"Granted, companies need to promote their brands. But a generation ago, corporations turned to art to burnish their reputations and acquire a patina of class.... Branding seeks to deliver a product to the widest possible audience, while art is about one person alone in a room, trying to give physical form to the invisible matter of their inner lives — or in Lichtenstein’s case, wondering if he had an interior life in the first place. As he once said, 'I don’t have any big anxieties. I wish I did. I‘d be much more interesting.'"
The painting — which isn't really a mural, because it's on canvas and was easily removed — is 26 feet tall and 18 feet wide and "painted in situ over a period of five weeks" back in 1989 in a building designed by I.M. Pei.
The new tenant is Alo Yoga, "a company specializing in leggings, cropped tops and other clothing designed for what it calls 'mindful movement.'" Alo refused to talk to the NYT about its anti-art decision.
Posts
52 comments:
Alo refused to talk to the NYT about its anti-art decision
When you own a building, you get to do what you want with the interior. Hard luck to the NYTimes if that runs counter to your own taste. You can always buy the art for yourself.
Especially with a painting as spectacular as the Lichtenstein. they're in a building designed by one of the premier architects of the 20th century,but they reject this magnificent painting? And they have no explanation as to why? Philistines, Won't be buying any of their clothes.
Vicki from Pasadena
An aesthetic retreat for girls? For trans/homosexual males? #NoJudgment #NoLabels
Not everyone loves comic-book inspired pop art. Not everyone loves Andy Warhol's soup cans and satires about mass production. Not everyone loves preserved animals cut into slices and placed in glass cabinets. Not everyone loves million dollar copies of balloon dogs.
Take the (pretentious, cliquish) art away and sell it to those who love Lichtenstein's comics. It's a business.
Anti-art? OMG! That's like anti-God.
Roy Lichtenstein? Who WAS that guy? was he a Comic Book illustrator? Or, was he just an inker?
The Interesting Thing, about boomers..
Is that they STILL think people know who they were.. People don't Even CARE
I see it's owned by Mike Ovitz. Maybe they just didn't want the responsibility of it.
I like it, but it isn't very peaceful, which is All Yoga's vibe.
On the Other Hand..
The Insurance Company where gilbar worked..
WANTED EVERYONE to KNOW, that They were a Mutual Company*, and thus: Cared NOTHING about expenses
So, we had an Andy Warhol print.. Somewhere, i think on the 7th floor (Subrogation)
Our floor (4th: DP) had a cool pic of corn fields or something, by some local guy; Grant Wood, or such
Mutual Company* a Mutual Company is Required: BY LAW NOT to turn a profit; so expenses run pretty high
I agree with Enigma. De gustibus non disputandum est.
Whether the sin of Alo Yoga is anti-art, I'm leaning toward one of the most significant pro-art decisions of the 21st century.
Lichtenstein??
Really, Lichtenstein?? I think the question answers itself.
In some museum, somewhere, I stumbled upon a Lichentenstein that could had been done with a roller brush. It was just a green canvas.
"By what calculus..."
Earth to Times... Earth calling Times... There isn't one. Repeat. There isn't one. Over.
Yeah and the US Senate used to have standards too, but now they let models in wearing shorts.
Always nice to be held hostage by the artistic decisions of the prior tenant.
It's not like they threw it in the trash...is it?
That would be "I. M. Pei" not "M. Pei".
The company wants to position itself to appeal to a youthful market. The art is thirty years old, from an artist whose heyday was sixty years ago, and in a style that looks like 1930s expressionism.
To translate the time periods, when I was a young person, I would not have been drawn in to buy active wear from a company displaying American Gothic.
I can’t seem to find a picture of the artwork in question without running into a paywall. But if the Times can’t tell the difference between a painting on canvas and a mural, then I don’t know why we should accept their esthetic judgement either.
Note to Althouse — TikTok has a video asking whether Lichtenstein is the worst artist in the US. I don’t watch TikTok as a matter of principle, but you might be interested. (Worse than Hunter Biden? Worse than George Bush’s dog paintings? That’s going some.)
Note to Vicki from Pasadena — Alo Yoga clothing is designed for healthy, physical fit women. Althouse might look good wearing it, but a decrepit old crone like you not so much.
Sure, complain that a monetized pop artist of a bygone era isn't respected these days by corporate beancounting executives. But how much free publicity has the company gotten for this action?
I never heard of Alo Yoga before today, and now I know they make mindful movement clothing. Their customer acquisition cost just dropped by about what, half? Give that CEO a bonus, and see what else is hanging on stairwell walls in that building. And sell the Lichtenstein, it was banal when made and is an eyesore now.
"... art is about one person alone in a room, trying to give physical form to the invisible matter of their inner lives ..."
That's your problem, NYT. You think you know what art is when in fact all you believe you know about art is what a sophomore sitting in an aesthetics classroom on day one of a course signed up for because it fulfilled an art requirement for a BS in Computer Science thinks he knows about art and has to abandon on day two.
The idea that art is somebody's self-indulgent tantrum with paint with a hefty price tag attached is why the vast majority of Americans are apathetic on the subject. People generally resent paying money to have their intelligence insulted. If your inner self looks like Mickey Mouse on a fishing expedition with Donald Duck, I'd rather not know about it.
Why does Roy Lichtenstein produce pop art? Because it's easy. Just find a comic book old enough to be in the public domain, project it enlarged on a canvas, and have at it. Or if you're a gambler like Warhol, use something still under copyright and hope the owner is flattered, indifferent, or more likely, grateful for the free publicity. Before Warhol, Campbell's never sold a can of soup to a beatnik.
Vicky writes, "Philistines, Won't be buying any of their clothes."
Alo Yoga mops its corporate brow in relief.
Isn't the tenant who rejected the painting the company "WeWork", with the Alo Yoga being a sub-lessor from WeWork?
There are LOTS of photos of that atrium online for the 2019-to-near-present WeWork era of that building, and none of them show the Lichtenstein -- just a giant white blank canvas in its place.
"“A new tenant came in and they didn’t want it,” Ovitz said when we talked by phone, referring to the work that Lichtenstein painted in situ over a period of five weeks. The (commenter note: CURRENT) tenant, which arrived in 2021, is Alo Yoga, a company specializing in leggings, cropped tops and other clothing designed for what it calls “mindful movement.”"
In what what vane urbane would they not choose a handmade painting depicting fossil sea shells by the seashore?
I like pictures of naked women and some of that Norman Rockwell stuff is pretty good too. Lichtenstein or a poster of a guy wearing a windbreaker: that's all the same to me. Maybe they can sell the Lichtenstein painting for a pretty penny and invest the money in windbreaker research. Windbreakers, unlike art, haven't changed much over the years. Somebody needs to rethink windbreakers.
Not everyone loves comic-book inspired pop art.
And the rest of that comment. I am among that "not everyone." Sounds as if a number of us in this thread are "not everyone."
Yoga missed the boat.
A Lichtenstein and leggings are made for each other.
Jesus. Can somebody please tell what the hell is going on?
FYI, here's a trick I found about how to read paywalled articles...at least it works for the NYT.
-- Copy the link.
-- Open a new tab/window and go to google.com
-- Paste the link into the Google search bar.
-- The article should appear in the results, and when you click on it the article can be read.
Something about Google not wanting to limit the efficacy of results from their page, blah, blah.
But I've tried it twice an it has worked.
Otherwise I only use DuckDuckGo.
That's the trouble with patinas. Over time, they wear off. (And Pop Art patina is probably even thinner than most.)
A woman in a nice pair of yoga pants can be a work of art, not as much a man in shorts.
A Bob Ross original for happy little people.
“ That would be "I. M. Pei" not "M. Pei".”
I know. Thanks. It was a typo and I apologize to the great architect.
No one should talk to the NYTimes.
MarcusB. THEOLDMAN
"By what calculus would a company choose to furnish their quarters with a poster of a guy modeling a windbreaker rather than a museum-quality painting by Lichtenstein?"
The poster answers the question.
Roy is considered a rip-off artist in most of the comic book fandom and certainly by a few of the artists he stole from. No credit and they certainly were NOT in the public domain. Ask Russ Heath about it.
Since most comic book artists were paid poorly and not given their original art back (see Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko), they do not have a nice opinion about someone swiping their work and doing a poor imitation of it. No credit and no money to the original artists from mister pop art Roy.
MarcusB. THEOLDMAN
Archived version for those who want to see the painting in question: https://archive.ph/xmUFY
Personally I don't see what the fuss is about it's not a particularly fabulous painting, in my opinion. But I guess if Roy Lichtenstein was still among us and he took a dump on a Manhattan side walk there are people who'd get upset if the city came by and cleaned it up.
Go figure....
Not liking Lichtenstein isn't anti-art, it's just not feeling captive to the anti-art peculiarity of mid 20th century art trends.
I love a lot of art, Caspar Friedrich is my favorite, I also like Kandinsky, but I think Lichtenstein and that whole era highlight how the art world is more fashion than real. It made a point, and had a message, but this is like insisting a woman who doesn't want a beehive is anti hairstyle.
Museum quality these days just means what fashion a curator can be cajoled into promoting as art for those who lack their own discernment but want to be seen as artistic
I am pretty sure the current definition of art is "a culture swathed way to launder money for the extremely wealthy"
Museum quality painting? Perhaps a null conception on a white canvas, framed with an etherial trim.
I wouldn't want it either. Cost of insurance, security, etc. would be too much,
Thanks. It was a typo and I apologize to the great architect.
He doesn’t much care about your apology. He’s been dead for four years now.
I see the irony of the Alo Yoga clothing company rejecting a Bauhaus inspired painting because both the painting (especially its original version by Oskar Schlemmer, "Bauhaus Stairway" 1932 MOMA) and their clothing express the Bauhaus "form following function" ethos. But then you'd have to know something about art history to get the irony of that.
I agree with the commenter Tom T. who said that the pop art style painting was/is probably seen as old fashioned by the Alo Yoga group and not trendy enough for their brand. Kind of funny and pathetic at the same time.
It's removable. Does someone else want to buy it and put it on their building?
I don't see the problem here.
I would assume the yoga people saw it as dystopian. It has a cold, robotic feel, so probably not a good fit for their relaxing, mindfulness message.
I used to be in a position to award million dollar contracts. I have never seen any of my contractors art collections.
I want answers to the important questions. Like, was the artist a beast towards womyn? Until I know that, the topic is dead to me.
Thanks, Big mike, that you seem to know something that you really don't know... An old crone? What defines that? Over 30? 40? 50? Shame on you, shame.
Vicki From Pasadena
while art is about one person alone in a room, trying to give physical form to the invisible matter of their inner lives
Seriously?
I give you an essay phrase concocted by one of those slow test takers. Throw it at the wall.
Static Ping said...
"Always nice to be held hostage by the artistic decisions of the prior tenant."
Hostage? Nothing a roller and two gallons of paint can't cure.
robother said...
"That's the trouble with patinas. Over time, they wear off. (And Pop Art patina is probably even thinner than most.)"
Especially Pollack.
That's a problem with huge pieces of art - (Ironic as my next piece is large.) - you'd better have a convenient, long-term place to display it.
Mine will take nine feet on a standard height wall but that thing is vertical, that limits things greatly.
By my calculus I've run out of fucks.
Maybe if it was a soup can........
Not my cup of tea.
Ohhhh, you anti-art troglodyte!
Feh.
I am comforted that the painting in question includes POC. On b-racial, black/white and one Asian.
Otherwise they would have had to burn it or,at the least hung it where it could never be seen.
Post a Comment