Sunday, November 30, 2008
Unknown
I frequently save images to my computer and I don't know who they're by.... but I like them.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Artist Talk
I recently sat in on the Pratt Institute visiting artists lecture series for the artist Peter Rostovsky and Luis Gispert. I found both artists quite moving- but in different ways. At this point I'll show some of their works- because to me, and I assume all people interested in art, I just don't really care unless I can SEE what the writer is talking about.
Rostovsky's Work:
Ok, well I couldnt get half the images I was looking for but you can see all his stuff at peterrostovsky.com
Anyway, I found him to be really inspiring. What i found most fascinating was that he didn't really have a cohesive body of work- as in he didn't just find one thing that was accepted or somewhat pleased him- and replicated it over and over, in different sizes and colors like many artists. I mean most artists do change up their work every few years, but Rostovsky really jumps all over the place, and that is what I relate to. Its probably because I'm still young but i still have a million and one different ideas and approaches to art bouncing around in my head, and thats certainly the vibe I picked up from his work. He did it, and did it successfully. I guess you could say if you stepped back (way back, and maybe squinted a bit) you could certainly draw connections- but its not really the connections that matter. rather, its the relationship made to each smaller statement.
I guess I also might have liked him because he was a realist, and was doing his best to bring realist painting to the same level as a lot of what going on in contemporary art- bringing in new formats in a conceptual basis.
Gispert's work:
I found Gispert's work a little unsettling. I don't know why exactly, I mean its good stuff- I guess I just got a little lost by his point of view. His work seems to be tackling some deep understanding of the social codes of the American "ghetto" culture. Yet listening to the artist he didn't exactly sound hood. Maybe he was trying to up his rep as an established and worldly art-teest but honestly I would have been more impressed if he came off having a little more street cred. Perhaps I'm being harsh but to me it left me confused, was his work an ode to an obsession of a culture that he longed to belong? or maybe it was mockery? Its like a white man doing feminist work- no ones going to stop him, but come on! I know he knows women..spoken to, interacted with, all that- but he-is-not-a-woman... Now, Gispert is cuban and grew up in Miami, so yeah, I'm sure hes seen stuff but still after listening to him talk I'm sorry- I just cant buy it.
As for the curators exhibiting his work, what is their draw? Because without even the social ties of appreciating its humor through an odd sense of nostalgic understanding, again all I see is mockery of culture. I can see the David LaChapelle vibe, but it just didn't have the sweet and sour kick LaChapelle so perfectly executes.
just watch this last video to really get my drift:
Rostovsky's Work:
Ok, well I couldnt get half the images I was looking for but you can see all his stuff at peterrostovsky.com
Anyway, I found him to be really inspiring. What i found most fascinating was that he didn't really have a cohesive body of work- as in he didn't just find one thing that was accepted or somewhat pleased him- and replicated it over and over, in different sizes and colors like many artists. I mean most artists do change up their work every few years, but Rostovsky really jumps all over the place, and that is what I relate to. Its probably because I'm still young but i still have a million and one different ideas and approaches to art bouncing around in my head, and thats certainly the vibe I picked up from his work. He did it, and did it successfully. I guess you could say if you stepped back (way back, and maybe squinted a bit) you could certainly draw connections- but its not really the connections that matter. rather, its the relationship made to each smaller statement.
I guess I also might have liked him because he was a realist, and was doing his best to bring realist painting to the same level as a lot of what going on in contemporary art- bringing in new formats in a conceptual basis.
Gispert's work:
I found Gispert's work a little unsettling. I don't know why exactly, I mean its good stuff- I guess I just got a little lost by his point of view. His work seems to be tackling some deep understanding of the social codes of the American "ghetto" culture. Yet listening to the artist he didn't exactly sound hood. Maybe he was trying to up his rep as an established and worldly art-teest but honestly I would have been more impressed if he came off having a little more street cred. Perhaps I'm being harsh but to me it left me confused, was his work an ode to an obsession of a culture that he longed to belong? or maybe it was mockery? Its like a white man doing feminist work- no ones going to stop him, but come on! I know he knows women..spoken to, interacted with, all that- but he-is-not-a-woman... Now, Gispert is cuban and grew up in Miami, so yeah, I'm sure hes seen stuff but still after listening to him talk I'm sorry- I just cant buy it.
As for the curators exhibiting his work, what is their draw? Because without even the social ties of appreciating its humor through an odd sense of nostalgic understanding, again all I see is mockery of culture. I can see the David LaChapelle vibe, but it just didn't have the sweet and sour kick LaChapelle so perfectly executes.
just watch this last video to really get my drift:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)