Günther Selichar's Who’s Afraid of Blue, Red and Green annoys because it's a rather stale parody of a well known brand name of modernist abstraction and promotes bogus creativity under the guise of communal participation. What Selichar did was create a "make your own Barnett Newman" program and invite artists to fiddle around with it. You are limited to vertical stripes, the three aforementioned colors, a fixed size limit and whatever you can do to animate these elements. Thus Newman, whose work was "about" Kabbalistic meditation on a fixed object, or, alternatively, the phenomenology of moving back in forth in front of the canvas in real space and being subjectively affected by it, and whose paintings differed enormously depending on the scale and materials he used (this was abundantly clear from his recent Philadelphia retrospective) becomes fodder for disposable blinking graphic eye candy. (No, this isn't a Newman-protecting Hilton Kramer rant; I mean, the actual theories associated with his work could always use a plug, as opposed to "Newman=Evil White Man," but I'm more appalled that someone still thinks a riff on Newman is fresh--please read on.) Dozens of artists created virtually identical animations--it's painful to click through them and see how much alike they are--and the three most "original" were chosen by an expert panel including professional Newman hyperrealizer Peter Halley. The winners are currently having their animations shown hourly on a big video screen in Times Square.
In all fairness the three winners' pieces are pretty good given the limitations they had to work with--they're dynamic, hypnotic Op abstractions and almost make you forget you're looking at Newman's quasi-proprietary, well-known-from-art-school format. Selichar's project would be vastly improved if we found out it was a goof on corporate "customize your experience" faux-creativity and made light of the cult of artistic competitions and expert panels, by asking panelists to furrow their brows over hundreds of similar pieces created within ridiculously narrowly-defined parameters. Somehow I don't think we're going to find that out, though. (Apologies to selma and others who liked the piece; you do the hard work of linking and I'll carp.)
No apology needed. I really did not have an informed opinion, but I am glad you do... It was just nice to look up and see it. Now I know more. Thanks.
yeah, me too. all that and not one mention of postmodernist pitfalls.
Possibly those hoary old pitfalls from the '80s have been forgotten: every 20 years or so it's OK to "do Newman" again!
no i liked those 80's pitfalls. neogeo and 2nd round appropriation ? its the 90's to date one's to which i refer. like Larry David's reasoning for use of the term good-hodgkins (vs bad-hodgkins).
I found that contest deppressing. I don't mind the riff on Newman, cause I figure he (his art) can take it, but the repetitive sameness of those uninteresting graphics is heavy and really not even very good eye candy.
Damn, I'm gonna have to rewrite the post if people think I'm protecting Newman at this late date. (I thought the Kramer parenthetical covered it.) I mean, his actual theories could always use a plug (as opposed to Newman=Evil White Man), but what bugs me is that he and his generation have been done and done and done and done as objects of satire, homage, etc. For a fleeting second I hoped maybe Selichar was riffing on Newman-riffing, but sadly that appears not to be the case.
Okay, I beefed up the parenthetical. Somehow I always end up being ascribed the role of "defender of the canon," but it's the least of my worries.
naw, it's just me who accuses you of cannon defending. I wasn't reading carefully enough this time.
on the last minute of every hour it should appear in times square on panasonic jumbotron. this web cam is trained to the right spot (i think) but right now im getting swirls, not zipamation. image can be enlarged on link. fuck it, that aint it. maybe times sq robocam can find it.
That is where I saw it (love that "earth cam" bill!).
According to my watch you've got 4 minutes to go..
The winning Wolfius piece was okay. I couldn't imaging going through all 500 and something. And I couldn't be bothered to make one of those. I'll write my own php.
The problem for me is that the project frames itself by its comparison to Newman; there is no comparison. Newman's work, as well defined in the post, is about substantial ideas. In addition, the experience of his work is dramatically different than the experience of anything on a video screen. This project simply presents some interesting low-tek animated abstraction (in appearance it is actually more like the paintings of Gene Davis), and rather than allowing me to focus on what is meaningful – and there is something meaningful here, whether or not is a goof on anything corporate - Selichar has simply made me think "how cute."
The bugs really flew into this one!
This was done with Mondrian too except with a panel (same deal) of academia--all the loot. (no artist had their hand in creating them, though -- I could be wrong) Sad really that professional people would buy into this especially coming served up as computer program.
What does it prove? Simple, but two things:
1. Both painting types were made in real space with the human body very much in play. The space that comes out of the physical work, while expressing a physical space, its color and delineations, builds also a very fine and illusive vibration, or web (not really a space) and more than often cannot be experienced when reduced or blown up but can only be guessed at. Shows the so-called scientific method here is one based on bits, less on hits.
2. Many people, including the pros, are still having trouble with how to read this stuff.
Now, for me that is radical.
http://www.jimpunk.com/T-FF-R.W@BRG/
Amusing frame-o-philic blue, red, and green piece from jimpunk's list (lots of good, outside-the-box stuff there, Newman reference or no--thanks!)
Off-topic: Dealey Plaza Cam.
|
Günther Selichar's Who’s Afraid of Blue, Red and Green annoys because it's a rather stale parody of a well known brand name of modernist abstraction and promotes bogus creativity under the guise of communal participation. What Selichar did was create a "make your own Barnett Newman" program and invite artists to fiddle around with it. You are limited to vertical stripes, the three aforementioned colors, a fixed size limit and whatever you can do to animate these elements. Thus Newman, whose work was "about" Kabbalistic meditation on a fixed object, or, alternatively, the phenomenology of moving back in forth in front of the canvas in real space and being subjectively affected by it, and whose paintings differed enormously depending on the scale and materials he used (this was abundantly clear from his recent Philadelphia retrospective) becomes fodder for disposable blinking graphic eye candy. (No, this isn't a Newman-protecting Hilton Kramer rant; I mean, the actual theories associated with his work could always use a plug, as opposed to "Newman=Evil White Man," but I'm more appalled that someone still thinks a riff on Newman is fresh--please read on.) Dozens of artists created virtually identical animations--it's painful to click through them and see how much alike they are--and the three most "original" were chosen by an expert panel including professional Newman hyperrealizer Peter Halley. The winners are currently having their animations shown hourly on a big video screen in Times Square.
In all fairness the three winners' pieces are pretty good given the limitations they had to work with--they're dynamic, hypnotic Op abstractions and almost make you forget you're looking at Newman's quasi-proprietary, well-known-from-art-school format. Selichar's project would be vastly improved if we found out it was a goof on corporate "customize your experience" faux-creativity and made light of the cult of artistic competitions and expert panels, by asking panelists to furrow their brows over hundreds of similar pieces created within ridiculously narrowly-defined parameters. Somehow I don't think we're going to find that out, though. (Apologies to selma and others who liked the piece; you do the hard work of linking and I'll carp.)
- tom moody 6-29-2004 7:00 pm
No apology needed. I really did not have an informed opinion, but I am glad you do... It was just nice to look up and see it. Now I know more. Thanks.
- selma 6-29-2004 7:13 pm
yeah, me too. all that and not one mention of postmodernist pitfalls.
- bill 6-29-2004 7:22 pm
Possibly those hoary old pitfalls from the '80s have been forgotten: every 20 years or so it's OK to "do Newman" again!
- tom moody 6-29-2004 7:35 pm
no i liked those 80's pitfalls. neogeo and 2nd round appropriation ? its the 90's to date one's to which i refer. like Larry David's reasoning for use of the term good-hodgkins (vs bad-hodgkins).
- bill 6-29-2004 8:08 pm
I found that contest deppressing. I don't mind the riff on Newman, cause I figure he (his art) can take it, but the repetitive sameness of those uninteresting graphics is heavy and really not even very good eye candy.
- sally mckay 6-29-2004 8:42 pm
Damn, I'm gonna have to rewrite the post if people think I'm protecting Newman at this late date. (I thought the Kramer parenthetical covered it.) I mean, his actual theories could always use a plug (as opposed to Newman=Evil White Man), but what bugs me is that he and his generation have been done and done and done and done as objects of satire, homage, etc. For a fleeting second I hoped maybe Selichar was riffing on Newman-riffing, but sadly that appears not to be the case.
- tom moody 6-29-2004 8:57 pm
Okay, I beefed up the parenthetical. Somehow I always end up being ascribed the role of "defender of the canon," but it's the least of my worries.
- tom moody 6-29-2004 9:06 pm
naw, it's just me who accuses you of cannon defending. I wasn't reading carefully enough this time.
- sally mckay 6-29-2004 10:12 pm
on the last minute of every hour it should appear in times square on panasonic jumbotron. this web cam is trained to the right spot (i think) but right now im getting swirls, not zipamation. image can be enlarged on link. fuck it, that aint it. maybe times sq robocam can find it.
- bill 6-29-2004 11:09 pm
That is where I saw it (love that "earth cam" bill!).
According to my watch you've got 4 minutes to go..
- selma 6-29-2004 11:57 pm
The winning Wolfius piece was okay. I couldn't imaging going through all 500 and something. And I couldn't be bothered to make one of those. I'll write my own php.
- mark 6-30-2004 12:12 am
The problem for me is that the project frames itself by its comparison to Newman; there is no comparison. Newman's work, as well defined in the post, is about substantial ideas. In addition, the experience of his work is dramatically different than the experience of anything on a video screen. This project simply presents some interesting low-tek animated abstraction (in appearance it is actually more like the paintings of Gene Davis), and rather than allowing me to focus on what is meaningful – and there is something meaningful here, whether or not is a goof on anything corporate - Selichar has simply made me think "how cute."
- Aaron Yassin (guest) 6-30-2004 5:03 am
The bugs really flew into this one!
This was done with Mondrian too except with a panel (same deal) of academia--all the loot. (no artist had their hand in creating them, though -- I could be wrong) Sad really that professional people would buy into this especially coming served up as computer program.
What does it prove? Simple, but two things:
1. Both painting types were made in real space with the human body very much in play. The space that comes out of the physical work, while expressing a physical space, its color and delineations, builds also a very fine and illusive vibration, or web (not really a space) and more than often cannot be experienced when reduced or blown up but can only be guessed at. Shows the so-called scientific method here is one based on bits, less on hits.
2. Many people, including the pros, are still having trouble with how to read this stuff.
Now, for me that is radical.
- brent 6-30-2004 10:27 am
http://www.jimpunk.com/T-FF-R.W@BRG/
- ): (guest) 6-30-2004 7:08 pm
Amusing frame-o-philic blue, red, and green piece from jimpunk's list (lots of good, outside-the-box stuff there, Newman reference or no--thanks!)
- tom moody 6-30-2004 10:16 pm
Off-topic: Dealey Plaza Cam.
- tom moody 7-01-2004 4:22 am