"... of precisely what the title indicates, complete with a metal spring that appropriately evokes the number 76. The work stands in stark contrast to conventional public sculpture, which Mr. Oldenburg, impersonating a municipal official, said
was supposed to involve 'bulls and Greeks and lots of nekkid broads.'... 'My intention is to make an everyday object that eludes definition.... I’ve expressed myself consistently in objects with reference to human beings rather than through human beings,' he said....While Mr. Oldenburg’s work is most often linked to the Pop Art of the 1960s, he saw his monumental versions of humble objects as more than just celebrations of the mundane. 'A catalog could be made of all such objects... which would read like a list of the deities or things on which our contemporary mythological thinking has been projected. We do invest religious emotion in our objects. Look at how beautifully objects are depicted in ads in Sunday newspapers.'"
It's a beautiful idea — that common objects can be monumental. And what monumental devotion to this idea!
23 comments:
A beautiful idea?
Ok, pick one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothespin_(Oldenburg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)
One of these is art.
I find some of Oldenburg's sculptures to be unique and fun, but the one we have here in Lincoln - 'Torn Notebook - I find to be dull and uninspired. It needed to be more whimsical.
A small object the size of a large object.
He should have erected a giant phallus.
Does art require technique? Or is it enough to have an idea?
I’ve expressed myself
That's not really what public art is supposed to be about - the self-centeredness of the contractor.
Looks like his greatest art was to get public officials to give him taxpayers' money.
His "art" is a "beautiful idea" that private patrons/suckers can pay for.
In fact, almost all "public art" the past 50-plus years has been a scam.
Clothespins are the work media of women. It's metonymy for nekkid broad.
"A small object the size of a large object."
LOL
Thanks for saying that... I love comments that refer to old comments... especially old comments with the "big and small" tag.
His giant shuttlecocks at our art museum are now self-identifying symbols of Kansas City. I don't think anyone thinks of them as great art, but they're distinctive and beloved here. RIP.
This gets my "People went to prison because they didn't want to pay for this shit" tag.
'He should have erected a giant phallus.'
'His giant shuttlecocks at our art museum...'
All this dirty talk; I do believe I am getting the vapors...
I lived in Cleveland for a number of years. There you can see Oldenburg's "Free Stamp." I think it's supposed to be symbolic. Of what, I never really figured out. No one in the city really gave it much thought. But it wasn't despised, the way "The Bean" is in Chicago.
I would call Oldenburg a clever man. Better than a mere hack. His work gives more pleasure than a lot of so-called modern art. But still, he created curiosities. Not great artworks. Kudos to him for finding his niche and running with it.
>>He should have erected a giant phallus.
There is an "erect" giant baseball bat just west of the Loop in Chicago. This is the best I could find in a quick look: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/470485492292710943/
--gpm
He must not have had the balls to do "Phallus." "Lipstick" was as close as he could come.
All the con men who have populated the art world the last 100 years. Half of them believed their own b.s., but which half?
And so many critics who still believe it. Who's that NYer guy? Gopnik. He still goes on with the crapola.
My taste stops at Piet Mondrian. Frank Stella in his good period. After that, we are really at rock bottom, aren't we, Howard? The decadent years.
He does not seem to have been a kind man, the sort of person who cares about other people.
At least, not judging by the ugliness he was, in his (I am guessing here) mentally ill way, willing to subject on others.
He knew in his heart people want beauty, but he preferred to seek power, to seek money as an "artist", and to foist that which is not beautiful on - literally - millions of pedestrians and city dwellers who would have preferred him not to do that.
I hope he was kind to those close to him, and I hope they were kind to him. After all, the people who suffered from his failed and phony art passed on, giving it only a few moments of thought, and quickly forgot about the ugly things the poor man was responsible for: and if he was able to find friendship and love, that is after all much more important than the negligible damage he did, in his failed hopes to be what is called an artist.
Christo and his covered island was more than enough hackery
Wade Phillips beat me to it. I too love our shuttlecocks, particularly the "lost" one that was hit over the museum and landed in back.
This gets my "big and small" tag, which is, perhaps, my favorite tag.
Speaking of tags.... is there a way to search the blog for specific tags? (Not sure if I'm remembering correctly, but didn't there used to be a list of all the tags on the right side of the blog many, many years ago?)
Kudos to the people who funded his installations. I go by the bow-and-arrow all the time in SF. It's good to see something huge that doesn't make sense in its environment. Takes one's mind off the forest of empty office bldgs our little darlings no longer wish to work in.
PM - maybe you are right.
The guy who was put rusty iron walls in the middle of lawns - there was one at Caltech which the students successfully demanded be removed - was maybe the guy i was thinking of in my earlier comment (7/18 at 10"03 PM)(Richard Serra? - I could be wrong).
Oldenburg's "Lipstick (Ascending) on Caterpillar Treads" did have a message. A rather banal one. Something to do with Vietnam, I think. Maybe it was best that he avoided making meaningful works.
I guess he understood the kind of society that we are. We don't have common values or traditions, or we don't like to talk about them.
People pass by public statues everyday. They don't intently study them and they don't notice them. Oldenburg may have decided that he wanted something that would be noticed and maybe provoke a smile. He got that, though once you walk past his clothespin or spoon or shuttlecock enough times, you don't notice them either.
Can you imagine a work of public art that would be so striking or significant or beautiful that it would reduce us to silent contemplation of its excellence? No. And today's artists can't either. So we get the clothespin and brief, knowing smiles.
cooper 6:40
You're right, that was Serra.
@Lurker21 - Here is some more info from the Yale Alumni Magazine about Lipstick (Ascending) on Caterpillar Tracks.
I'm not a fan of the genre, but I think the reaction of most Yale students to it when I was there was roughly, "Umm...ok."
Not the worst bit of "modern" public art, but I suspect it would take a few days for most people to notice (or care) if it magically disappeared.
Post a Comment