Comments on: John Vick: How It’s Made

By: John Vick

John Vick — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:52:23 +0000

I guess I find the interaction with Lowe’s whale more authentic for two reasons. First, you’re granted proximity. With Hirst’s shark, there’s a separation that makes me think more of the taxidermy process than the shark itself. Second, the whale is made with such attention to detail that you’re forced to consider deeply, and in an almost mythic sense, the real creature for which the felt version is a substitute. Hirst’s shark, though, is just one dead shark. There’s nothing special about it, really. It doesn’t make me consider death in my living mind, as the title suggests it should. If anything, it makes me think more about the act of appropriation and the role of the artist. An artist drawing attention to the power of art being whatever an artist says is art — now that’s quaint.

By: James Rosenthal

James Rosenthal — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:04:55 +0000

Nice thoughtful piece and it shakes up the blog readers attention deficit. I can’t agree about the comparison with Mocha Dick and Damien Hirst’s Shark though. That piece illustrates death as well as any roadkill, which may not be art particularly. It doesn’t matter if he is the biggest art star of the last 25 years. Tristan’s piece is lovely yes, and certainly well crafted but it remains quaint none the less. As for crafting itself; why would you expect anything less from The Fabric Workshop. They specialize in it.

By: libby

libby — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:32:18 +0000

Golly, who can disagree with that??? Nicely argued, John. And here I thought I was going to have to come to the defense of Bruce Nauman!!! just kidding. Of course, beauty is the great seducer, and that’s been the traditional “handle” by which people can find their way into a work of art. With handles that come from other directions, great art has to work harder. Matthew Monaghan, for instance, gives a mix of yuck and classical sculpture. There does have to be some form of seduction or conversation, or we’d all just walk away. And in fact, lots of Minimalism did make people walk away. So did lots of color field and abstraction. As soon as the art world pushes too far away from seducing the larger public and starts gazing at its own navel, it is lost. Fortunately, there are as many ways to seduce as there are human beings.

By: cake.

cake. — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:40:57 +0000

this was a wonderful read {comments included}!

By: John Vick

John Vick — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:54:23 +0000

You two have given me a lot to think about! I love it.

Like I said in the post, “craft” is a tricky word. Some of its connotations can be useful. Others I’d rather avoid. The beauty connotation is one of the latter.

That’s why I used the word execution a lot. Execution, as I tend to think of it, is how an artist’s ideas manifest. Looking at an object, can I see the decisions that have been made? What did the artist do? Where in that process did they decide to stop? Did they ever alter course? Even if an artist is not greatly skilled in a certain technique, such decisions can still be traced – especially when you start to look broadly at his or her larger body of work.

Considering what decisions an artist has made with his or her work, I start to understand the “why” behind it all. Why is the artist motivated to make the work in the first place? Why in this specific manner? And why am I motivated to engage the object? In this way, physical traits start to reveal meaning. (I tried to make the structure of my post follow this line of reasoning.)

Good execution, therefore, is the successful expression in physical terms of ideas that are abstract. Sometimes, that expression is also reflexive of the ideas. Ryan Trecartin’s videos at FWM function that way. (Side note: If you get stuck with jury duty, watching Ryan’s videos during your lunch break is a great way to enliven the day!)

So, as for question of the “craft” / “anti-craft” duality, I’d have to say that you’re right, Libby. I’m against it! If execution is just a way to reveal ideas, then both sides of that duality have potential to be interesting and both run the risk of being boring. Whether or not something is worth my time as a viewer (and thinker) has more to do with its specific characteristic and ideas than with the categories that might be applied to it. Moreover, those categories tend to encourage artists to pigeonhole their own work by making things that are beautiful or non-beautiful just because. And that’s just the worst!

By: roberta

roberta — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:57:25 +0000

Wow, great post! A bunch of years ago, an artist said to me that Philadelphia had a craftsmanship fetish. By that she meant that people here worried so much about craftsmanship that they often missed the larger picture of what the art was about; and also that it was very hard to find a venue that would show “anti-craft” art. That may have changed since there’s clearly more of an “anti-craft” aesthetic in the air (Alexis Granwell at Pentimenti; Ryan Trecartin at FWM; Andrew Jeffrey Wright at the Print Center). If you look at the 70-year anniversary show at Abington Art Center, which has artists who got their start at that center, you see lots of works of pristine execution… by Philadelphia artists like Michael Grothusen, Jeanne Jaffe, Ron Klein, Nick Kripal, Judith Schaechter, Astrid Bowlby.

Also, when I think of the issue of well-executed/poorly-executed I tend to think of 3-D objects, and for some reason I give paintings a pass. Is it that sculpture is closer to its sister arts like ceramics, woodworking and the like which are craftsmanship-driven? And maybe that painting (once thought the “best” or “highest” art) is not subject to the same rigorous standards of execution? Are Richard Tuttle’s wall pieces paintings and thus acceptable for their anti-craft ways? Talk about works whose execution stands in the way of connection with viewers!

By: libby

libby — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:21:58 +0000

I found myself agreeing and agreeing–and then disagreeing just a little. The insistence on craft and its beauty appears to cut out an important stream of contemporary art making–art that is anti-beautiful. That, too, has to meet some standard of craftsmanship, but not exactly in the same way. It needs to communicate its message–a large message that has longevity–by its apparent casual form. I’m thinking of work by Andrew Jeffrey Wright, or Karisa Senavitis and Kevin O’Neill at the Print Center. And what about Ryan Trecartin’s brand of technicolor chaos? I think they all make things that count as valid and art. I imagine some would argue the craft point, although casual appearance, in my book, doesn’t necessarily mean lack of craft. I’m not so sure how you see that fitting in. What I’m trying to say here is that in the conversation in which art participates as a philosophical and cultural object, there needs to be room for both the thesis and the antithesis. So I wonder, are you making an argument against that duality?