interesting and also lead to influence a hollywood film, which has a comment on how post modernism is self referencing.

This could also apply to discourse of discipline and mob mentality within or contrasting to post modernism as suggested to me by Gareth.


The Stanford Experiment. Please take the time to watch.


The Trailer for The experiment, Inspired by The Stanford Experiment.

-Tom Kiernan


Monday, 24 March 2014

examiner article loss of thinking -cat

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-losof art-of-thinking-today-s-entertainment-saturated-image-driven-postmodern-society

A article on were unable to think due to the advances in technology and the availiblity in a postmorden age this could be applied to the loss of origin as people have been so influenced they can't think originally and are reusing ideas as a result.

However it must be noted that Edwin Vargas displays a negaticve and critical basis when it comes to technology and its effect on culture I think its somewhat flawed article as the comments point out but his point is interesting

Another note has anyone else noticed that a lot people who are write about postmodernism write very negativly about it? Is this due to original research?

Vargas,E. (2010). The lost art of thinking in today's image-driven postmodern society . Available: http://www.examiner.com/article/the-lost-art-of-thinking-today-s-entertainment-saturated-image-driven-postmodern-society. Last accessed 23rd Mar 2015.

Tuesday, 11 March 2014

Aimee's Published Sources


Mcrobbie, A (1994). Postmodernism and Popular Culture. Great Britain: Routledge


Foster, H (1985). Postmodern Culture. Great Britain: Pluto Press





ADAM'S BOOKS


Hart, K (2004). Postmodernism: a beginner's guide. England: Oneworld Publications. 

,







Appignanesi, R. Garratt, C. Sardar, Z and Curry, P. 1995. Introducing Postmodernism. Australia: McPherson's Printing Group.








This is something I would like to delve into. The Arts and how it has evolved and changed through society. Are paintings from the likes of picasso now seen as postmodern?




















Ward, G (1997). Teach Yourself Postmodernism. Great Britain. Hoddler and Stoughton.








THE LOSS OF ORIGIN

ART AND POSTMODERNISM

I have chosen to research postmodernist art and the way art has been used to create messages and meaning throughout history. I believe art is one of the most powerful ways to capture our attention and it has evolved through time from modern to postmodern. I am going to show examples of art that are famous pieces or recognisable images which have had an impact at the time (e.g in the mid 1980's), to art that is seen today. I am going to develop my research and ideas to eventually reach a conclusion in my opinion whether I think art is still classed as modern today. 


DUCHAMP – URINAL



This picture is one of the first examples of 'modern art' and I find it a very simple but intriguing piece of art. The fact that Duchamp's originality, that he turned a urinal upside down to create a water fountain, made people catch on to it suggests the art was very modern for it's time. 

Apologies for this long extract from the web about Duchamp and his Urinal but it is just such an interesting story so I thought I would share it. Enjoy!




Three men met for lunch in New York early in April 1917. They were the American painter Joseph Stella, Walter Arensberg, a wealthy collector later obsessed by the notion that Bacon wrote Shakespeare, and Marcel Duchamp. After a convivial and talkative meal, they made their way to the JL Mott Ironworks, a plumbing suppliers situated at 118 Fifth Avenue.
Once there, Duchamp selected a "Bedfordshire" model porcelain urinal. On returning to his studio he turned it through 90 degrees, so that it rested on its back, signed it, "R. MUTT 1917", and entitled this new work Fountain.
Thus was begun the existence of one of the most influential art works of the 20th century. Fountain will be a crucial item in the forthcoming exhibition, Duchamp, Man Ray, Picabia, at Tate Modern. Or at least a replica of it will, because one of the most piquant aspects of the history of this celebrated object is that the original was seen by only a handful of people, never publicly exhibited, and vanished shortly after that selection, signing and christening in 1917.
All of those aspects of its story would have appealed greatly to the dry humour of the person who, with due respect to Arensberg and Stella, was solely responsible for its creation. Fountain was many things, apart, obviously, from a mis-described piece of sanitary equipment. It was unexpectedly a rather beautiful object in its own right and a blindingly brilliant logical move, check-mating all conventional ideas about art. But it was also a highly successful practical joke.
Duchamp has been compared to Leonardo da Vinci, as a profound philosopher-artist. But there is also a comparison to be made with Buster Keaton, another handsome deadpan clown whom Duchamp somewhat resembled. He valued humour, telling a New York newspaper that, "People took modern art very seriously when it first reached America because they believed we took ourselves very seriously. A great deal of modern art is meant to be amusing."
The context for the purchase and naming of Fountain was a worthy exhibition by the Society of Independent Artists, formed on the model of the Parisian Salon des Indépendants. It was to show works by anyone, subject to a fee of $1 for membership and $5 annual dues. Duchamp himself, as a celebrated foreign artist, was on the board, as were various prominent American painters and art world figures. From early on, however, Duchamp seemed tempted to subvert the whole enterprise.
His first move was to suggest that the works in the New York exhibition be hung alphabetically, with the first letter to be drawn out of a hat. This idea was adopted, despite protests that it was "democracy run riot". As a result, the whole huge show - the largest ever assembled in the US - must have had a slightly absurd air, with traditionalist, amateur works sent in from the sticks hung randomly beside pieces of cutting-edge cubism.
But, not content, Duchamp further added to the mayhem with the submission of Fountain, accompanied by the non-existent R Mutt's $6 fee and an invented address in Philadelphia. It was a missile aimed with brilliant precision at the basis of the exhibition - its democratic open admission. Here was an unmentionable object - press reports at the time referred to it as a "bathroom appliance" - it was signed and dated, but was it a work of art? If not, why not?
This deadpan style of question was very much Duchamp's technique. At the Arensbergs' salon - "an inconceivable orgy of sexuality, jazz and alcohol", according to Gabrielle Buffet-Picabia, wife of the artist Picabia who frequented it, as did Man Ray - Duchamp demoralised the writer William Carlos Williams with a similar query. Williams remarked that he liked a certain painting.
"He looked at me and said, 'Do you?'," said Williams. "That was all. He had me beat all right, if that was the objective. I could have sunk through the floor, ground my teeth, turned my back on him and spat."
It must have been the way Duchamp asked this apparently innocuous question - with underlying implications of "Do you really like it?" "Why do you like it?" "Are you sure what it is?"
George Bellows, a leading painter of a gritty, realist persuasion and member of the board of the Society of Independent Artists, was similarly outraged by Fountain. According to Beatrice Wood, a young artist then in love with Duchamp, Bellows complained that it could not be exhibited as it was indecent. He suspected a joke; the name R Mutt struck him, understandably, as "fishy". Walter Arensberg countered by pointing out that the correct fee had been paid. "'You mean to say, if a man sent in horse manure glued to a canvas that we would have to accept it!', said Bellows. 'I'm afraid we would,' said Walter."
In the event, the board narrowly voted not to show Fountain, and, according to one account, it was hidden behind a screen. Duchamp must have been pleased with his work, quite apart from the satisfactory ruckus it caused, because shortly afterwards he arranged to have it photographed by Alfred Stieglitz, taking a good deal of trouble over the result.
This image is the only remaining record of the original object. It was reproduced with an anonymous manifesto the following May in an avant-garde magazine called The Blind Man. The accompanying text made a claim crucial to much later modern art: "Whether Mr Mutt made the fountain with his own hands or not has no importance. He CHOSE it. He took an article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view - created a new thought for that object." It was this publication as much as the initial scandal which made Fountain famous.
And what happened to the original? The best guess, according to Calvin Tomkins in his biography of Duchamp, is that it was thrown out as rubbish by Stieglitz shortly afterwards (a common fate of Duchamp's early ready-mades). By a delicious irony that the artist must have enjoyed, all the versions of Fountain now extant - including the one in the Tate show - are not ready-made at all, but carefully crafted hand-made facsimiles of that "Bedfordshire" urinal.