Comments for iconophilia

Comment on politically correct taste by FMark

FMark — Fri, 24 May 2013 09:06:54 +0000

Public art might not be meant to represent the citizenry, but it certainly appeals differently to different classes. I think this is what the fuss is about – La Distinction but without the sociology.

Personally I can’t stand Stanhope’s “final excruciating ensemble” either. Not sure if that is a judgement on the art piece or on me.

Comment on How myths are made: Marina Abramovic remembers Lake Disappointment. by Nigel

Nigel — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 01:24:24 +0000

Read the Third Text article for the backstory…

Comment on How myths are made: Marina Abramovic remembers Lake Disappointment. by Quentin sprague

Quentin sprague — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 00:35:08 +0000

Fascinating — what a cast of characters!

Comment on The Origin of the Dot in Art History by Amelia

Amelia — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:43:40 +0000

http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/articles/beginning-end-or-end-beginning

Comment on Who would have thought relational art would become so lucrative? by Who would have thought relational art would become so lucrative? | The Art Life

Wed, 13 Mar 2013 23:39:56 +0000

[...] post originally appeared on Iconophilia. Many thanks to the [...]

Comment on Who would have thought relational art would become so lucrative? by SueB

SueB — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:06:20 +0000

I agree this is not a great acquisition, and the occupation of the work sounds completely lame. I don’t think the Homestead units are her best works. But her strongest works, which are not relational by any stretch, put into play an interesting tension between an impossible quest for autonomy (almost autarchy) and the failure of that quest. In this respect, they are psychologically interesting, they display a kind of obsessiveness, verging on pathology, tempered by humour.

Comment on Who would have thought relational art would become so lucrative? by darren j

darren j — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 23:24:05 +0000

is that a clement meadmore in the background? surely the gallery already has too much stuff to take care of, the best way to treat this zittel is to leave it sink into the ground like some earthwork abandoned by its caretakers, only to be rebuilt in some nostalgic future by relational art enthusiasts nostalgic for the authentic sensibility of the early 20th century ..

Comment on Lest We Forget by Nigel

Nigel — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 21:53:07 +0000

The Director Ron Radford takes responsibility for this decision. If you track back through related posts you will find his letter, in which he explains the blue metal was used to match the “palette” of the surrounding floor. Shame indeed…

Comment on Lest We Forget by shane hetherington

shane hetherington — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 09:12:06 +0000

Which inspired curator placed these poles on a road base of blue metal? It is a curatorial disaster and is a total distraction from the poles themselves. The colour is a the opposite of the ochre and natural pigment of the poles themselves. The windy concrete path through the middle trivialises the whole effect, reducing the work to a formal aesthetic experience. They have no space to be viewed from a distance (unless viewed from the cloak room). The people running the place seem to have no idea what to do with them. Such a shame as they are probably the best work they have.

Comment on When is a Beuys not a Beuys? by skorn

skorn — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:32:25 +0000

i am late to join the party. did not see this article before.

(as a background information) while i taught at Karlsruhe University of Arts and Design we did a lot of research together with curators and designers before the exhibition was installed and later i worked on the exhibition with the curators as an exhibition architect especially concerned with the installations.

please note that if you look closely at the published image from the very first installation made in australia and compare it to what was later installed by the curators – and to what was installed in London before – you can see that Beuys changed the setup accordingly to the direction where the audience was approaching the work from. the image you present here as the ‘australian original’ actually is an adaption by the curators there when they re-installed the work.

the point is that the coats are meant to be seen from the point of entrance. yet when Beuys transferred the work to australia, he added the wooden frame, where he attached the stripes to (unlike in London, where he attached them to the space). so right now stripes and frame are connected as one object. During this process Beuys ‘mirrored’ the whole installation to keep the installation’s composition in balance. he was a visual artist after all. so the problem with the ‘Australien original version’ is that the curators changed the side of the coats, but leave the rest of the installation’s composition intact. so here you neither have Beuys London version, nor the Australien update made by Beuys. therefore in Duesseldorf we designed the whole exhibition trajectory in a way that you approach the work from the left, and have the coats on the right side (where Beuys had put them first when he installed the work in Canberra).

For more details please read the article on exhibition design in the exhibition catalogue or look at the more in detail version of the text published in Displayer04 (www.ausstellungsdesign.hfg-karlsruhe.de > Displayer)