Art for Arts Sake...

mike65

THis from the Sunday Times review section.

Cathy Wilkes

Cathy Wilkes untitled uinstallation, above, consists of mundane, low-cost materials, mostly associated with building, such as metal poles, rods, and brackets, as well as sanding machines and disparate drawings. Unlike many conceptual artists Wilkes offers no little or no contextual information on her work. Thus the viewer must weave through the piece, attempting to decipher it.

The close engagment creates a unique environment
that subverts the line between work and the space that contains it. An important clue to the thrust of the piece lies in the feminist magazine Spare Rib, a copy of which is on the flooor. The domestic scale of the installtion's elements suggests the reapropriation of of traditionally maculine materials and thier recasting in a more intimate
feminine pattern...

by Catherine Leen.

Is this arty bullsh1t? Why can't critics see whats in front of them? Namely a bunch of metal items placed withoput much wit, in an otherwise empty room...I wish I could inlcude the pic used to accompany the review.

Mike.

DadaKopf

I haven't seen the piece or anything, so I can't judge - but the review makes it sound really 80s, maybe the artist is an 80s feminist.

In any case, mike65, I wonder if, perhaps, you're just not trying hard enough? Otherwise you're just being deliberately provocative. What exactly is it you object to?

mike65

Its not the art I object to (after all some ppl hate my music) rather its the shocking "review". Which attempts to find something significant in the inane.

Mike.

DadaKopf

I don't see how you can decide on that since you've only seen a photo of it. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong.

Personally, I feel inclined to agree with you, but I'm refraining from being too presumptuous for the same reason I think you should.

But y'know, I haven't a problem with feminism. The piece sounds purposefully purposeless.

*Shrug*

McGinty

Lol, I kind of agree, however there is a work of art in the way the editorial is written, the person probably looked at the artists work, and thought F*** what kind of bull**** am I going to write, I have to say 10 out 10 for a superb piece of bull**** writing, if I were that writer, I would be feeling very proud of myself.

DadaKopf

And, actually, mike65, now that I think of it, Waldemar Januszak often writes stuff in the Sunday Times that berates and lampoons 'established' 'masters' - doing exactly what you seem to request when you ask "Why can't critics see whats in front of them?" I think that's pretty brave of him, even if he does it for the attention.

McGinty's right of course, journos are poxy. They always give you their agenda (it's impossible not to), which is why I always reserve judgement for when I actually see the exhibition, or I read interviews with the artist.

But then, reviews are often just about promotion, so they have to make whatever it is that's on seem interesting enough to go and see.

Plus, I'm not sure the excerpt we've got to go on is enough to make a proper judgement.

Best art mag I've ever see is Art Review (I think it is), a French bilingual art mag that has high quality art criticism and serious writers on aesthetic theory. I'd prefer read that than the musings of some hack or social climber.

Monkey

I can see why you don't like the installation.I've seen it myself and I'm not into it but I don't see why you object to the piece of writing which is quite straight forward and explains the magazine reference that i personally did not get.

Monkey

"Namely a bunch of metal items placed withoput much wit, in an otherwise empty room"

also this is a load of bollox. Firstly you are ignoring the paintings, working electric sanders and other real objects invloved in the installation, secondly "metal items" is too vague a description to be of any use to anyone, and thirdly every room is empty except for its contents.

Michaelangalo's David is just a marble object in an otherwise empty room by your logic.