LEFT: Marc Quinn, Mirage, at Galerie Thaddaeus Ropac. RIGHT: Navid Nuur, Tentacle Thought nr. 7 (2006-2009), Martin van Zomeren.
- Art Observed highlights Mark Quinn’s Mirage, a sculpture replicating the famous photograph of an Abu Ghraib prisoner. Apparently the piece references crucifixion and Francisco Goya's “Disasters of War,” which leads us to believe the same must be true of Navid Nuur’s nearly identical Tentical Thought. Nuur’s piece was exhibited recently by Martin van Zomeren at Art Basel. To Quinn’s credit, however, at least he chose not to depict the victim’s electrical wire as jump rope.
- Tom Moody notes an insensitive news story juxtaposition. I assume this is what happens when a database determines where features land.
- Gawker notes you can’t even pay some people to tweet. Oprah is one of the many celebrities who can’t be bothered to maintain their accounts anymore. The end of a twitter era? Via: Koli B. Yu
- Edward Winkleman thinks the art world might be better off if dealers could get along better. Via: Koli B. Yu
{ 48 comments }
Hi, Paddy. The “happy days” and “months to live” headlines that I screen captured were near each other on the New York Times front page but not adjacent. I butted them together in the spirit of the “remix” – art as opposed to journalism. I was mostly struck by that “months to live” caption. It seems like an odd thing to write in block capitals (unless you are one of the sleazier tabloids).
Hi, Paddy. The “happy days” and “months to live” headlines that I screen captured were near each other on the New York Times front page but not adjacent. I butted them together in the spirit of the “remix” – art as opposed to journalism. I was mostly struck by that “months to live” caption. It seems like an odd thing to write in block capitals (unless you are one of the sleazier tabloids).
Oh and good catch on the clone attack. Sally McKay and I have a running argument about making fun of art world clones. Hopefully I’m not putting words in her mouth too much, but she objects to the idea that any artist can “own” an idea and thinks that clone sightings are too tied in with outmoded ideas of originality. As I define a clone attack, it’s typically where you have one or more variations calling attention to a single, not very strong idea. An artist named Guy Colwell interpreted this Abu Ghraib photo (and others) soon after the images became public and his dealer got punched in the face. I’d be very surprised if Thaddeus Ropac gets anything like that reaction.
Oh and good catch on the clone attack. Sally McKay and I have a running argument about making fun of art world clones. Hopefully I’m not putting words in her mouth too much, but she objects to the idea that any artist can “own” an idea and thinks that clone sightings are too tied in with outmoded ideas of originality. As I define a clone attack, it’s typically where you have one or more variations calling attention to a single, not very strong idea. An artist named Guy Colwell interpreted this Abu Ghraib photo (and others) soon after the images became public and his dealer got punched in the face. I’d be very surprised if Thaddeus Ropac gets anything like that reaction.
Oh and good catch on the clone attack. Sally McKay and I have a running argument about making fun of art world clones. Hopefully I’m not putting words in her mouth too much, but she objects to the idea that any artist can “own” an idea and thinks that clone sightings are too tied in with outmoded ideas of originality. As I define a clone attack, it’s typically where you have one or more variations calling attention to a single, not very strong idea. An artist named Guy Colwell interpreted this Abu Ghraib photo (and others) soon after the images became public and his dealer got punched in the face. I’d be very surprised if Thaddeus Ropac gets anything like that reaction.
During Basel Miami 2007, a kid from a local arts high school made one of these in Britto style, and let people stick their face in an was taking pictures!
During Basel Miami 2007, a kid from a local arts high school made one of these in Britto style, and let people stick their face in an was taking pictures!
Time for a Romero Britto show at Paula Cooper. (Maybe the student would lend that tribute work.)
Time for a Romero Britto show at Paula Cooper. (Maybe the student would lend that tribute work.)
And Serra’s contribution to the 2006 Whitney Biennial could be added to the list: http://tr.im/s0VC
And Serra’s contribution to the 2006 Whitney Biennial could be added to the list: http://tr.im/s0VC
@alesh What a find.
@Tom Months to live in capital letters is pretty sleazy. Also, as far as clone attacks while I think it’s quite possible for two similar works to be very good on their own (An example from the music world might be Elastica and Wire.) I don’t think the idea of originality is so outdated that it has no importance. The fact that so many people have the same bad idea to me just underscores its lack of inventiveness. In this case, this is a bad thing.
@alesh What a find.
@Tom Months to live in capital letters is pretty sleazy. Also, as far as clone attacks while I think it’s quite possible for two similar works to be very good on their own (An example from the music world might be Elastica and Wire.) I don’t think the idea of originality is so outdated that it has no importance. The fact that so many people have the same bad idea to me just underscores its lack of inventiveness. In this case, this is a bad thing.
@alesh What a find.
@Tom Months to live in capital letters is pretty sleazy. Also, as far as clone attacks while I think it’s quite possible for two similar works to be very good on their own (An example from the music world might be Elastica and Wire.) I don’t think the idea of originality is so outdated that it has no importance. The fact that so many people have the same bad idea to me just underscores its lack of inventiveness. In this case, this is a bad thing.
I don’t think orginality is outdated. But originality is different from owning. Owning is pretty relevant in a sales and marketing context but kind of a dead end concept for art appreciation & criticism. If it’s a bad idea then it’s a bad idea, but the fact that its replicated doesn’t make it worse, it’s just a symptom of the fact that we now have access to lots more art by lots more people who don’t get into the international art magazines. In this case, though…wTF? You gotta admit, here the clone factor is pointing at a phenomenon that’s kind of interesting, albeit unpleasant.
I don’t think orginality is outdated. But originality is different from owning. Owning is pretty relevant in a sales and marketing context but kind of a dead end concept for art appreciation & criticism. If it’s a bad idea then it’s a bad idea, but the fact that its replicated doesn’t make it worse, it’s just a symptom of the fact that we now have access to lots more art by lots more people who don’t get into the international art magazines. In this case, though…wTF? You gotta admit, here the clone factor is pointing at a phenomenon that’s kind of interesting, albeit unpleasant.
I don’t think orginality is outdated. But originality is different from owning. Owning is pretty relevant in a sales and marketing context but kind of a dead end concept for art appreciation & criticism. If it’s a bad idea then it’s a bad idea, but the fact that its replicated doesn’t make it worse, it’s just a symptom of the fact that we now have access to lots more art by lots more people who don’t get into the international art magazines. In this case, though…wTF? You gotta admit, here the clone factor is pointing at a phenomenon that’s kind of interesting, albeit unpleasant.
When I’ve heard artists talk about “owning” something the statement is usually made with a little bit of humor, along the lines of “Roy Lichtenstein owns Ben Day dots, no way I’m going there.” The statement acknowledges Roy’s success in both introducing and thoroughly mining an idea. I suppose someone could talk about it in a “sales and marketing context” but I don’t know anyone who uses it that way. Moreover, I think Sally knows I don’t talk about it that way but for some reason keeps mentioning commerce.
When I’ve heard artists talk about “owning” something the statement is usually made with a little bit of humor, along the lines of “Roy Lichtenstein owns Ben Day dots, no way I’m going there.” The statement acknowledges Roy’s success in both introducing and thoroughly mining an idea. I suppose someone could talk about it in a “sales and marketing context” but I don’t know anyone who uses it that way. Moreover, I think Sally knows I don’t talk about it that way but for some reason keeps mentioning commerce.
When I’ve heard artists talk about “owning” something the statement is usually made with a little bit of humor, along the lines of “Roy Lichtenstein owns Ben Day dots, no way I’m going there.” The statement acknowledges Roy’s success in both introducing and thoroughly mining an idea. I suppose someone could talk about it in a “sales and marketing context” but I don’t know anyone who uses it that way. Moreover, I think Sally knows I don’t talk about it that way but for some reason keeps mentioning commerce.
But isn’t commerce implied in that humorous usage? Why not use Ben Day dots, if you wanted to, unless you were afraid someone would think you were stealing something from Lichtenstein and devalue your work because of it?
I like the sense of respect in the phrase – like, as you say Tom, if I want to suggest that another artist has “thoroughly mined an idea” and I’ve got nothing more to bring to it. But as a third-party art-critical term it just feels over-determined. Who’s to say that there’s nothing more to be done with Ben Day dots? Or even that someone who’s never seen a Lichtenstein can’t add something of potential value to the Ben Day dot discourse by doing it again in another time and place?
That’s why the ‘clone’ bugs me too (although I do think it’s funny). We can sit here surfing and find all kinds of similarities between all kinds of art images we come across, but if we call the artists ‘clones,’ we’re dismissing out of hand the particularities of the local context of the work. To me that’s an act of commodification that plays to the weakness of internet art viewing rather than the strengths.
But isn’t commerce implied in that humorous usage? Why not use Ben Day dots, if you wanted to, unless you were afraid someone would think you were stealing something from Lichtenstein and devalue your work because of it?
I like the sense of respect in the phrase – like, as you say Tom, if I want to suggest that another artist has “thoroughly mined an idea” and I’ve got nothing more to bring to it. But as a third-party art-critical term it just feels over-determined. Who’s to say that there’s nothing more to be done with Ben Day dots? Or even that someone who’s never seen a Lichtenstein can’t add something of potential value to the Ben Day dot discourse by doing it again in another time and place?
That’s why the ‘clone’ bugs me too (although I do think it’s funny). We can sit here surfing and find all kinds of similarities between all kinds of art images we come across, but if we call the artists ‘clones,’ we’re dismissing out of hand the particularities of the local context of the work. To me that’s an act of commodification that plays to the weakness of internet art viewing rather than the strengths.
But isn’t commerce implied in that humorous usage? Why not use Ben Day dots, if you wanted to, unless you were afraid someone would think you were stealing something from Lichtenstein and devalue your work because of it?
I like the sense of respect in the phrase – like, as you say Tom, if I want to suggest that another artist has “thoroughly mined an idea” and I’ve got nothing more to bring to it. But as a third-party art-critical term it just feels over-determined. Who’s to say that there’s nothing more to be done with Ben Day dots? Or even that someone who’s never seen a Lichtenstein can’t add something of potential value to the Ben Day dot discourse by doing it again in another time and place?
That’s why the ‘clone’ bugs me too (although I do think it’s funny). We can sit here surfing and find all kinds of similarities between all kinds of art images we come across, but if we call the artists ‘clones,’ we’re dismissing out of hand the particularities of the local context of the work. To me that’s an act of commodification that plays to the weakness of internet art viewing rather than the strengths.
When one speaks of work having dubious “value” or being intellectually “bankrupt” it’s possible to give those words a commercial spin because they are same ones used in the market. Your deconstruction of my language is noted, unfortunately a lot of people use the word value and don’t mean market value so you have your work cut out for you.
I don’t suggest that an artist’s casual way of giving props to another artist should be used as a “third-party art-critical term.” But I will continue to say “Picasso-esque” if I see a colorful face with eyes on one side of it and will probably say a painting of a romance cartoon with enlarged Ben Day dots “looks like a Lichtenstein.”
In truth, we don’t really need critics to point out that three or four versions or something adds little to the meme pool. Our efforts would be better spent parsing the differences between those three or four things to show that in fact, every work is original. This will make artists feel good about everything they make so they’ll continue to spread their magic.
[/sarcasm]
When one speaks of work having dubious “value” or being intellectually “bankrupt” it’s possible to give those words a commercial spin because they are same ones used in the market. Your deconstruction of my language is noted, unfortunately a lot of people use the word value and don’t mean market value so you have your work cut out for you.
I don’t suggest that an artist’s casual way of giving props to another artist should be used as a “third-party art-critical term.” But I will continue to say “Picasso-esque” if I see a colorful face with eyes on one side of it and will probably say a painting of a romance cartoon with enlarged Ben Day dots “looks like a Lichtenstein.”
In truth, we don’t really need critics to point out that three or four versions or something adds little to the meme pool. Our efforts would be better spent parsing the differences between those three or four things to show that in fact, every work is original. This will make artists feel good about everything they make so they’ll continue to spread their magic.
[/sarcasm]
When one speaks of work having dubious “value” or being intellectually “bankrupt” it’s possible to give those words a commercial spin because they are same ones used in the market. Your deconstruction of my language is noted, unfortunately a lot of people use the word value and don’t mean market value so you have your work cut out for you.
I don’t suggest that an artist’s casual way of giving props to another artist should be used as a “third-party art-critical term.” But I will continue to say “Picasso-esque” if I see a colorful face with eyes on one side of it and will probably say a painting of a romance cartoon with enlarged Ben Day dots “looks like a Lichtenstein.”
In truth, we don’t really need critics to point out that three or four versions or something adds little to the meme pool. Our efforts would be better spent parsing the differences between those three or four things to show that in fact, every work is original. This will make artists feel good about everything they make so they’ll continue to spread their magic.
[/sarcasm]
The connection between art-as-competition and art-as-commerce is more than just a coincidence of language. It’s modernism (& yes I think postmoderism still modernism). There are lots of theorists working towards other paradigms. Networks as models can work for us or against us. It depends how we use them. If, as critics, our job is just to troll the meme pool for winners then we’re missing the opportunity to get into the more interesting (for some) aspects of art’s ontology. Like emergence, experience, affect, yes – originality, and the funny tension between the specific contingencies of time, place & audience and the co-construction of meaning. If that kind of exploration ends up making artists feel good, I’m okay with it.
The connection between art-as-competition and art-as-commerce is more than just a coincidence of language. It’s modernism (& yes I think postmoderism still modernism). There are lots of theorists working towards other paradigms. Networks as models can work for us or against us. It depends how we use them. If, as critics, our job is just to troll the meme pool for winners then we’re missing the opportunity to get into the more interesting (for some) aspects of art’s ontology. Like emergence, experience, affect, yes – originality, and the funny tension between the specific contingencies of time, place & audience and the co-construction of meaning. If that kind of exploration ends up making artists feel good, I’m okay with it.
In the practicing and preaching department, I don’t really like Top Tens because “rating the meme pool” doesn’t appeal to me. Yet on your blog, Sally, you’ve had more Top Tens over the years than I could possibly read. I realize some of those were attempts to subvert the format to bring it into line with your philosophy of emergence, co-construction of meaning, etc but the format still involves choice and my guess is at least some of your guest Top Tenners are making choices or gasp, value judgments. What we’re arguing about is whether choice is hard wired in human nature. You have put me in the capitalist/Darwinian camp and marshalled impressive arguments for the social violence inherent in making choices in art. It’s time you started eliminating these ancient hegemonic reflexes from your blog, even as parody.
In the practicing and preaching department, I don’t really like Top Tens because “rating the meme pool” doesn’t appeal to me. Yet on your blog, Sally, you’ve had more Top Tens over the years than I could possibly read. I realize some of those were attempts to subvert the format to bring it into line with your philosophy of emergence, co-construction of meaning, etc but the format still involves choice and my guess is at least some of your guest Top Tenners are making choices or gasp, value judgments. What we’re arguing about is whether choice is hard wired in human nature. You have put me in the capitalist/Darwinian camp and marshalled impressive arguments for the social violence inherent in making choices in art. It’s time you started eliminating these ancient hegemonic reflexes from your blog, even as parody.
I should add, I have done Top Tens, but not very many and not lately.
I should add, I have done Top Tens, but not very many and not lately.
I don’t think you are in the capitalist/Darwinian camp, otherwise I wouldn’t bother arguing with you.
As to value judgements, they are very useful, but they don’t have to based on competition. The fact that there are so many Top Tens on the blog (and anyone is welcome to participate) indicates that there are a plethora of criteria for assessing value and that’s the interesting challenge.
Always a pleasure tit-for-tatting with you. gotta run right now … you can have the last word.
I don’t think you are in the capitalist/Darwinian camp, otherwise I wouldn’t bother arguing with you.
As to value judgements, they are very useful, but they don’t have to based on competition. The fact that there are so many Top Tens on the blog (and anyone is welcome to participate) indicates that there are a plethora of criteria for assessing value and that’s the interesting challenge.
Always a pleasure tit-for-tatting with you. gotta run right now … you can have the last word.
I don’t think you are in the capitalist/Darwinian camp, otherwise I wouldn’t bother arguing with you.
As to value judgements, they are very useful, but they don’t have to based on competition. The fact that there are so many Top Tens on the blog (and anyone is welcome to participate) indicates that there are a plethora of criteria for assessing value and that’s the interesting challenge.
Always a pleasure tit-for-tatting with you. gotta run right now … you can have the last word.
OK. I have my own criteria for assessing clones and I’m guessing Paddy’s are different from mine.
OK. I have my own criteria for assessing clones and I’m guessing Paddy’s are different from mine.
OK. I have my own criteria for assessing clones and I’m guessing Paddy’s are different from mine.
the likeness of those two sculptures would probably overload http://totallylookslike.com/
the likeness of those two sculptures would probably overload http://totallylookslike.com/
@Tom and sally. Just for clarification, I would never call an artist a clone, just the work. My feeling is that the unknowing replication of an object doesn’t make it worse, it simply underscores the fact that it was never good to begin with. (As stated previously)
To be honest, I’m not sure I completely understanding the owning concept. If an artist “owns” an idea, doesn’t the fact that many people have the same idea make it less “valuable”? Either way I’m not sure what the practical application is to this post, as each identified in their local context, and the individual properties of each noted (albeit briefly). The whole point of a clone for me though, is that while you could spend a lot of time with each art work, it’s probably a waste of energy. There may be some interest in clones as a larger cultural phenomenon, but that’s outside the purposes of these posts.
@Tom and sally. Just for clarification, I would never call an artist a clone, just the work. My feeling is that the unknowing replication of an object doesn’t make it worse, it simply underscores the fact that it was never good to begin with. (As stated previously)
To be honest, I’m not sure I completely understanding the owning concept. If an artist “owns” an idea, doesn’t the fact that many people have the same idea make it less “valuable”? Either way I’m not sure what the practical application is to this post, as each identified in their local context, and the individual properties of each noted (albeit briefly). The whole point of a clone for me though, is that while you could spend a lot of time with each art work, it’s probably a waste of energy. There may be some interest in clones as a larger cultural phenomenon, but that’s outside the purposes of these posts.
The argument about ownership would seem to have little to do with the post since the Abu Ghraib image is basically public domain journalistic content. But Andy Warhol and others have taken this type of material and made it “theirs” by rendering it in “their” style, e.g.:
http://www.newluxuryitems.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/andy-warhol-moonwalk.jpg
The more people out there doing “moonwalks” the more obviously weak the strategy is. Comparing all the individual moonwalks for each’s unique wonderfulness when any single version of it is lame does seem to be a waste of energy.
The argument about ownership would seem to have little to do with the post since the Abu Ghraib image is basically public domain journalistic content. But Andy Warhol and others have taken this type of material and made it “theirs” by rendering it in “their” style, e.g.:
http://www.newluxuryitems.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/andy-warhol-moonwalk.jpg
The more people out there doing “moonwalks” the more obviously weak the strategy is. Comparing all the individual moonwalks for each’s unique wonderfulness when any single version of it is lame does seem to be a waste of energy.
i have read your review on marc quinn
´massive links, attack on the clones edition´.
the work depicted on the right is not from navid nuur,not at all! Tentical Thoughts is a completely different work and has nothing to do with Abu Graib at all, it does not even look similar. this work of Quinn has the same motive as a work of Praneet Soi who i also represent but isn´t his also! but it seems that some parts of a press release of soi has been used for it which has nothing to do with this work of quinn.the writer seems to have mixed up this text (the part about Goya, Disasters of War )and also the images.I would suggest to eliminate this review because it´s complete nonsense, seems somebody did not do his or her homework.
best regards
martin van zomeren
i have read your review on marc quinn
´massive links, attack on the clones edition´.
the work depicted on the right is not from navid nuur,not at all! Tentical Thoughts is a completely different work and has nothing to do with Abu Graib at all, it does not even look similar. this work of Quinn has the same motive as a work of Praneet Soi who i also represent but isn´t his also! but it seems that some parts of a press release of soi has been used for it which has nothing to do with this work of quinn.the writer seems to have mixed up this text (the part about Goya, Disasters of War )and also the images.I would suggest to eliminate this review because it´s complete nonsense, seems somebody did not do his or her homework.
best regards
martin van zomeren
Dear Martin,
The work above was attributed to Navid Nuur because his name was on a label directly beside the piece. If this is incorrect please provide the right name of the artist so the work can be attributed properly. I’ve been through every artist on your website, and there is nothing there that gives me enough information to do this.
Also, no “parts of a press release” were used to describe the work of Quinn — they were taken from Quinn’s release, which you can find on Art Observed. Please do not place misleading information on the blog.
Thank you,
Paddy
Dear Martin,
The work above was attributed to Navid Nuur because his name was on a label directly beside the piece. If this is incorrect please provide the right name of the artist so the work can be attributed properly. I’ve been through every artist on your website, and there is nothing there that gives me enough information to do this.
Also, no “parts of a press release” were used to describe the work of Quinn — they were taken from Quinn’s release, which you can find on Art Observed. Please do not place misleading information on the blog.
Thank you,
Paddy
Comments on this entry are closed.