Project Space: Cory Arcangel

Add a Comment

Comment by Mark Steven on February 5, 2008 at 12:07pm

I like it better. I see in it the experience that most of us share as we journey through the web, skimming other people's thoughts, images, media secretions.

It is an experience that (before the web) was mysterious and charming - like discovering other people's photographs slipped into second-hand books. One would marvel at the interconnections between apparently unrelated people, places and events. The web has diminished the mystery (and the charm) by connecting things.

I prefer not to read interviews.

Comment by Tamor Kriwaczek on February 5, 2008 at 11:49am

What can I say? I was going to suggest typing in random words into google's image search as a piss-take, but then read the conversation between Darren Bader and artreview's James Westcott and stopped when i read that that's precisely what he does. I think artreview's trying too hard.

Comment by drx on February 5, 2008 at 8:46am

Hey dudes, check the new "project space" that is online now! Which one you like better, that one or Cory's?

Comment by Tamor Kriwaczek on February 4, 2008 at 11:46am

Yes, a conversation is usually a good thing - doesn't necessarily validate anything though so I wouldn't say you were wrong. An awful lot of things can provoke a conversation. All it means is that we've noticed something. In my case I came to an art website where something called "art" was pominently displayed on the front page and having also received an email telling me about it from artreivew I was particularly unimpressed and thought someone should say something about it. And in the end the conversation proved a lot better than the art - maybe Corey should sign the conversation R. Mutt too!

Comment by Mark Steven on February 4, 2008 at 10:40am

I didn't mean to start the "what is art" conversation. I always get confused when trying to the answer the question, which is either because I'm not very bright, or the question lacks validity. Anyway, to clarify, I thought both the editorial decision to display these demos and Cory's response lazy - there is nothing interesting about either the demos or the response. But I've since been proved wrong because I've had a conversation as a result, which is generally thought of as a Good Thing.

Comment by dormant on February 2, 2008 at 4:10pm

The idea of appropriating something at face value and passing it on as your own is nothing new. It has been done extensively in the past. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a bottle rack, a box for soap pads or a flash file the concept remains the same. I really don’t see the point of trying to invent the wheel again. Maybe he should’ve signed it R. Mutt.

Comment by Tamor Kriwaczek on February 2, 2008 at 11:43am

Firstly, simply to call me reactionary becuase I don't think something is good is rather narrow minded and just denies someone elses point of view. Secondly I'm not someone who knows nothing about art or has no understanding of it so to claim that I'm just saying "my kid could make that" is to assume I've never given art any thought - the difference is I question what I see and don't accept it 'cause someone calls themselves an artist or calls what they do art. Thirdly, to paint a good abstract painting does obviously require skill as is plain when you see bad abstract painting. Fourthly all art requires decisions to be made so that is irrelevent, the question is what decisions are made. And finally NOT anything an artist makes can be called art. Who says who is an artist? It's easy to say "I'm an artist therefore what I create is art" but that has no meaning - anyone can do that. The art comes first - then and only then can you call yourself an artist. Don't accept something as art becuase you're told an "artist" made it. Who cares who made it? Is it any good is the question.

Comment by Blessed Lamb on February 1, 2008 at 8:33pm

That's exactly same thought process people have when they look at abstract art and say "My kid could make that." It's reactionary, and overlooks the fact that art is often about making specific decisions, which is what happened here, which is what happened when Jackson Pollock started splattering paint. Not anything can be called art, but anything an artist makes can.

Comment by Tamor Kriwaczek on February 1, 2008 at 8:22pm

Let all what hang out? Blame? Blame who for what? Lets's make this clear. I'm interested in art, that's why I joined this site. To simply say anything goes deny's the validity of anything called art, since anything, in those terms, can be art. And in that case all you're talking about is personal perception, a point of view, the angle from which you look at things which has nothing to do with what the thing itself is but is all about you, an ego-trip for the viewer validating whatever thought you may have. Why not create something a bit deeper, something that is universally human, something that moves the soul because it is fundamental to our nature? Let it all hange out, less is more, it's all valid 'cause an "artist" did it? I expect more from art and artists. If it makes you happy, that's fine, but there is more to the world.

Comment by Mark Steven on February 1, 2008 at 1:31pm

Can you blame Cory Arcangel? Or the team at ArtReview for presenting this crap? Of course not. Let it all hang out I say.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page