Sympathy for the art gallery

Apr 23

loverofbeauty:

Henri Matisse:  (Notre Dame - c.1904)    Originally posted by bofransson

loverofbeauty:

Henri Matisse:  (Notre Dame - c.1904)    Originally posted by bofransson

blakegopnik:

THE DAILY PIC: This is “Shine”, a candlestick made in 2010  by Geoffrey Mann (whom I named one of Newsweek’s Top Ten Designers in 2012). It’s now in the show called "Out of Hand" at the Museum of Arts and Design in New York, which looks at the effects of digital technologies on cutting-edge objects. “Shine” was made by doing a 3D scan of a silver candelabrum, and watching the scanner get confused as it read the reflection of its own laser beam as actual metal sticking out from the surface. Mann’s piece is the physical realization of that scanner’s-eye view of the candelabrum. This piece is really about digital design in a profound way, whereas many works in the show use computers to produce wow-cool science-fiction gear worthy of Klingons or The Borg. (Courtesy the artist, represented by Joanna Bird Contemporary Collections, London)
The Daily Pic also appears at blogs.artinfo.com/the-daily-pic. For a full inventory of past Daily Pics visit blakegopnik.com/archive.

blakegopnik:

THE DAILY PIC: This is “Shine”, a candlestick made in 2010  by Geoffrey Mann (whom I named one of Newsweek’s Top Ten Designers in 2012). It’s now in the show called "Out of Hand" at the Museum of Arts and Design in New York, which looks at the effects of digital technologies on cutting-edge objects. “Shine” was made by doing a 3D scan of a silver candelabrum, and watching the scanner get confused as it read the reflection of its own laser beam as actual metal sticking out from the surface. Mann’s piece is the physical realization of that scanner’s-eye view of the candelabrum. This piece is really about digital design in a profound way, whereas many works in the show use computers to produce wow-cool science-fiction gear worthy of Klingons or The Borg. (Courtesy the artist, represented by Joanna Bird Contemporary Collections, London)

The Daily Pic also appears at blogs.artinfo.com/the-daily-pic. For a full inventory of past Daily Pics visit blakegopnik.com/archive.

joelnewman:

Art Make-Up, 1967-8, 40 min, colour video with sound, 16mm - Bruce Nauman
http://uk.phaidon.com/agenda/art/articles/2014/april/22/bruce-nauman-by-the-man-who-knows-him-best/

joelnewman:

Art Make-Up, 1967-8, 40 min, colour video with sound, 16mm - Bruce Nauman

http://uk.phaidon.com/agenda/art/articles/2014/april/22/bruce-nauman-by-the-man-who-knows-him-best/

(via williamlmoore)

Apr 22

miguelbonneville:

Glenn Ligon
Self Portrait Exaggerating My Black Features / Self Portrait Exaggerating My White Features, 1998.

miguelbonneville:

Glenn Ligon

Self Portrait Exaggerating My Black Features / Self Portrait Exaggerating My White Features, 1998.

(Source: anassembly, via confessionsofamichaelstipe)

[video]

Apr 20

loverofbeauty:

Robert Rauschenberg by Andy Warhol  (1967)

loverofbeauty:

Robert Rauschenberg by Andy Warhol  (1967)

(Source: kurtstarcity)

Apr 17

blakegopnik:

THE DAILY PIC: Think yesterday’s Pic was strange? I’ll give you strange. I caught this new piece by Jordan Wolfson, titled “Female Figure”, yesterday at David Zwirner, a few days before the end of its run. “All” it is is a superbly crafted animatronic sculpture of a woman that dances for a few minutes as you watch, its every motion perfectly matching the motions of a real human being … with pole-dancing skills. (Click on the image to see her – sorry, it – move.) Most eerie of all – what makes it seem utterly alive – is the way its gaze locks with yours and then follows your eyes wherever you go in the room. You’re glad this femme fatale is tethered to her mirror (getting a woman to bipedal around in high heels is still beyond the reach of robotics, as it’s almost beyond the reach of flesh and blood) because if she were free to approach as she pleased, you’d have to take off running. (Note that perfect facial expressions are also beyond robotics, and Wolfson hides that fact by giving his figure a mask.)
Should most of the credit for this piece go to the engineers rather than the artist? Is it just a way-cool piece of tech? Sure – but remember that once upon a time, perspective was “just” a new technology, as were oil paints, but the first examples of their use count as landmark works of art.
I am also perfectly aware of the real and vital feminist issues that our android raises, and her ties to the cheesiest traditions of bad SciFi. But I’m afraid that I can’t keep all that in mind once her hips start swiveling. (Courtesy Jordan Wolfson, David Zwirner, New York, and Sadie Coles HQ, London)
The Daily Pic also appears at blogs.artinfo.com/the-daily-pic. For a full inventory of past Daily Pics visit blakegopnik.com/archive.

blakegopnik:

THE DAILY PIC: Think yesterday’s Pic was strange? I’ll give you strange. I caught this new piece by Jordan Wolfson, titled “Female Figure”, yesterday at David Zwirner, a few days before the end of its run. “All” it is is a superbly crafted animatronic sculpture of a woman that dances for a few minutes as you watch, its every motion perfectly matching the motions of a real human being … with pole-dancing skills. (Click on the image to see her – sorry, it – move.) Most eerie of all – what makes it seem utterly alive – is the way its gaze locks with yours and then follows your eyes wherever you go in the room. You’re glad this femme fatale is tethered to her mirror (getting a woman to bipedal around in high heels is still beyond the reach of robotics, as it’s almost beyond the reach of flesh and blood) because if she were free to approach as she pleased, you’d have to take off running. (Note that perfect facial expressions are also beyond robotics, and Wolfson hides that fact by giving his figure a mask.)

Should most of the credit for this piece go to the engineers rather than the artist? Is it just a way-cool piece of tech? Sure – but remember that once upon a time, perspective was “just” a new technology, as were oil paints, but the first examples of their use count as landmark works of art.

I am also perfectly aware of the real and vital feminist issues that our android raises, and her ties to the cheesiest traditions of bad SciFi. But I’m afraid that I can’t keep all that in mind once her hips start swiveling. (Courtesy Jordan Wolfson, David Zwirner, New York, and Sadie Coles HQ, London)

The Daily Pic also appears at blogs.artinfo.com/the-daily-pic. For a full inventory of past Daily Pics visit blakegopnik.com/archive.

[video]

“Tracey Enim has the best smirk in christendom.” — (via ringtales)

[video]

Apr 16

confessionsofamichaelstipe:

CONFESSIONSOFAMICHAELSTIPE.TUMBLR.COM HAS JUST REACHED 175,000 FOLLOWERS.  I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU!! WITH MY HOMAGE TO THE VELVET UNDERGROUND, ANDY WARHOL, AND MARCEL DUCHAMP.  THIS IS MUCH BETTER THAN TOILET PAPER MAGAZINE.  —MICHAEL STIPE   4.15.2014 

confessionsofamichaelstipe:

CONFESSIONSOFAMICHAELSTIPE.TUMBLR.COM HAS JUST REACHED 175,000 FOLLOWERS.  I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU!! WITH MY HOMAGE TO THE VELVET UNDERGROUND, ANDY WARHOL, AND MARCEL DUCHAMP.  THIS IS MUCH BETTER THAN TOILET PAPER MAGAZINE.  —MICHAEL STIPE   4.15.2014 

Apr 15

vuls:

David Annesley, Swing Low, 1964


1964! Eat that, Memphis!

vuls:

David Annesley, Swing Low, 1964

1964! Eat that, Memphis!

(via andren)

Apr 14

newyorker:

Every day on our home page, we share a cartoon based on the day’s events. Today’s cartoon by Mick Stevens: http://nyr.kr/1eAHYPt

newyorker:

Every day on our home page, we share a cartoon based on the day’s events. Today’s cartoon by Mick Stevens: http://nyr.kr/1eAHYPt

(Source: newyorker.com)

[video]

Apr 12

Say, What? | David Wiesner: All those cut out images sandwiched between the panes of glass mean something. Those items are a symbolic representation of a set of ideas Duchamp devised. Here is the glossary, if you will, that decodes the images:

Say, What? | David Wiesner: All those cut out images sandwiched between the panes of glass mean something. Those items are a symbolic representation of a set of ideas Duchamp devised. Here is the glossary, if you will, that decodes the images: