― anthony, Tuesday, 5 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― mark s, Tuesday, 5 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Of course, I like De Kooning. A lot better than Pollock the Pillock. But really no closer to me than Poussin or David. Art history.
― Momus, Tuesday, 5 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Sarah, Tuesday, 5 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
taking diers: current art vs raisin d'etre
rauschenberg's "erased dekooning" always seemed kind of punk, for lack of a better word.
― fritz, Tuesday, 5 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
'Repeated Kitkats' wins the 2002 Turner. It's yours, take it -- both of you!
fritz can have it for his fred hijack
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 5 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
And watch out for Stuckist eggs on the way out. Perhaps this year they'll be chocolate eggs!
― jel --, Tuesday, 5 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
- The F to the Ritzo
His band Owada are great.
He lives with his Italian girlfriend on the island of Alicudi, south of Sicily, where no cars are allowed, only donkeys.
The title track on the new Milky album 'Travels With A Donkey' is about him.
Disgust at Creed's Turner is no more or less significant than booing at 'The Rite of Spring'. There's always resistance to art which is both new and speaking about now. It jars because most people have only just caught up with the art of yesterday (your grandparents are just discovering The Impressionists, your parents have just 'got' Abstract Expressionism, and your peers are queuing for the Warhol show).
One day old codgers (like me!) will say about new art 'Well, it's not like the good old days, is it? Now Martin Creed, that's real art!'
― Pete, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Also, recourse to imagined posterity is v.v. poor art criticism, no?
Did anyone boo at the Rites of Spring, incidentally? Who?
― Tim, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― when did people stop drinking mead ANYWAY..., Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― mmm bouze, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
By the time someone is through explaining what THEIR SPECIFIC defn of pomo entails, and why it is different from everyone else's and why everyone else is wrong (in Momus's, if this thread is a guide, it apparently allows a surprising number of standard- issue modernist-lite assumptions about datedness and the march of history and arts- craft-design divide and of course the wartiest indie potato of all, the intrinsic value of razzing the squares) the shortcut to shared understanding which is the ONLY EXCUSE for such labels has long been lost.
― mark s, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Part of the answer tho = who do we THESE DAYS agree on as fit to define? It's true that I am very uninterested in terms which arrive with Great Accord attached to them (What Is Soul?)
heh what you should have asked is SO DOES ANTI-ROCKISM EXIST? Of course there is a strong Debordian response to hand: "We're not here to answer cuntish questions" He even said it in the ICA! (though not when it was yet at its current address... )
― Billy Dods, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Punk is a better counter-example to your first "does that mean" question, I guess because its contradictions are dynamic not merely self-cancelling (or something).
btw it was the bad thinking of pomo-hatas first made me detest the term...
Part of the problem with "pomo" is frequent careless shoehorning of postmodernity (cultural condition) and postmodernism (grouping of cultural products). They obviously relate but are not even co- dependent.
I can't see any definition of 'fit for definition' other than "someone can be bothered to define it", without recourse to even airier concepts like intrinsic worth.
re yr "fit" defn: i meant you had put very WELL what i was trying to say (my "it" refers to pomo, not what you said... ), so i don't think you need to refine it.
My point about genre definition can't be used as a stick to beat "pomo" because it equally applies to all defns (except, as you say, settled historical non-issues and even then applies up to a point).
It's endlessly thrown about and I the reader don't have the BEGINNINGS of a clue what any given thrower intends by it... Do you Tim Hopkins think Momus upthread has defined it (a) coherently, (b) consensusly (c) at all? How do I know if I'm it? Momus says no I'm not because he seems to think I'm anti-Warhol because I don't like the term "post-modern", but his only stated reasons why I shd be pro-Warhol AND like the term seem to be "That's what cool people are doing at the moment you know" (an ideological twitch I associate w.modernism anyway, so where does the "post" come in: does it just mean "modernism", only forty years later?)
And I do.
But the cosy agree-to-disagree situation you describe is not one I recognise, at least not any more than I recognise it in ref. to poonk.
BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN TIM/MARK?!
― Sarah, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
haha i just realised in the bath that MY argt required claim that momus posted in the belief that everyone wd quietly agree with him, so *i*R the peebrane mentalist there!
I haven't defined POMOPOMOPOMO on this thread, but I believe we are living in the age of POMOPOMOPOMO whether we like it or not, and everything we do is POMOPOMOPOMO. Of course it's unclear and contradictory, but that won't stop future historians seeing our cultural output, from Steve McQueen to Steve McQueen, as POMOPOMOPOMO.
― Momus, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Wot is POMO: discuss with detailed ref. to Baran-Sinker peabrain mentalist quiz questions.
haha get pete to ASK IT AT THE QUIZ!?!
Q: does the word "postmodernism" mean anything, and if so what? A: [to be discovered tonite!]
Unaccepptable as answers: defns of postmodernity, which as Tim argues above DOES mean something and is in itself no very great problem.
― fritz, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― The Doctor, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Alternatively, if you're talking about blank art etc (b. 1962, parent- midwife AW if you like, I mean feel free to identify this as the kick- off date) then we're not necessarily all living in it. Are we?
Once again your appeal to future historians strikes me as the lowest form of analysis, btw.
Fritz: all the above is in fact the introductory exposition to an answer to my reply q to anthony's thread q viz: willem de kooning's alzheimer's paintings, are they art or not?
2004: Postmodernism ends, replaced by – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –. (Shalt thou speak the name of THY GOD before meeting him in THE KINGDOM?)
Now I have this image of Mark S on stage leading his band through a Metallica-styled rampage.
"TAKE...my HAND! It's OFF to GALLIFREY-LAND!"
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― jel --, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Sterling Clover, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Tharg, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Dan Irons, Wednesday, 6 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/03/17/fashion/17DEKOONING_SPAN/17SUB2DEKOONING-articleLarge.jpg
Her Father’s Daughter: The Turbulent Life of Lisa de Kooning
― Elvis Telecom, Monday, 18 March 2013 00:29 (eleven years ago) link
De Kooning at 90: Troubled Timeshttps://juddtully.net/articles/de-kooning-at-90-troubled-times/
Consideration of late de Kooning rapidly raises the specter of Picasso. In another essay, Rosenblum noted that there were those who believed—falsely in his opinion—that both artists “had become artistically senile. dissolving the skeleton of their earlier works in desperate slashes of paint.” When Picasso’s late paintings were shown in Avignon in 1973, shortly after his death. they were quietly but universally hashed as the addled attempts of a spent master. Today, though, that opinion has changed considerably, both in criticism and in commerce.There is, of course, at least one huge difference between the two great artists. Picasso maintained his intellectual faculties until the end. while de Kooning has gradually lost his brilliance through Alzheimer’s disease. In fact, de Kooning has not painted for several years, even as, aided by round-the-clock nurses, he continues to live in the glass-walled studio-home that he designed in East Hampton, Long Island. Says Robert Storr, the widely published critic and Museum of Modern Art curator (he, with Kirk Varnedoe, was instrumental in MoMA’s decision to acquire in April 1991 de Kooning’s Untitled VII from 1985), “The point at which de Kooning was no longer the final judge of his work is the point at which the debate changes its character.”In that debate, the de Koonings of the ’80s have their champions as well as detractors. Although well-known collectors such as Asher B. Edelman, Graham Gund, Peter Ludwig and Leslie Wexner have acquired them, it is widely assumed that commercial rather than critical considerations have, so far, been the prime mover for the late work. A sense even prevails in some quarters that much of the market interest surrounding this work is tinged with impatience for the artist to die. “What hurts his reputation the most is the fact that he’s still around,” says one New York dealer.
There is, of course, at least one huge difference between the two great artists. Picasso maintained his intellectual faculties until the end. while de Kooning has gradually lost his brilliance through Alzheimer’s disease. In fact, de Kooning has not painted for several years, even as, aided by round-the-clock nurses, he continues to live in the glass-walled studio-home that he designed in East Hampton, Long Island. Says Robert Storr, the widely published critic and Museum of Modern Art curator (he, with Kirk Varnedoe, was instrumental in MoMA’s decision to acquire in April 1991 de Kooning’s Untitled VII from 1985), “The point at which de Kooning was no longer the final judge of his work is the point at which the debate changes its character.”
In that debate, the de Koonings of the ’80s have their champions as well as detractors. Although well-known collectors such as Asher B. Edelman, Graham Gund, Peter Ludwig and Leslie Wexner have acquired them, it is widely assumed that commercial rather than critical considerations have, so far, been the prime mover for the late work. A sense even prevails in some quarters that much of the market interest surrounding this work is tinged with impatience for the artist to die. “What hurts his reputation the most is the fact that he’s still around,” says one New York dealer.
― Elvis Telecom, Saturday, 1 February 2025 08:11 (one week ago) link
Ha! Timely. I just posted this on my FB a minute ago:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhBhv_jZK5k
― completely suited to the horny decadence (Capitaine Jay Vee), Saturday, 1 February 2025 09:52 (one week ago) link