THINKING OF Andy Warhol, Shadows, 1978-79. Dia:Beacon, 2003. I havent read one critic compare the Shadows to Franz Kline HELLO
--Kiss My Abstract, Götterdämmerung? (2003.06.20 19:40).
Are radical repetition and repetitious radicalism the same thing [in art]?
Given that radical (in this context) means marked by a considerable departure from the usual of traditional and tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions, hasn't radicalism and/or being radical become a contemporary art staple, indeed (a) commonplace?
I saw Shadows in 1995 at the Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh. Is Franz Klein ever that colorful or exactly repetitious or expansive?
--stephenlauf, Götterdämmerung? (2003.06.21 08:16).
| |
Franz Kline made some very colorful paintings [late 50s?] and like Warhol they weren't very good but to Warhols credit ....like all good designers he knew if the product or image is lacking just make lots of them and everything will look better my first encounter with this technique was some of Herbert Bayers photo designs for magazines in the1940s
--Kiss My Abstract, Götterdämmerung? (2003.06.22 15:23).
one draws attention to change
the other has to do with weak bonding, which pretty much amounts to the same.
--thingsthatgo, Götterdämmerung? (2003.06.22 18:48).
Do you really believe that? or its just a smoke screen for nothing to say on the subject?
--Kiss My Abstract, Götterdämmerung? (2003.06.22 17:58).
It's true, you are right, I can't see the Kline Warhol connection. Kline stacked vertically, by making one work after another each to be seen in separate fields, like most painters do. While Warhol, true to his signature, moves horizontally whether images are stacked or not. Moving horizontally does tend to block out nuance and conveys a repetitive. And that is the point isn't it? Now Judd, like it all not, moves both horizontally and vertically often successfully creating nuisance either through shadow or local difference.
Experience can be achieved many ways, right!
--thingsthatgo, I was on about something else (2003.06.22 23:56).
| |
Kline Shadow Test
a whole bakery of cakes and eating all of them?
can be easily displayed vertically as well.
--stephenlauf, Götterdämmerung? (2003.06.23 12:52).
Lets just say there's a superficial "LOOK" but your right about the dynamics of the paintings being quite different Kline would never rely on repetition of the image to make a painting work
--Kiss My Abstract, Götterdämmerung? (2003.06.23 19:39).
(I think) Kiss My Abstract is right about Warhol's Shadows bearing a relationship to Franz Kline's work, moreover, a relationship that should have been noted since Shadows came into being. Shadows of what I wonder, of Kline?
Warhol I know fairly well, however, Kline is now a whole new interest, (like Held is a new interest,) and I thank KMA for that.
As to Kline Shadow Test, let's just say I enjoy the combination of Kline and Warhol's sort of art via genetic engineering. [Remember pure cloning is nothing less than extreme reenactment. Imagine that, a future that is precisely something that actually once was. I quess it is true that reenactment likewise engenders an inversion.]
--stephenlauf, in Kline's Shadow (2003.06.24 10:50).
| |
Hey, Stephen glad you have stepped into Kline’s shoes. Held? Well enlighten me with that swish!
What's this thing with ‘pure’ cloning/ I love mnemonics but what's going on?
Remembering Warhol was not particularly the most classical modernist painter, while Kline probably does push all the written about aforementioned buttons. Warhol was about pushing lucrative surfaces. Whatever the distance, the best do work and I am ‘appreciative’ at a same level, but Kline = Warhol shadows, a left and right sock, maybe not!
Anyhow it’s not a requested response that you need to jump at, just late here.
Nite!
--thingsthatgo, I was on about something else (2003.06.24 13:40).
| |
In reality, I rarely wear shoes—mostly just bare feet or socks, then sneakers or sandels, boots if I'm shoveling snow, and shoes only when I “have” to. Since it's still new, my interest in Kline may be more klein than I realize. I hold Held in the back of my mind, because of the spatial geometrics, because the back of my mind is lots of spatial geometrics too.
Remember, mnemonics is a technique of improving the efficiency of the memory, and not memory in and of itself. Memory is mental reenactment, thus mnemonics is a technique of improving the efficiency of mental reenactment. Mnemonics is very much an ‘architecture’ of reenactment.
Cloning too is reenactment, albeit extreme/pure reenactment—how exactly does one describe the degree of separation manifest via cloning? —not a zero degree, but not exactly one degree either—is it then virtual and real sameness all in two (or more)?
Is cloning also radical repetition? It certainly is a radical form of reproduction.
I don't see any true 1=1 equation between Kline and Warhol, but I now see Warhol's Shadows within a shadow cast earlier by Kline.
--stephenlauf, Götterdämmerung? (2003.06.24 15:20).
|
