| |
|
quote:Originally posted by Rothkoid:
todd: a question - does the dislike of replicated artworks also preclude the appreciation of things like woodcuts, or silkscreens, or works produced by other such methods? Would the gallery have to hang a negative on the wall in order for a photographic work to have the same talismanic quality that an oil painting might? Just curious.
I don't know if this is precisely germane to your question, but while visiting the recent Blake exhibition at the Met in NYC (more or less the same show was at the Tate Britain last fall), the most interesting thing to me was not the books themselves but the "original" engraving plates used to print the books. I didn't know ~anything~ about printmaking or engraving before the exhibition, but the technical mastery and (if the exhibition tages are to be believed) innovation evident in Blake's engravings were the most interesting things about the exhibition at all.
Veering back a bit toward your question, I don't have an animus against woodcuts or prints, but I think antiquity of the item helps it in cultivating the same aura, say, a Van Eyck would have. Very weird, because I tend to gravitate towards non-linear theories of history and all that garbage.
quote:Originally posted by Rothkoid:
Also: for things like The Large Glass, is it the fact that it's a copy that shits you? Or the fact that you mightn't be able to be sure that Breton (it was him, wasn't it?) had anything to do with it? I recall that Picasso used to make multiples of some of his sculptures, and give them as gifts. If this copy of The Large Glass were the only one available to the public out of that limited edition, would it - in a sense - become the artwork?
The Large Glass (Also known as "The Bride stripped bare by her bachelors, even" or something close to that) was a sculpture by Duchamp that already has some sort of talismanic quality for me as (a) it's by Duchamp, probably the most important person in 20th century art and the closest to a personal hero I come (which parenthetically is why I am loath to read ~too~ much about him). (b) is a strange synthesis of modernist and occult-ish themes (c) the shattering of the original glass in transport 'completed' the artwork for Duchamp, who toyed with it for years. This random end is fraught with either significance or banal superstition. Either is a great object lesson for artists.
So, the glass as a concept holds great significance for me personally. Duchamp made replicas of a lot of his works (indeed, how hard is it to duplicate R. Mutt's "Fountain") , and perhaps this was made by him as well. I can't recall. So maybe the artist had direct involvement with the project. But why did I feel different about it? It is a similar feeling to me, to looking at reproductions in a book of artwork the Nazis destroyed. This quintessence is unavailable to me forevermore.
Before I dive too deep into myticism, I'd like to mention that the most probing treatise on issues of authenticity and capital I've ever read is PK Dick's "Ubik". For those unfamiliar with the book, in it, the main character is trapped inside a world where the technological accoutrements of the day are slowly regressing to more primitive forms. The only thing that saves the characters from dissolving into nothingness is Ubik,the only authentic substance, which appears variably as an aerosol spray, salve, etc. |
|
|
