my point is I THINK HE IS A MORON. you cant argue with that. people found the art disturbibg, it was taken down.those are the facts. I leave it at that.
oily, Wouldn't you agree that his scuplture is even worse than his paintings (as far as figural representation)? Funny how he is teaching painting still in NY despite not havin painted in many years since he is a :sculpture" guy now.
Oh for sure! That sculpture really is nothing special, 'cept that he's eric fischl one of the 80's kids and he called it what he did and wrote a poem. A better representation of sincere sincerity of post- 9/11 artwork I think is the Ray Smith show at the Mcnay in San Antonio. I really like Ray's work, figurative but at least a little interesting, sometimes surreal. For the ARTMATTERS series of contemporary art, the artist lends recent work painted in the wake of September 11, 2001. After the destruction of the Twin Towers, Smith returned to his home in lower Manhattan close to Ground Zero. His studio in Brooklyn is near the loading dock where tons of World Trade Center rubble has been deposited. Featured are 15 two-foot square paintings, as well as powerful watercolors of city figures rained upon by surreal storms of ash. Many of the primary qualities of Smith's earlier work--boldness, strength, and a combination of celebration, restlessness, rigor, and rage--are all present in Ray Smith: Recent Paintings. http://www.mcnayart.org/exhibitions.html
You don't think Fischl is being sincere? He sincerely thinks he is a sculptor now. I actually think that he is trying to be sincere, since he has never really been a "shock" artist. I just think that he is limited. He thinks that he is a figural sculptor and he had no idea how else to portray what he wanted. But I do think he is sincere in his effort. Unlike the 80's, he is not realy trying to make money first now (since he can't).
<blockquote>at the exact moment her head smacks pavement </blockquote>I don't agree with that. She is in free fall; it looks like to me. And the Title indicates that. Artistically, that's not a very good sculpture, imo. Refman, We did not give tax dollars to Andres Serrano for Piss Christ.
heypartner and rimbaud-- My understanding is that he received money from the NEA. The NEA is taxpayer funded, at least in part. If he received money from NEA then he presumably received some tax dollars. If he did not get money from NEA, then I was mistaken.
heypartner, I have already posted my doubts about that statement, so I agree with you. I think the Post editorial writer made that up and posted an image that manipulates the work so that viewers cannot completely tell. I also agree with your statement that it is not a very good work...but it is hardly worth all this fuss and I am opposed to this ridiculous reaction (covering it up). Refman, Helms's (and D'Amato's) objection with the NEA was that the NEA gives money to museums which had the Piss Christ in exhibitions. Additionally, the Southeast Center for Contemporary Art had awarded Serrano a $15,000 prize/grant before Piss Christ was ever produced and based on different work. The Southeast Center had recieved some backing from the NEA (in general, not just for this grant). In other words, before Piss Crhist was made, Serrano won an award that was given by a museum that has been aided by the NEA (as almost every museum in the country is). It then was turned into "tax dollars paid for Serrano to create the Piss Christ." Pretty far removed, isn't it? Kinda funny considering it is a found (free) object in uring (free) shot on a camera with film that he already had...maybe they paid for the developing costs?
how is this bad, or not very good sculpture. it is art, and art is not intended to be an exact perfect reflection of human form. back a few thousand years ago in greece, this was tghe only goal, but today we create art for its mesage, for effect, for a release. this is amazing work. just look how many people it has effected. it has effected people in houston, and in NY. it makes you look back to 1 year ago and god damn I did see people, human beings jumping fleeing out of 1500 foot tall buildings. jumping to their deaths. we all saw it, most of us forgot, or at least filed it. but art stirrs, and this is stunning work. Uncover it PEACE
VOR, I might be one of the few who has yet to see the images of people jumping. Maybe because of that, I look at the sculpture and don't see the things you do. It doesn't look like a flailing free fall of vulnerability imbedded in all of us to me. It looks like a break dancer. It is too trite and obvious, yet not very realistic at the same time...in a HS art class sorta way.
I am actually with you there. VOR, My value judgement of "bad" in regards to this figurative sculpture has nothing to do with Winkelmannian values. There is nothing noteworthy or interesting in its composition, technique, or handling. Fischl knows little to nothing about sculpture - and I say that from a position of knowing his work, not just this example. Also, along the lines of what hp said, I think that he chose this because he felt that he had to keep in line with his "I am a figurative sculptor" stand he has made in the last few years and couldn't think of anything better. There have been many "falling figures" in the history of artand Fischl seems to have learned nothing from them. With the display the way it is, it allows for some people to interpret it as the writer of the ed. piece - that she is smacking into the base/ground. This, of course, is just opinion, as aesthetics are subjective...
