tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post791241624656128117..comments2024-02-11T19:28:27.997+11:00Comments on Personal Reflections: Saturday Morning Musings - visual language, contemporary art and a visit to Sydney's Museum of Contemporary ArtJim Belshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-10078654738654534022016-01-31T21:47:36.547+11:002016-01-31T21:47:36.547+11:00Kvd, that sound cloud interview left me none the w...Kvd, that sound cloud interview left me none the wiser! It may well have been part constructed. MCA may have bought it after the Oxley show. I wonder, do they take it down at all?<br /><br />GL and last anon. Ah, the descriptions. I wrote on the A. exhibition at the time. Perhaps, to pick up GL's point re untitled, sometimes a title does help.<br /><br />Ah Brecht. Monday is just a point in the week, you know. See your point. A long time since I watched one of his plays Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-75552083818235370132016-01-31T15:25:34.144+11:002016-01-31T15:25:34.144+11:00I feel genuinely sorry for any artist forced to do...I feel genuinely sorry for any artist forced to do the wankery surrounding their art. My wife's a ceramic artist and I'm sure she would be happier with a title and no text. And you can't just say "Don't read this, look at the artwork!". <br /><br />Although now I think about it, Bertholt Brecht did use a number of techniques, all deesigned to remind the audience that they watching a play. He deliberately alienated the audience, implicitly asking them to think and judge the performance AND the message.<br /><br />It must be Monday.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-32339545522469519262016-01-31T10:22:21.532+11:002016-01-31T10:22:21.532+11:00Here's another view of that same artwork: http...Here's another view of that same artwork: http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/artists/279/ART_FAIRS_/1605/51177/ and here's another brief description of the materials used in construction: <i>Material: Fabric, stocking, pins, beer, champagne, vodka, ceramics, found things, wood, rocks and lights</i><br /><br />As this is a 2010 piece, which has been exhibited several times, I'm wondering how the artist manages to maintain the particulars of the construction at each showing? Or is that even important? Looking at the picture in my link to Roslyn Oxley, it seems very complex.<br /><br />Or is the act of construction part of the artwork which we are supposed to consider?<br /><br />Anyway - last link - the artist herself 'explaining' the piece: https://soundcloud.com/mca-australia/mikala-dwyer-explains-the-background-of-square-cloud-compound with the attached image seeming to be somewhat different. (Or maybe only partially constructed?)<br /><br />kvdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-65438449884352616852016-01-30T20:01:49.819+11:002016-01-30T20:01:49.819+11:00Interesting point on language 2T. Visited Archib...Interesting point on language 2T. Visited Archibalds last year and quietly laughed at some of the artists' descriptions of their work. The number of works which claimed to represent objectification was a little disturbing (to me at least, I am sure others would disagree). I have also been to the MCA and at first the lack of flowery language describing the works was refreshing. Then I came across several works which were described as "untitled". I did wonder how the "punter" wss supposed to make sense of something which the artist couldn't even title. The works themselves did not make a lot of sense to me except for a pervading feeling of darkness and negativity. I recognise that art is sometimes born of that, but I certainly don't want to spend my spare time walking through several rooms of it. <br />GLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-89123026058961608222016-01-30T19:14:53.157+11:002016-01-30T19:14:53.157+11:00Agreed on two major points. A lot of this stuff is...Agreed on two major points. A lot of this stuff is just dross. And the deliberate misuse of the English language is a crime against literacy and serves to detract, or at best, unsuccessfully distract, from the poor communication of the artwork itself.2 tannersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-23342576001364008742016-01-30T18:42:03.919+11:002016-01-30T18:42:03.919+11:00I find a lot of contemporary art...underwhelming. ...I find a lot of contemporary art...underwhelming. No doubt I'd be told by artists that I'm a philistine for having this view. A lot of art seems to be described in very pretentious terms as well, which really turns me off. A friend of mine who makes fabulous modern jewellry and pottery says that she really suffers because she can't write about her art in that way. I think <i>her</i> stuff is fabulous. I really like art done with obvious skill - something that I couldn't have done myself, or I could only have done with a good deal of effort. When I see a pile of rice on the floor with neon lights around it (a piece of contemporary art I saw once), first, I don't really understand what the significance is, and secondly, I think that I could do it myself. It's almost like the whole point of modern art is to become unmoored from realistic representation and to defy any message, but that makes it unapproachable and confusing, in my view. As a language it often fails to "speak" to me.Legal Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01096038577529334966noreply@blogger.com