Here, in this post linking to a old-time-y review of painting done by an Abstract Expressionist who emerged in the 1950s. I wrote, "There are things in art that can still shock people, but it would need to involve hurting a living creature or destroying something of value, not merely the chaotic application of paint to a canvas."
And look what we have today. A painter did one of the big messy-looking scrawls-and-blotches things that everyone has completely absorbed as ordinary art, something that wasn't even the slightest bit newsworthy but that is in a public place and capable of being presented to the news media as valued at $500,000.
And then along come some people who painted on top of it, so it's the "destroying something of value" that I was talking about. It's not the artist smashing a $1 million ancient vase, but some people other than the artist coming along and painting on top of the artist's mundane exercise in Abstract Expressionism. The artist could not get us heated up about his painting — mere painting. But when you talk about destruction... well, you know that you can count on us to get excited. So maybe one of the last remaining methods of engaging our outrage has been successfully deployed.
But, you may want to tell me, the artist didn't do it. Some stupid people came along and decided on their own to paint on a painting. But did you read the news story? "Young couple mistakenly vandalizes $440,000 painting in South Korea/The work was done in 2016 by American graffiti artist JonOne" (ABC News). Key passage:
The decision to display performance equipment in front of JonOne's work goes back to 2016. JonOne completed the artwork in question during a graffiti museum show, "The Great Graffiti,'' in Seoul Arts Center at the time. When the piece was complete, it was displayed along with the props used by the artist, in the same way the display is on now.
"The paint and brushes used by the artist comprise a complete set with the graffiti canvas work," said [Kang Wook, the CEO of Contents Creator of Culture, co-organizer of the exhibition]. He explained that the props were part of the exhibition to help highlight the history of the artist's work.
The displayed "performance equipment" was jars of paint and paint brushes scattered on the floor at the base of the painting, giving the impression of a work in progress and susceptible to the interpretation that the viewer is invited to use the equipment and participate in performance art by adding to the painting.
Now, is that what the artist intended? There was no sign telling people to paint on the painting. That would be like something in a children's museum, and I doubt if anyone would write a news article about it. It would be cutesy and communal. Everyone's an artist, and all art is a joint project. Not outrageous. No destruction. Only construction. So creative.
But if you put the paint and brushes out there as a sculptural still life, and leave it to members of the public to maybe decide on their own to do the children's museum thing and paint over the painting, then you can sell it to the press as destruction. A painting was painted over!! And now you've got your outrage. You've got your publicity. The name JonOne is well-known for 15 minutes.
Posts
29 comments:
“... But when you talk about destruction... well, you know that you can count on us...”. Channeling John Lennon?!?
Art for art’s sake.
One is not going to outrage over things that are dismissed and ignored as irrelevant, such as "art" today. One will outrage over having to pay for it or having it imposed upon them.
Althouse said...
...capable of being presented to the news media as valued at $500,000... the "destroying something of value" that I was talking about.
Indeed, is the real destruction of "something of value," here, the debasement of the currency by the Federal Reserve?
How would one vandalize something that is defined as vandalism (graffiti)?
"one of the big messy-looking scrawls-and-blotches things that everyone has completely absorbed as ordinary art"
Everyone? Completely? Art?
The "ruined" piece is actually improved with the black swatches. Less eyesore is visible.
Those paint cans would have been empty if the artist really wanted to keep people from "improving" his art. His actions betray his Freudian slip and his real intentions.
This is a fascinating item to post, IMO. Such a perfect example of our decadence. We can't necessarily help it, that is the curse of our time.
"He [Barzun] refers to the last era as a period of "decadence", by which he means "'falling off'. It implies in those who live in such a time no loss of energy or talent or moral sense....On the contrary, it is a very active time, full of deep concerns, but peculiarly restless, for it sees no clear lines of advance." He sees decadent eras as periods where "forms of art as of life seem exhausted, the stages of development have been run through. Institutions function painfully. Repetition and frustration are the intolerable result. Boredom and fatigue are great historical forces."
He, above, is Jacques Barzun, the quote from Wikipedia's summary of his fantastic book on modernity, the whole "modern" era from Martin Luther to today, From Dawn to Decadence. Your post is a very clear case of the phenomenon he described.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Dawn_to_Decadence
No harm, no foul.
The Revolution quote thing was cute, but it was distracting. It was like a pit in the arc of the post for readers to fall into.
So will JonOne be dismayed? I would doubt it. This probably just enhanced the value of his original and, as you say, put his name back out there in a bigger way. Whether his original was meant for destruction or enhancement -- whether he would call it improvement or just beautifully random "progress" -- the image itself seems intended to have been secondary to the depiction of "process." He left the paints there, it speaks for itself either way -- such are his magical options.
Quality, clarity, and the basic image itself have been left by the wayside because his forebears did them all so well that he knows, consciously or otherwise, that he cannot add to or compete with that body of work. In a word, decadence.
Though I would be happy to hear good arguments for something more positive.
There should be a dead cat in the tip jar.
Has anyone every seen JonOne and Banksy in the same room at the same time?
I am not outraged by7 "modern art". I ignore it.
How much do you suppose it cost to ship that piece of shit to Korea?
We can’t have a thread about painting over paintings without recalling this incident!
https://www.amusingplanet.com/2017/01/ecce-homo-botched-painting-that-saved.html?m=1
(Sorry, couldn’t get hyperlink to work)
Very timely for Holy Saturday, too.
Cracks me up every time (and scroll down for the memes) although I feel bad laughing at this nice lady’s expense.
Sebastian Smee's book about rivalry between artists was a pretty good read. It's not surprising that he wants to look back to an age when art critics really mattered. People (well, people who went to cocktail parties) knew who Rosenberg or Greenberg or Steinberg were. A little later they knew who Robert Hughes was and had maybe heard of Arthur Danto. Today, if you're an art critic, you might as well be invisible. Ditto for literary critics. They aren't really a part of the culture nowadays.
If Dickens and Dr. Seuss had written a book together, "Sebastian Smee" would have been one of the characters.
"Mundane" hardly describes what this artist produces. And a quick search reveals that his (woops, I'm assuming the proper pronoun!) work doesn't sell for anything like $500,000. Performance art in all the wrong ways.
Liberalism with a cause and expiration date.
Lurker, you don't see those Gopnik brothers regularly? Whoever publishes them thinks they are big parts of the culture. Me, I think they have a great facility for the facile.
The sister (Allison, have assumed she's the sister!) actually has something to say, or at least report on; but culture is not her beat.
No actual art was harmed in the making of this "news" story.
This whole thing was a setup from the start. If you actually had a work of art you cared about, you'd never beg people to paint on it by putting fresh paint and brushes where they might believe they were welcome to add to it.
I do not believe the original would actually sell for $500k. This "valued at" nonsense needs to be recognized for what it is.
"But when you talk about destructio-uh-uhn....don't you know you that can count me out?"
He should take a digital picture of it and auction the file as an NFT. There's a huge scam..sorry, market for those things at the moment. People buying the rights to the ownership of digital images for millions of dollars.
Although he might owe the "vandals" a portion of the proceeds, since they have made it more valuable now.
The young couple should assert morsl rights to prevent their work from being overpainted, like the 5point case in Queens NY.
Post a Comment