I think this art is bad and it makes me want to fart
I think this art is bad and it makes me want to fart in your face. The other shows in the show were similarly awkward: some by artists who are widely known and some by artists who are unfamiliar. David Robbin was represented by a magazine reproduction of an Andy Warhol painting, the only part of his installation which was visible, and it was also clearly a reenactment. Robert Rudolphs six collages from the years 1961 to 1965 were all wrapped with crayons. Rudolphs elegant collages suggest a contemporary obsessive ideation, and it is clear that his passion is for collage and the matrix of its forms. Rudolphs collages are done with a glass cutter; they are metal, however, they are not meant for the mundane world. A similar problem arises with Richard Tuttle: he is a delicate, self-conscious artist who has found a way to make collage work as a whole, a whole which remains both original and authentic. The forms that appear in his collages are deliberately not the appropriate ones, however, and they are too unvarnished. David Dobros installation at the Susanne Riefenstahl Galerie looks like an art students studio, although the whole thing is festooned with drawings and scrapbooks. Dobros work, however, isnt autobiographical and he doesnt use collage as a vehicle for the personal self-portrait. Rather it is a kind of document of the style in which his art appears. He uses collage in a collage manner, and it is a style that may be read as self-consciously personal, but that is actually just one of the private elements in it. The notes and drawings that form a catalogue of the work are left to the imagination; they form a diary of a private, private self, but they are also a sign of what Dobros self can become.Dobros work has always been a sort of scavenger hunt, a sort of visit to a commercial gallery.
a little. Arent we supposed to know what it does and whats wrong with it? If it makes you want to go and do that thing, what can we do with it?Maybe theres something to be said for the fact that when I was sixteen, I got a dozen of them. I think theres something to be said for making art as a simple activity. As a form of making it, it doesnt do that much. But its also a form of giving things a sense of being in a world that can be easily expressed. It is a way of being in a world where a certain way of being is possible, but one where we can be anywhere in the world and feel as though we are at home. It has a certain use value, and I think its nice to see.
I think this art is bad and it makes me want to fart. And it doesnt make me want to go to sleep at night. And, in my opinion, this art is bad.There are two ways to look at the current exhibition. One is that it was made by a mature, well-trained artist who took a risk by trying to do something new; the other is that its quality is comparable to that of the work of a lot of younger artists, artists who are trying to do something new. The former is to be very critical, very clearly correct with one's ideas and conclusions; the latter is to be very funny. The two ways I can think of to interpret the present show are to first, to make an equivalence between the two ways of art-making; one assumes that the good/bad show represents the same point of view as the other; and the second is to make an equivalence between the two ways of art being called into being.There were three different ways of thinking. One was to think about these two shows as two different shows, or, as Michael Fried called the first of the Whitney Biennials, which was the most famous example. The difference between those two shows was less important than the difference between those two shows. The difference between the two shows is so tiny that it cannot be taken seriously, so little different that one can easily forget the difference. There was an almost aholiness about the show: it was all there, in the show. The difference between the two shows was almost merely a difference in the ways in which the two works were viewed. It didnt seem as if the decision as to which way to take the work was anything significant. The exhibition had the look of a simple scientific study. This is not to say that there wasnt an interesting difference there. But one doesnt look at a lot of science in New York when one is looking at art, and one doesnt think much about the difference between art and science.
. It makes me feel a bit as if I have a nose. You have to get out of that world. This is the farthest from what I mean. It has been said that there is no such thing as bad sculpture—bad, bad art, or bad social behavior. Badness can be good, just as some art can be good. So that is a good thing to do.Dan Christensen is a critic who lives in Minneapolis and teaches art history at California State University, Long Beach.Translated from the German by Margaret E. Prather.
. It has become so Americanized. There is no longer any expression that was once vociferous and stood out. It has become a mantra and, like English writing, it is hard to stand up to.