Theme: Measurement

QUALITY: Scale of 1-10 (student work to sistine chapel

Craftsmanship: 4.

Design (aesthetics) 7.

Content: 1.

Cost of Production: 2

MANNERS

Appropriate Decor (fit): Mid Century, Bauhaus, Brutalism,

Appropriate Venues (fit): Private, Hall, LR wall, Corp Entry, Corp meeting.

Deliver on its promise? Yes.

CONTEXT

Aesthetic: cheap, volume, cosmopolitan, symbol-free, decoration seeking cheapness of print but prices of paintings.

Movement: Abstract Expressionism

Political: anti-western, neo-marxist, socialist, communist,

Civilizational: european decline, European undermining.

UNIQUNESS

Canon?: Used as a book cover so, as always, will increase value, and artist explored various subject matter (every standard: geometric, still, portrait, scene, landscape) all at the same resolution, with detail limited to expression of means of application (brush) preserving energy or spontaneity vs some competitors)

Monumental? No.

Historical Durability? Unlikely (Compare to Rothko’s and Kandinsky – amateurish by comparison, and prices already reflect it. and period pieces have halved in rate of return in the past ten years.)

WHICH IS IT

Art(symbolism), Design(decoration), or Craft(workmanship)? It’s Design.

DO I LIKE IT?

Yes.

Enough to pay for it? No. Not enough to pay for it.

Do I like it enough to put it in my home? No. Wrong fit.

In my place of business? Sure.

In a place of business I frequent? Yes.

In a public space? No. It is anti-monumental. Inappropriate.

CONTEXT

This period of art is somewhat interesting in that the demand for novelty was becoming exhausted, because the limits of the medium and the subject matter were being exhausted.

This is why almost all art is editorial now. There is nothing heroic or beautiful because the neo-marxist postmodernist success at undermining excellence and beauty (that they can’t compete with). So if you go to galleries you frequently see verbiage (when I was in art school you had to make a very very good case for needing it – it was considered a failure). I still agree.

A quick study of the economics of an artist and the distribution model makes it relatively obvious that you must produce two pieces per week to keep enough of an inventory, and at least two monumental pieces per year to establish your brand, whether they sell or not.

Ie: selling socks, cars, and art makes no difference.

So the question as always, which point of view are you taking: the philosopher or analyst, the seller-distributor, the customer, the average idiot, the artist producer, the master craftsman, or the instructor of master craftsmen. And one can comprehend the work from each point of view if he has the knowledge and skill. A producer, writer, director, set designer, actor, distributor, fan, and casual observer, sees different aspects of the movie. The same is true of all the arts. As in all things, knowledge and ignorance determine interpretation.

( As far as I know I went to one of the best if not the best theoretical art schools in America, and (surprisingly to me) I’m probably one the the best analysts of art that resulted from that era (which is now gone). I don’t think you can get that education in fine art any more – maybe oxford. Not in the states. I don’t think it’s possible in Paris either, for reasons I’ve spoken to art historians there – that are obvious. )