"Thanks to art, instead of seeing a single world, our own, we see it multiply until we have before us as many worlds as there are original artists."
It's the same as asking how can a can of soup be a work of art?
It's not art. It's a paint chip.
I assume that's two different anonymice. :-) I think anon#1 has it -- in the Duchamp/Warhol/etc tradition, the object itself is not so important to artistic value as the selection of the object. So given the right context, a paint chip can be art. IKB, though, doesn't strike me as particularly good art. We could all co-opt similarly narrow sections of the visible spectrum, but many of these would be indistinguishable to the naked eye. I've half a mind to "invent" International Bill Blue, just a few nm away from IKB, just to make that point. I guess there is value in doing it first, though (once again, see Duchamp, toilets, art and).
I think making art is about intention. Yes, I believe it is art and I have no argument with his process. Does this piece move me ...No... feels like an ad for his newly created color
So...I read his manifesto, and I see he passed away when he was 34. The photographs do not show him to be an ill looking person. What did he die of, I wonder?
He must have died from being "blue"...depression...
Art is in the eye of the beholder. If it moves you, then the artist has done his/her job. None of us is moved by the same thing. I'll step down off my soapbox now....
I would have to see the painting up close to examine the texture and what the paint is really doing. I don't have a problem with a painting that is all one color but a closer inspection reveals much more than a jpeg on a computer screen.
After many years in art school trying to answer the question "what is art", a very wise teacher gave me the answer. Art is what an artist creates. So, what is an artist? Anyone who makes art.
I guess it depends... I believe that art is personal, so if this blue square (which seems pretty meaningless to me) has had a personal effect on the artist who created it, then yes perhaps it can be classed as art. However, I also believe art should have a narrative or at least a history behind it. It looks as if Klein has gone out of his way to be controversal. I hate it when artists just want to shock the viewer without trying to project any personal views or morals. Whats the point? If you only want to shock without substance then just chuck a bucket of cold water at someone.
It does have history to it both in its symbolism and materiality.Blue is a colour that is associated with the spiritual and meditative in many traditions.It alludes to otherness whatever that might be.Transcendance and sublimity in a secularised society has a variety of meanings and interpretatations.Post Duchamp the role of the viewer became more important the work of art became a signifier. Individuals bring their own associations to the work.In terms of materiality Klein worked with a chemist to create a true blue.Historically the vibrancy of pigment was diminished by its binder.So for me it works both in terms of its symbolic allusions and in its materiality. RB
Thinking about represenation to abstract, i was thinking about the boundaries and the limits. With abstract, what is pure abstract? Many many hours later i realised, to create this blue is amazing, to have painted anything with it would have been wrong it would have detracted from the actual thing that he did, he made blue. If he painted clouds and a sky with it, it would have been a sky and not reflected the purity of the colour he had created.
Post a Comment