Said Kathy Halbreich, former executive director of the Rauschenberg Foundation, quoted in "Should Robert Rauschenberg’s Art Studio Be Saved?
The potential sale of the groundbreaking painter’s home in New York by his foundation, on the heels of the sale of his Florida studio, has alarmed many in the art community" (NYT).
A description of the endangered real estate: "Unlike more famous artists’ haunts, like Claude Monet’s water-lily garden at Giverny, the Rauschenberg manse, for which he paid $65,000, is grittily urban, a 9,200-square-foot townhouse set on a wide, truck-rumbling block just north of SoHo. For years gold letters were visible above the red door — Mission of the Immaculate Virgin — hinting at the building’s former life as a home for orphaned boys. Rauschenberg set up his studio on the ground floor, in a high-ceilinged room that was once the chapel."
Here's a short clip from a documentary, with Rauschenberg, in his deconsecrated chapel, speaking about his art (and, oddly, reminding me of George W. Bush):
पोस्ट्स
१६ टिप्पण्या:
…not everything is a shrine. I sorta give the Haring mural a pass as I suspect they don’t make anything close to ask. Here there’s what? The spot were ____ was created? Maybe but trustees have legal responsibilities, too…
I actually met Rauschenberg once. He was delightfully eccentric, but very amusing. His art is a wonder to behold, he was a brilliant artist, always on the lookout for the next great idea and constantly reinventing himself.
Space and flight were recurring themes in his work. He admired Leonardo da Vinci and the Wright Brothers because they embodied that same spirit of thinking unconstrained by traditional boundaries.
Let’s hope the White House doesn’t hear about it.
Those who can paint - paint.
Those who cant do abstract art.
Abstract expressionism isn't art. It is more like failed kindergarten projects. Mid twentieth century artists ran out of ideas. The looked at earlier works and said, "we can't do that", so they invented some new crap and convinced rich elites that is was art.
What is art? I see it as mostly subjective, and my test is: after seeing it, do I want to look at it again? Can I get something more out of it a second time? It needs at least that level of mental draw, and that's a very low bar. Some abstract art meets that test, and a lot does not.
And so now we deconsecrate the studio and on to the next big thing in NYC. A halfway house for recovering migrant trans drug abusers? They, too, could paint the walls to express themselves. Then, an art book comparing Rauschenberg's work with that of the city's guests.
PS. I actually like Rauschenberg but he's in the hands of art abusers, so let the pageant go on.
And so now we deconsecrate the studio and on to the next big thing in NYC. A halfway house for recovering migrant trans drug abusers? They, too, could paint the walls to express themselves. Then, an art book comparing Rauschenberg's work with that of the city's guests.
PS. I actually like Rauschenberg but he's in the hands of art abusers, so let the pageant go on.
Introducing people through the building was as hard as passing a goat through an inner tube.
Robert Hughes described Rauchenberg's iconic work as "the satyr in the sphincter." He had very a definite idea of what "Monogram" was about.
I googled the guys murals, I didn't bother to I'd the particular mural, so I cannot judge it's gaspworthyness.
I saw a bunch of them and found them gaspworthy, but not in a good way.
As far as the documentary clip goes, he strikes me as someone much more comfortable in creating art than talking about it. I don't know if that's actually true in terms of Rauschenberg (but now I'm curious to find out).
The thing I dislike about a lot of abstract art (at least the successful stuff) is that it makes me feel sad for people who work for a living after developing skills. It's like if your slacker brother-in-law wins the lottery.
Agree, Bagoh.
My attitude with art is - does it make you happy? Does it stir something in you that makes you want to look at it again and again -because it's hanging on the wall in your life.
I have rarely liked abstract art. Sometimes if the colors are just right - I can appreciate it for that. For the most part it reminds me of the bottom of a dumpster can.
I think my problem with much abstract art is that it isn’t abstract enough. Rauschenberg‘s paintings seem to depict combinations of odd but real and recognizable stuff. I don’t want anything real in my abstract art. Go hard or go home. I like Jackson Pollack’s drip paintings.
Jeez--He looks and sounds like George Bush's idiot twin.
Rambo Van Halen is right. Right-wingers don't understand art at all.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.