Ranamock Run-a-muck?
Posted: August 26th, 2009 | Author: kitten | Filed under: The Main Course | 26 Comments »What do you think? Ranamok
The word on the street is that we aren’t very impressed. If that is the case: Why? If not, defend it. It does seem to be fairly unanimous with the folks I talked to, that tastes lie elsewhere. But if they do, where are they sleeping?
If ranamok is the ‘innovation’ and ‘excellence’ award, i find the artists lacking.
there is nothing that leaps out of the field to tell me a story. there’s no deep, overtly technical, virtuosity that leaves me breathless.
There was some nice polished glass, some not so nice unpolished glass. there was blown work, there was fused and assembled work. everything was on the walls or plinths.
the ‘Prize’ (which seemed to be more important than the artists) will have another safe year to show the adoring public how boring glass artist are.
also the canberra glassworks as a gallery is a joke. i believe a piece got bumped and broken within 24hrs of the show opening?
Maybe not such a good idea to put a tall fragile sculpture right next to the cheese and crackers. But insurance is a wonderful thing. Hope GlassWorks has a lot of it.
The show was a disappointment. Sold as a “not to be missed event.” It was anything but. I agree with the above comment. There was nothing there that was even very interesting. Some of it belonged in a tourist shop in a ocean resort.
I think a testimony to how disappointing the show was was that a bunch of students spent a long time trying to figure out how the guy who made the large torched christmas ornament got the water inside it.
They weren’t thinking about that piece or any other piece critically but rather like children at a circus, “how does that guy get that sword down his throat?”
If the show was a dissappointment to everyone, what are peoples expectations and where do they come from? And what are people looking for when it comes to glass art more generally? And why? Any quick perusal of Ranamok back catalogues would have cured unrealistic expectations.
Maybe it helps to take the ‘glass’ out of it and think of them first as works rather than as glass works. There is a bunch of crappy painting and sculpture out there too. And lets not forget, it is a competition with a $15000 prize, who wouldn’t give it a crack. Which leads us to who is judging this and what are the real selection criteria. But it is a road well travelled that has yielded little in the past. A most intelligent observation recently overheard, ‘I would like to see the work that was rejected rather than accepted’. This would indeed be interesting.
Tom Rowney’s work is a technical masterpiece Batman, to say there is no virtuosity is inaccurate. Is it art? Absolutely, precisely because of its virtuosity; art is that which is done well, amongst other things.
Lots of talk by students about cracking and inclusions and ‘how did they get the water in’ and little or no critical appraisal of the work. Is this an educational issue? Why are students unable or unwilling to review the works critically?
One piece receiving universal panning, the kitsch table top boomerangs, is perhaps being misread. It potentially sums up rather nicely the state of play in glass art in Australia – it is just being overt rather than attempting to hide behind some grand aesthetic gesture. Read Boyd’s ‘The Australian Ugliness’, 1950’s I think but still so relevant.
[...] at last… 29 08 2009 There may be a god after all. Nigel had alerted us to a new blog, Teraphim.org, coming out of the ANU Glass Workshop, courtesy of a new postgrad student. Historically speaking [...]
Ranamok, previously the RFC has always been more ’safe’ than ‘innovative excellence’, unfortunately.
Some beautiful work does get made and shown, but really, for this award, let’s face it, glassies just want the cash
I have to disagree with Lensgrinder’s “Tom Rowney’s work is a technical masterpiece Batman, to say there is no virtuosity is inaccurate. Is it art? Absolutely, precisely because of its virtuosity; art is that which is done well, amongst other things.”
Virtuous technical ability does not art make. Illustration is not what I consider “art” although it can be “done well”. Art needs to transcend technical ability. Do you think someone, like the guy above known as the human camera is really an artist or a camera or just some lucky dude who can make a buck because his brain is twisted in a good way? But this brings me back to the task or should I say ( or at least I would say it if I could but this word is impossible to pronounce former lispers ) Sisyphean challenge, of defining what art is. By implication I am saying that art, being more than just technical virtuosity, must contain some element of the sublime. Something that is inspired and more than just technical skill.
hi admin
i am not interested in defining what art is or what it ‘needs to’ or what it ‘must’ do, my interest is to leave any understanding or conception of what art may be open and for it to be inclusive – i have no interest to engage in sisyphean challenges.
your definition suggests exclusivity. why is illustration not art? why is a virtuoso violin soloist not an artist? people are not robots exercising precision technical operations devoid of anything of themselves in the work. any human endeavour exhibiting mastery in a particular field may be considered art, an art or an art form – why not?; “skill as a result of learning or practice,” is the earliest definition of art that i can quickly find. it is perhaps not what we think of when we use the word ‘art’ today but it seems a good place to start.
besides, virtuosity is by its nature, sublime. which is probably a simpler way to respond to your observation.
and yes, we are operating under very different notions of what ‘art’ is or may be so this may be a non discussion as we are not even in the same fields.
First of all it seems a little soft to say that you are “not interested in defining what art is or what it ‘needs to’ or what it ‘must’ do, when you have just said that the reason that Tom Rowney’s work is art is “because of its virtuosity; …among other things” You have just defined his work as art because of its virtuosity. You did that, not me. My issue is whether or not technical mastery is a criterion by which we judge a work of arts quality, or if technical mastery is enough on its on to make the work a virtuosity, to make it fine art.
And you are right we are not talking about the same thing, because you have expanded the definition beyond FINE ART, which is the art we are studying and discussing, to the broader term of art, as in your definition in the second post “skill as a result of learning or practice.” And yet contradictorily in your first post you make a comparison, albeit a negative one, to sculpture and painting, things traditionally considered fine art (or just to be clear I will write it Fine Art.) There is a difference. I am not interested in whether or not what; a jeweler, a guy who carves chainsaw bears out of wood, or a skilled sweater knitter, do is art, as in your oddly dumbed down definition. Good let it all be art, who gives a rats arse. But we are studying Fine Art, it says so in the school catalogue. What that deals with is art history and specifically the history of making Fine Art. With in this history there has been and ebb and flow and a discussion of what makes a fine art object as apposed to the product of skilled labor: knitting, whittling, or virtuous technical masterfully rendered paintings of landscapes a la Thomas Kinkade, http://tinyurl.com/mrl9dv/. I think you will agree with me that his work does not belong in the next edition of Janson’s Art History. Also don’t bother me with your false democratic love of all things art. You are severely critical of things that you don’t feel are arty enough. I want to know what things you think, other than the thin slippery surface of virtuosity or technical mastery make a thing Fine Art, rather than just run-o-the-mill technically well executed objects. I want me to figure that too, because I am sick of having to share the “I know it when I see it” definition with pornography.
Yes my comments do imply exclusivity, and yes that is an issue in art. Because if we are overly inclusive, if we except ANYTHING as good art, we there-by diminish the significance of well thought out, virtuously made, objects. (Art history classes would never end, and we would be filling our museums with every piece of crap out there .) What is the point of making things, as artists, if we are not trying to make things that are fantastic?
If what you are really interested in is the other kind of art, then yes, you really are in a trade school. Congratulations. I on the other hand am here, because I believe that, if enough people try, some how it is possible, for someone to make something that is truly fantastic, transcendent, sublime, something that will bring the conversation to a higher level. Something the effects peoples souls, not just their taste for nostalgia, their need for familiar scenes, not just another thing that feeds their addiction to stuff and images and potato chips. If you want to just make well crafted objects through the use of “skill as a result of learning or practice” be my guest. I love well crafted objects, but I want them to do something in the world, to be more than just another glass on the shelf.
I guess that you are probably going to come back at me with my own argument against art, that it has been historically related to crafts, slavery, conspicuous wealth and waste. Yes it has been, and that disgusts me. But it has also produced the Vermeer’s, the Morandi’s the Fra Angelico’s, the Rothko’s, the Spiral Jetty, and that big polished stainless steel jelly bean in Chicago. There is a good side to it too.
What makes it good? That was really my question.
he spikey, not sure who the testy one really is … and thanks for blowing my cover.
i did not contradict myself, i just noted a criterion ‘amongst other things’. this does not make for a definition of any kind, merely a reading from one perspective.
nor did i propose to accept anything as a work of art, i proposed a place to begin.
i enjoy work within which i perceive an intelligence or a concept/notion/idea that is not so easily accessible that it in some way holds my attention or demands my engagement; akin to mystery … ultimately the engagement permits me to work my way around the thoughts that arise from interacting with the work. so what am i saying … work that elicits a response, that draws something out, that makes me experience something new or think something new. this is a rare quality in a piece.
i do not enjoy kinkades work.
Some how I just can’t get past the “Is it art? Absolutely, precisely because of its virtuosity; art is that which is done well…” even with the …”amongst other things.” How is saying something is art precisely because of its virtuosity not defining what you believe art to be? I think there you establish technical mastery as a (as in one of many) defining quality of what art is or good art. right? wrong? Is that not establishing how you define, as in the definition of, what is art and what is not art? Also unless I am mistaken again, saying that “art is something that is done well” is a declarative statement that establishes what you believe art to be ( among other things) there by defining what you believe art is. Must be the tricky “is” word got me all screwed up.
i think i came much closer to what my definition of art is in my previous post. no thoughts on that?
Not sure what you are referring to.
i am refering to:
“i enjoy work within which i perceive an intelligence or a concept/notion/idea that is not so easily accessible that it in some way holds my attention or demands my engagement; akin to mystery … ultimately the engagement permits me to work my way around the thoughts that arise from interacting with the work. so what am i saying … work that elicits a response, that draws something out, that makes me experience something new or think something new. this is a rare quality in a piece.”
i am not interested in art as political phenomena – as politicised endeavour, not sure how to explain this exactly but i know you will get what i am trying to say.
thoughts?
I like your ideas about what art is and isn’t. I also like Stuart Baileys comments above or below or where ever they are in Umi’s post. Ultimately what we are trying to get at here, rather than a deconstruction of comments, is to illicit methods for artists, students to generate comments during a critique. Initially I was with Umi, thinking that asking the artist what their intention was and responding to that was good enough, but I also think that excepting things at face value, as art, or good art or what have you, makes it difficult to address ways to improve the work, or difficult to say anything helpful during a critique. And then there is the problem of the work out in the world. No one seemed to like the work at Ranamock and yet no one could express why. Was it because of an excessive use of arbritrary surface decoration? Was it because of an over reliance on the seductive qualities of the material? It was a glass show, would some work have fared better in another medium?
Umi says in the NPG post that we listen to the artists intention and then respond to that. But in a gallery ( museum gallery or otherwise ) we do not have access to the back story. How do we critique this work?
I suppose that still, one mans meat is another mans poison, but part of me just doesn’t buy this populist idea. Does that make me a fascist? I don’t think so. Just because I don’t necessarily believe that all things have an equal cultural value, doesn’t mean that I am a fascist: “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism.
Looking for some defining characteristics in art does not even imply a western cultural preference in my mind. I believe that the key to good art, is specificity. It is a specific event or object? This criteria can be applied cross culturally and does not exclude the indigenous, the asian, the exotic or the art brut. Things can even be specific as a cacophony. ( that word just made me want some hot chocolate) time to get up.
I suppose what we are left with here is working towards a expressing more clearly, what characteristics in a work evoke “… an intelligence or a concept/notion/idea that is not so easily accessible that it in some way holds my attention or demands my engagement; akin to mystery …something new. ” and what things don’t.
I suppose what we are left with here is working towards expressing more clearly, what characteristics in a work evoke “… an intelligence or a concept/notion/idea that is not so easily accessible that it in some way holds my attention or demands my engagement; akin to mystery … something new. ” and what things don’t.
is this possible? further, if something is unraveled what does that do to the ability to engage? i do not want to know the rules.
i have been fighting your desire to clarify or define art as i am wary of definitions for what i think a straightforward reason. definitions (always generalisations) create boundaries, create limits, create limitations and so threaten difference. is something new of merit or worth then potentially threatened if it does not conform? this may be overly dramatic to be sure but difference is where originality or innovation lie – no?
need help with this one please.
It think that Donald Judd said it really well (quoted from the book Pictures of Nothing by Kirk Varnedoe) “The history of art and art’s condition at any time are pretty messy. They should stay that way. One can think about them as much as one likes, but they won’t become neater; neatness isn’t even a good reason for thinking about them.”
What I believe a good reason for thinking about them is; is expanding the dialogue around them. Creating limits, creating boundaries, creates a playing field for the expansion of ideas, and for establishing methods to change and redefine the rules of the game. It is because of my security in the boundless possibilities, in the cage actually being a door, that I comfortable engaging in this dialogue (a slightly existential position here). Yes I will be wrong, yes creating definitions creates limits, and generalizations, boundries.
As to threatening difference? That is where I disagree. I think, that it through defining things that we understand them more fulling, grasp their essence so to speak, look at them closely enough to really give them the attention that they deserve. Through these definitions, these walls, we can tunnel. If you can’t see what is there it is difficult to move around it.
Other thoughts:
Often times people worry about definitions taking the magic out of an object, but if the magic can be removed that easily then perhaps that magic was more of a gimic than a gift.
Some people use this fear if definition as an excuse not to write their artists statements the ” I can’t say it in words, that is why I paint it.”
That, I often think, is just coping out, not mustering up the intellectual vigor to ask yourself hard questions about your work. Or it sometimes can even be from fear, fear of confronting the psychological reasons for creating the work. Either way, the statement may not say what the work does, but the process of examination is surely going to reveal something.
i do not understand how your position is ‘existential’ in this regard. generally i suspect your thinking tends to a structuralist over-view.
perhaps the magic can be overlooked, missed entirely, not at all understood precisely because some one needs put it in a box and look at it under a microscope.
plus i am not prone to the fears you suggest i may be.
perhaps we must be content to disagree in this instance.
or we could actually talk about a work rather than spar which is serving no purpose i can see.
That is deconstructuralist to you buddy-boy.
Think the freedom that comes from an existential crisis.
Things sometimes can be destroyed by examination and sometimes understood.
I wasn’t talking about you. You aren’t a painter too now, are you?
I am using this conversation/spar whatever as a source for a new novel called “Infinite Jest” no wait…that book was written already… um… I am/was using it to make me think… ha clarify my position and DEFINE what I think…or perhaps a happier less contentious word would be describe.
i thought the freedom that exists as part of existential theory was the cause of crisis or despair … ? see satre … not the other way around?
Satre certainly did have the pessimists view when it came to that, and I will have to do some research to find out who took it to positive freedom. Maybe it was just my existentialism teachers take on the whole subject.
Camus from Wiki ” Camus believes that this existence is pointless but that Sisyphus ultimately finds meaning and purpose in his task, simply by continually applying himself to it. ” Meaning and purpose being things that make me happy.
sartre defended existentialism as a positive or optimistic way to perceive existence – ultimately, we are free to invent ourselves. this is at once the cause of the despair for some and elation for others.
LAST WORD. Ha ha ha ha ha.
Креативненько!…
What do you think? Ranamok
The word on the street is that we aren’t very impressed. If that is the case: Why? If not, defend it…..
Прошу прощения, это не совсем то, что мне нужно. Есть другие варианты?…
What do you think? Ranamok
The word on the street is that we aren’t very impressed. If that is the case: Why? If not, defend it…..