Skip to content

Category: academia

David Salle: How To See

“In my view, intentionality is not just overrated; it puts the cart so far out in front that the horse, sensing futility, gives up and lies down in the street. Nobody ever loved a painting for its ideas.”

David Salle has a new book out about painting.

Frankly I’m not going to go out and buy it. Right now, it’s not a good fit for me, that does not mean that I’m not interested in some of the things he has to say. The above quote is front and center.

Recently I’ve had a couple of friends go to graduate school – decent schools as well and both have had the same story. Both programs so valued the artist statement (written in the first month of the program) that it was used as an actual roadmap of what the artist would be able to do (or not able to do as the case may be). I for one was a little bit surprised by this because I’ve always thought that time in the studio was meant for exploring and idea generation as well as making finished work.

Needless to say all formal critiques in both programs started with the artist statement and it was used as a literal guide to what was discussed and what was not. Or should I say what was allowed to be discussed.

Although both were lucky they were able to paint at all in their programs, as both were told that painting was still dead and evidently has been since the early 1970’s.

David Salles new book is called How To See and is available from places that sell books.

Leave a Comment

Thinking about Leonardo

With the current Exhibition on display at the NGA London, a number of interesting things about Leonardo have been getting a little bit more play in the mainstream press.

While I tend to write more often on a more modern approach to art, it is not without knowledge in the past. (And let’s be honest – anyone who has even a smattering of interest in art should have a reasonable understanding of the history of art)

I was reading the latest interview at ArtInfo this morning and the interview of Martin Kemp was pretty riveting. Among the many things he discusses about Leonard and the “Salvator Mundi.” the two that jump out at me are Leonardo’s interest and knowledge in geology and optics. The geological piece is about the Rock Crystal that the Jesus figure is holding and the optics has to do with depth of field. The depth of field one is really curious because DoF is primarily a photographic concern – and here we see Leonardo using the effect well before what we might call pre-photography.

Often we as viewers have been down the path that Leonardo is a genius – and let’s be frank – he was. However the thinking that is being show in the image of Salvator Mundi as Jesus is just phenomenal.

(small excerpt of the interview below) (URL:  http://artinfo.com/news/story/750715/the-male-mona-lisa-art-historian-martin-kemp-on-leonardo-da-vincis-mysterious-salvator-mundi )

Excerpt begins here…

What was striking for me was the orb, and I’ve subsequently researched it quite heavily. The “Salvator Mundi” obviously holds the mundus, the world which he’s saving, and it was absolutely unlike anything I’ve seen before. The orbs in other Salvator Mundis, often they’re of a kind of brass or solid. Sometimes they’re terrestrial globes, sometimes they’re translucent glass, and one or two even have little landscapes in them. What this one had was an amazing series of glistening little apertures — they’re like bubbles, but they’re not round — painted very delicately, with just a touch of impasto, a touch of dark, and these little sort of glistening things, particularly around the part where you get the back reflections. And that said to me: rock crystal. Because rock crystal gets what are called inclusions, and to get clear rock crystal is very difficult, particularly big bits. So there are these little gaps, which are slightly irregular in shape, and I thought, well, that’s pretty fancy. And Leonardo was a bit of an expert on rock crystal. He was asked to judge vases that Isabella d’Este was thinking of buying, and he loved those materials.

So when I was back in Oxford, I went to the geology department, and I said, “Let’s have a look at some rock crystal.” And in the Ashmolean Museum, in a wunderkammer of curiosities, there is a big rock crystal ball, and that has inclusions, so we photographed it under comparable lighting conditions I also began to look at the heel of the hand underneath the globe in the “Salvator Mundi”; there are two heels. The restorer thought it was a pentimento, but I wondered if he was recording a double refraction of the kind you get with a calcite sphere. If this proves to be right, it would be absolutely Leonardesque. I like these things when they’re not just connoisseurship. None of the copyists knew that. They just transcribed it. Some of them do better than others, but none of them got this crystal with its possible double refraction. And one of the points of the crystal sphere is that it relates iconographically to the crystalline sphere of the heavens, because in Ptolemaic cosmology the stars were in the fixed crystalline sphere, and so they were embedded. So what you’ve got in the “Salvator Mundi” is really a “a savior of the cosmos”, and this is a very Leonardesque transformation.

Another thing I subsequently looked at is that there’s a difference from what we would call depth of field — the blessing hand and the tips of the fingers are in quite sharp focus. The face, even allowing for some of the damage, is in quite soft focus. Leonardo, in Manuscript D of 1507-1508, explored depth of field. If you bring something too close to you, you can’t see it and it doesn’t have a sense of focus. If you’ve got it an optimum point, it’s much sharper. Then you move it away and it gets less sharp. He was investigating that phenomenon. So there are these intellectual aspects, optical aspects, and things in terms of these semiprecious materials that are unique to Leonardo.”

1 Comment

Hal Foster to be awarded 2010 Clark prize for excellence in arts writing

It’s interesting people either love or hate Hal Foster. I sit in the middle ground – while I love the two books he edited – Recodings, and The Anti-Aesthetic, I’ve never been too turned on by just his writing in the long form. I’ve always thought he was best in middle size essays.

By the way – did I say I love both Recodings, and The Anti-Aesthetic? I did and I still do. They seem to me to be two of the most critical anthologies of art criticism of the last 30 years. I assume most artists have read these and am always surprised and a bit let down when I find out otherwise.

I think the Clark award is noteworthy because the arts community (commercial side) has been marginalizing criticism for some time now – this was especially true in the period between 2005 – 2009 when the commercial side of the market was booming.

Foster was selected by a three-member jury:

  • Iwona Blazwick, Director of the Whitechapel Art Gallery, London
  • Bruce W. Ferguson, independent curator and critic
  • András Szántó, Senior Lecturer at the Sotheby’s Institute of Art, New York
2 Comments

Avalanche Magazine

The short-lived New York based art magazine Avalanche, which existed between 1970 and 1976, captured a sense of its time, but also engaged critically with the relationship between printed matter (books, samizdat, etc.) and artwork. Founded by Liza Bear and Willoughby Sharp Avalanche pushed artistic ideas, via interviews with artists and artists’ projects being the mainstays of the magazine.

Which brings us to the present.

Primary Information has reprinted Avalanche as a complete set for the first time in three decades. Originally published in magazine format for the first eight issues, Avalanche switched to a newsprint format for the final five issues. This facsimile edition is a boxed set that houses the individual magazine issues and the newspapers bound in a single book form.

Avalanche focused on new forms of art-making (of it’s day), providing a timely format for art’s movement away from galleries and museums and towards the printed page and emerging discourses surrounding Performance and Land art. The interviews, all conducted by Bear and Sharp, employ a loose but thoughtful approach. Often the articles ran as large as 16 pages. The featured artists were at the time relatively unknown, today they read like a Who’s Who of the avant-garde (in particular as defined by Dia:). The square covers of the early issues feature now iconic portraits of artists; Joseph Beuys, Lawrence Weiner, Yvonne Rainer, Vito Acconci (who had the entire Issue of #6 dedicated to him) and Bruce Nauman.

Featured artists were Vito Acconci, Laurie Anderson, Bill Beckley, Joseph Beuys, Chris Burden, Daniel Buren, Hanne Darboven, Walter De Maria, Jan Dibbets, Barbara Dilley, Simone Forti, Gilbert & George, the Philip Glass Ensemble, Grand Union, Hans Haacke, Jannis Kounellis, Meredith Monk, Barry Le Va, Sol LeWitt, Richard Long, Gordon Matta-Clark, Bruce Nauman, Dennis Oppenheim, Steve Paxton, Yvonne Rainer, Klaus Rinke, Joel Shapiro, Jack Smith, Keith Sonnier, Richard Serra, Robert Smithson, George Trakas, William Wegman, Lawrence Weiner, the Western Front and Jackie Winsor.

Avalanche by Primary Information is available at Printed Matter.

4 Comments

Interesting symposium at SFMOMA

Is Photography Over?

It’s a hell of a question – more importantly what are the answers to something like that. We can all agree that “traditional photography” – by which I mean the kind of work done by Cartier-Bresson, Gary Winograd, and Ralph Gibson is currently not terribly in vogue as we are seeking photographers that are engaging a digital process that involves a different type of image manipulation than what we have seen in the past – but I’m not sure to say that technology is to blame or even the issue.

I’m pretty interested to see what comes from this.

The following is taken from the SFMOMA web site:

“SFMOMA has invited a range of major thinkers and practitioners to write brief responses to this question and then to convene for a two-day summit on the state of the medium. Participants include Vince Aletti, George Baker, Walead Beshty, Jennifer Blessing, Charlotte Cotton, Philip-Lorca diCorcia, Geoff Dyer, Peter Galassi, Corey Keller, Douglas Nickel, Trevor Paglen, Blake Stimson, and Joel Snyder.

Their texts will be used to kick off a panel discussion Thursday night. The 13 participants will continue the conversation Friday morning in closed-door sessions and will report back in a public session Friday afternoon April 23rd.”

More info is here.

Leave a Comment