judd/hesse

Specific Objects (1965), geometric abstraction. Throughout this reading I couldn't help but ask myself, "What is Donald Judd talking about?" So, this new work is neither painting nor sculpture, but is related to one or the other. I brought to mind of happenings and flashmob time and time again. Power is brought up time and again. There is power in this "new" form. Because it is cutting edge? New? Avant-gard? Striking? Getting attention? I would like to see some examples of this work. I guess I'm visual learner. That might help me understand exactly what he's getting at. It is quite vague at times. Clearly he says that Abex emphasizes the rectangle. "The simplicity required to emphasize the rectangle limits the arrangements possible within it." He says the space is shallow. I'm taking it he is a critic of Abex. He says, "The new work obviously resembles sculpture more than it does painting, but it is nearer to painting." This statement is quite contradictory. He mentions "part by part" and things being "composed." These new works seem to be closely parallelled to happenings. It is later stated that these works have no movement. What is being said by not having a movement? Are these artists purposely not forming a movement and if so, what does that say about the message they are trying to convey?
Who are these people in the next section? And in this next section Frank Stella states that Abex is complicated. This is contradictory to what Judd sees it as.

Hesse. I enjoy reading a learning about feminism. I, too, often wonder if we are unique. She makes a statement that women are sidetracked by her feminine roles. How true this is. It is such a cruel trick that nature plays on us. I am now 23 and feel my biological clock ticking. My head and my heart often argue. My heart wants one thing, and my head another. There are things I want in life and things I want to do in life. I am so scared that my female urges (ie having a baby) will cloud my goals and aspirations. That will be a shame. I can definately see as I grow older that it is more and more difficult for a woman to "carry ideas to the full developments." I don't really think that the statement, "She also lacks conviction that she has the 'right' to achievement," still holds true in today's society (thank god). However, the following statement, "She also lacks the belief that her achievements are worthy," resonates more with me.
Untitled statements. "The formal principles are understandable and understood." My art mentor in high school taught me that you must know the rules in order to break them. These statements get a little existential at times with "It is something, it is nothing" and "nothing, everything." I like that thought. She says her work is not painting, not sculpture, so is it that "new form" that Mr. Judd spoke of? This 2nd statement from 1969 seems like not so much of a statement but a question to herself. She is wondering down the corridors of her mind. There is a presence of uncertainty. It is no doubt that lack afore mentioned lack of self-esteem. These writings put me in mind of the next art project I am undertaking for my 3d studio. I am making an assemblage box about what it means to be a woman (real and stereotypically). I am going to bring in the element of time. There will be many small boxes that make up the whole. Each box will contain a different period of a woman's life. I hope it turns out how I want it to.

warhol/sontag

I want to go to this.












The Philosophy of Andy Warhol, very interesting. Love and Puberty, they do go hand in hand.
"They were all creative kids, too- it was more or less an Art Commune- so I know they must have had lots of problems..." Why is it that "artsy" kids are "messed up?" I can't think of any "art kids" that aren't a little "off." But, I think that's what makes us so great- our passion- and able to create. All art is created out of some some sort of passion, or feeling. That's it, we just FEEL more intensely.
It is quite ironic how things work out. When he decided he's rather be alone, "friends" began to flock to him. "As soon as you stop wanting something you get it. I've found that to be absolutely axiomatic."
I found it quite amusing what an utterly desensitizing role the media played in this article. He "kept the TV on all the time" in order to divert his attention from his friend's problems. That way they didn't really affect him anymore. His relationship with the TV, and later his tape player, seems rather unhealthy. He has an affair with one and marries the other. Wow. It seems this is his way of running away from the harsh realities of the world, and ultimately the harsh realities of himself. He says time and again that he had no problems, but I seriously doubt this is the case. "When I got my first TV set, I stopped caring so much about having close relationships with other people. I'd been hurt a lot to the degree you can only be hurt if you care a lot." It's sad he stopped trying. He got burned and desensitized. He forgot what emotions were supposed to be. He says he doesn't know if he was "ever capable of love." This is hard for me to fathom. I am such a hopeless romantic. Perhaps some are not capable of love (although it seems selfish) just as some people seem to be made to love. I think he's scared.
Not only is Andy Warhol scared of himself, he seems rather arrogant and self-centered (there does seem to be overwhelming evidence that many artist and art movements have been). He says that this culture and "whatever we think of as young and with it- probably started then," there, with him. There are talks of how extravagant everything was. Is this were we get our stereotypical "addictive, outrageous, excessive" artist personality type?
And then I am brought to the idea of "Camp." Throughout the Sontag reading I was put in mind of what I consider "Pop Art" and fashion. I was thinking perhaps Warhol was "camp" and that his name might be mentioned in the article. Then on the last page of the reading it is stated that Pop Art is in fact different from Camp. So, I guess Warhol was doing something more "serious."
There were several passages in this reading where I would find myself thinking that this idea of "Camp" is ridiculous and tedious, yet some aspects of it seem absolutely tantalizing.
So, this sensibility (aka Camp) has not been named. I am put in mind of the deconstruction essays with the sign and signifier, as well as the roles of language in Dada. And it is rather vague to me exactly what is meant by the word "sensibility."
It is stated that it is naive to allow taste to dictate reactions to art. But it later states that Camp is naive. This seems like quite the conundrum. It goes on to talk about "good" taste and "bad" taste. This is a little biased. Taste does tend to develop unevenly, and it seems extremely unfair to say "it's rare that the same person has good visual taste and good taste in people and taste in ideas." Who's standard of "good" are we talking about?
To admit that something is about "style at the expense of content" seems backward, self-defeating, and shallow. Camp admits an affinity for "silly, bad" things. It seems like a satire of itself.
Camp seems comparable to being a teenage girl with its mellowdrama and "mixture of the exaggerated, the fantastic, the passionate, and the naive."


Now, I must go to bed.