Incredibly bad: on the difference between paintings that look bad and are bad.

23rd November 2015 

Matthew Bowman has given us a speech today about bad and good art based on his research. He presented numerous examples of ''Bad'' art mostly featured by ugliness, malicious and despicable style. Majority of those paintings contained elements of kitsch, irony, protest and shocking, imaginable perspective. They seemed to be a manifest of their own badness, possibly with hidden meaning and consideration. However they weren't very eye pleasing.
The Museum of Modern Art in Vienna celebrated those painterly freaks in 2008, setting an exhibition entitled ''Bad Painting - Good Art''. It has collected artworks from the 1920s till beginning of 21st century; to surprising or truly shocking, sensationalist, reactionary solutions. It brings examples of twenty-one artists to represent ''bad paintings'' as a phenomenon which has opened to different perspectives in art by using traditional medium and criticising previous approaches (especially modernist utopia). It's an opposition to the doctrines of classical modernism and avant-garde movements, playing with the medium and the subjects, turning into unexpected, darker and ugly approaches. It questions aesthetics in art. It also surely influence somehow on contemporary practice. I think it may tries to show value of kitsch and anything that used to be worthless, even artists skills in some cases, I suppose.

Asger Jorn
 L'Avantgarde se rend pas (1962)

André Butzer Frau
 Ölauf Leinwan (2002)

I think that Bad Painting can be a good art (such as E. Manet's ''Olympia'' from 1863, which was declared as really bad and inappropriate at first and then became a masterpiece). Judgements of art highly depend on viewer's taste and cultural sensitivity, time and place the art is displayed or simply the knowledge necessary to understand it and bring out its deeper meaning. Knowledge supports our judgement and can change our impressions. I'm sure it happened to everybody, while walking into the gallery or museum, to see an artwork not appealing to us at all. We then ask ourselves, what is this thing doing here?! It shouldn't be classified as art, it's simply a piece of crap. Well I have experienced that quite recently, remembering the trip to Tate Modern in London and some work in the ''Collection Display. Making Traces'' exhibition.

Catalogue cover (2008)

Before modernism appeared and questioned the nature of art, bad painting equalled to be a bad artist. Painting and sculpture art were separated. In 1980s postmodernist anti-painting supposed to revolutionise art once again, I recon (deconstructive approach against ''good painting''). It was something different and made you look. Anything modernist had rather happy approach, while bad painting seem to be darker and rather creepy. There is a difference between paintings that are bad and those which just look bad. However I don't think it's a perfect theory. In my opinion there is some sort of general aesthetic that majority of people can label as bad or good. Although nothing is possibly more subjective (opinions). Facts are objective, but who make them? Who put these artworks in a canon of bad or as being a masterpiece and marvellous? It's usually up to what critics say about it or possibly other authorities in the past... maybe general opinion... However I think its purely individual choice to categorize that. It can be often wrong due to lack of required knowledge (like in the example of red paintings where the appearance is identical, but intensions are different and so, some of them are classified as art and some aren't). I think the most important thing in the classification is actual feeling the art piece reveals in the spectator, while additional information about it is excluded. I disagree that the only thing to make a painting good art is meaning behind it.

I really like Thomas Kinkade's Disney collectible paintings. I think it takes a great skill to create such canvases and they're fantastic aesthetically, but there isn't any deeper meaning behind them. I still would give them an art status. ''Thomas Kinkade captured the timeless magic of classic Disney stories and their captivating characters through the style of “narrative panoramas”. Each painting tells the entire story of a Disney film in one image, taking inspiration from art, sketches and other historic documents from the Disney Archives.'' (Thomaskinkade.com, 2015). I like how magic, detailed and colour live they are. They're also so recent! Tradition in contemporary times once again.

Cindarella



Cinderella 2015

Tangled

Beauty and the Beast

Andy Warhol's pop art sculpture ''Brillo Box'' (1964) caused quite a bit of controversy in the 1960s. The artist has decided to use very ordinary, consumer-product related imagery and turn it into sculptures. For this reason he hired carpenters to make him some wooden boxes which he then covered with paint and silkscreened logo (he made few different ones:  Kellogg's corn flakes, Brillo soap pads, Mott's apple juice, Del Monte peaches and Heinz ketchup). Then he created installations and exhibited them in the museum. He also wanted to sell them to collectors as stacks, but it haven't gone well. Considered as art it caused a lot of controversy with its commercial subject, reminding products on the supermarket shelf and perfectly factorial look, contrasting with sensitive abstract expressionist paintings. In this case I think its very sensual matter. Even the general look was very similar, the actual art object by Andy Warhol surely felt differently and if compared, it would be easily identified.

Andy Warhol
Brillo Box (1964)

''We were having a fairly heady discussion about art, religion, and culture by the time we climbed onto the fifth floor and breathlessly approached the Brillo Boxes. There my thoughts wandered from connections between religious icons and pop culture to a small closet in my kitchen where I have a similar box, crumpled and rusty, stuffed between the Windex and the Comet cleanser.

In all my years of scrubbing with sponges, mops, steel wool, I have rarely stopped to notice the packaging. I just ripped the boxes open and started my work. But these elevated Brillo Boxes show me that we are surrounded by art. It lines the aisles of our supermarkets. It decorates our homes. It festoons our trash bins: pungent red, flashing yellow, telltale white.

My pantry is now a gallery and my chores interactive art.''

Reverend Gail Ransom, East Liberty Presbyterian Church quoted for The Point of View Label Project, The Andy Warhol Museum, 1999.

“[The boxes] were very difficult to sell.  He thought that everyone was going to buy them on sight, he really and truly did.  We all had visions of people walking down Madison Avenue with these boxes under their arms, but we never saw them.”
Eleanor Ward, art dealer: Stable Gallery, in Warhol by David Bourdon, Harry N. Abrams, Inc. (New York, 1995), p.186.


Read more at warhol.org: http://www.warhol.org/education/resourceslessons/Brillo--But-is-it-Art-/#ixzz3txT2SIug

Martin Kippenberger (1953–1997), German contemporary artist was very important persona influencing Matthew Bowman's research. Kippenberger was known for his very creative and innovative approach in wide range of styles and media and artistic provocateur (sometimes called 'Deutschland’s Andy Warhol'). There were few examples of his work that I have found really interesting, such as ''One of You, a German in Florence'' (1976-77) which consisted of 83 paintings that put on the top of each other would equal painter's height or ''Lieber Maler, male mir…'' underneath.

Martin Kippenberger
Untitled. Lieber Maler, male mir… (Dear Painter, paint for me...) 1983
Oil on canvas

 

The painting is based on a photograph and it well looks like a photograph itself (photorealistic approach). It is part of a twelve paintings series, one of the earliest and most important works of the artist. It represents back perspective of two almost tragi-comic looking figures, heading on a bar crawl through the streets of Düsseldorf. It's great demonstration and clear identification of Kippenberger's style; ordinariness of the scene and extraordinary manner of representation as a slick hyper-realistic oil painting. The artist commissioned it to be made for him by the film poster painter known as 'Mr Werner'. It's a strong statement about Kippenberger's self-identity and it emphasizes its authenticity (purpose and method of making). It reflects, possibly more than any of his other works, his life style of constant movement in life and in art, by changing locations and questioning artistic conventions. As any of human being, author's gaze is restricted with the mirror image to identify himself, so he becomes a participant of his own art. It's really interesting way of self-expression.

 

Martin Kippenberger
Heavy Burschi / Heavy Guy 1989/90
Installation view at Tate 2006

Private collection

Martin Kippenberger questioned the role and existence of the author and it is also considered throughout his other artworks, such as ''Heavy Burschi'' or ''Model Interconti''. In the first case artist presents an idea of author's death and gives his installation status of ''double kitsch'' (Jubilee Centre, 2011). His creations are mostly made out of borrowed commercial art and copied as paintings by his studio assistant while dissatisfied Kippenberger trashed them all and they were then displayed in the wooden container in the gallery besides photographs of the same series placed on the walls.

Kippenberger bought a 1972 grey abstract painting by Gerhard Richter and transformed it into a sculpture, a table. ''Model Interconti'' is considered a masterpiece of contemporary art. But there is now quite an issue with the authorship. Under the German law Kippenberger supposed to be sole author of the new work. However what about moral rights for Richter? It is quite complicated and I read an interesting text about it online at http://artasiapacific.com/Magazine/64/ModelIntercourse. He has questioned here the art market and cleverly critiqued social connotations between artworks. 

Martin Kippenberger
 Model Interconti 1987
(table made with Gerhard Richter painting)
Collection of Gaby and Wilhelm Schürmann

This lecture has shown me that good painting is not necessarily visually pleasing and opposite. Bad looking art, clearly pointing into its badness, can be often a great art manifesto. However to give this status to an artwork, I think I usually judge mostly aesthetically and ethically. I think that's the first thing a lot of people do - decide if they're visually pleased with an art and if it talks to them, making a connection. The other time the artwork could be pointed to particular audience or send a message the viewer won't like, but if it's good painting, that won't change (it reminds me again of Manet's ''Olympia'' that was banned at first, only because the lack of critiqued by a painter society's approval).




I have also find some more facts about Bad Painting in America and another art exhibition curated by Marcia Tucker in New York, where paintings were only ironically called ''Bad''.


"Bad" Painting is the name given to a trend in American figurative painting in the 1970s by critic and curator, Marcia Tucker (1940–2006). She curated an exhibition of the same name, featuring the work of fourteen artists, most unknown in New York at the time, at the New Museum of Contemporary Art, New York. The exhibition ran from January 14 to February 28, 1978. "Bad" Painting was not a demonstration of technical incompetence, poor artistic judgement, amateur or outsider dabbling, the term is commonly used for these. For Tucker, it denoted a more focused or deliberate disrespect for recent styles. The press release for the exhibition summarised "Bad" Painting as ‘…an ironic title for ‘good painting’, which is characterized by deformation of the figure, a mixture of art-historical and non-art resources, and fantastic and irreverent content. In its disregard for accurate representation and its rejection of conventional attitudes about art, ‘bad’ painting is at once funny and moving, and often scandalous in its scorn for the standards of good taste.’ Her use of quotation marks around "Bad" points to this special meaning. "Bad" here, is thus a term of approval for the more eccentric and amusing variations on certain accepted styles, at that time.

(Wikipedia)





Resources:

Artnet.com, (2015). artnet Magazine. [online] Available at: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/saltz/saltz3-20-09_detail.asp?picnum=7 [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015].

Bowman, M. (2015). Incredibly bad: on the difference between paintings that look bad and are bad.

Gallery, S. and Gallery, S. (2015). Martin Kippenberger - Artist's Profile - The Saatchi Gallery. [online] Saatchigallery.com. Available at: http://www.saatchigallery.com/artists/martin_kippenberger.htm [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015].

Huma3-archive.com, (2008). Exhibition in Wien: Bad Painting - International Art Portal Huma3. [online] Available at: http://www.huma3-archive.com/huma3-eng-reviews-id-313.html [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015].

Jubilee Centre, (2011). Outside the frame: Postmodern art by Anne Roberts - Jubilee Centre. [online] Available at: http://www.jubilee-centre.org/outside-the-frame-postmodern-art-by-anne-roberts/ [Accessed 21 Dec. 2015].

Tate.org.uk, (2015). Martin Kippenberger. [online] Available at: http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/martin-kippenberger [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015].

Thomaskinkade.com, (2015). Disney Images | The Thomas Kinkade Company. [online] Available at: https://thomaskinkade.com/art-genre/disney-images/ [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015].

Warhol.org, (2015). warhol: Brillo: But is it Art?. [online] Available at: http://www.warhol.org/education/resourceslessons/Brillo--But-is-it-Art-/ [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015].

KOYAANISQATSI 'Life out of balance' by Godfrey Reggio and the team

23rd November 2015 

 

Today I've seen quite unusual movie called KOYAANISQATSI (1982) by Godfrey Reggio (producer and creative director), Ron Frickle (photography) and Phillip Glass (music). It was the longest movie with no words I have ever seen and an amazing journey through the world history from its very beginning until now. II think, it was all about taking a journey, not really about its exact destination. It took six years and lots of effort and expense to create the film, but I agree with the producers that it was well worth it.  

The title was taken from Hopi language and it could be translated as 'Life out of balance'. This film is defined as postmodernist critique of existing world, where one way of life always calls for another. The production is extraordinary for many reasons. It describes indescribable, it doesn't have formal narrative or cultural baggage, as it has non-literate form. It goes beyond words and it's breaking the boundaries of traditional cinematography. The music and imagery are employed instead, to build the atmosphere and story allowed to be created in viewer's mind (which is intended by the authors).  It was made by an enormous team and it has as many authors as spectators, because we're all involved in it as we watch. It's up to us how we experience the subject. I also find it amazing because it was created through very complex and rather difficult process with pre-digital, analogue cameras. The production builds an emotional connection with the audience through rapidly changing sequences, through eye contact between the viewer and the characters, turning points, such as moon shadowed by the skyscraper or apocalyptical city buildings collapsing.

It was also quite spiritual experience, it was like looking at the world from behind the scene, from different perspective, possibly from God's perspective. I think, the concept related to cave paintings (from very basic stage of human kind) or maybe also to biblical act of creation.
I've noticed that during first twenty minutes there isn't any appearance of human at all. It has got a frame of the same image and music (identical in the beginning and in the end; some sort of cave painting and meditative singing). As we've listened to a few words from creators afterwards, it was inspired by very universal symbol of an 'eye in a triangle' (a signifier of God). Generally it gives national feel and it can be universally translated. It shows how fragile our life is, how constant is cycle of life and its essence. It relates to numerous aspects of living, such as ecological issues and technological progress, mass culture or art. It's a peculiar contemplation of life. We never really know what it can bring.

Movie creators didn't know what the outcome is going to be straight away. There is an aspect of Dolce Vita ('Sweet Life'), but also threat of life, injustice, dramatic changes, explosions and loosing control. It shows everything within human life and technology. Reggio states that everything, such as politics, education, language, the culture, religion, finances, nations exists within technology; we live technology. Well... that's where human destined himself... through progress to the world we live in now. Technology indeed took over big part of our lives, but I disagree that everything exists within it. When thinking of a title, I reckon it was a good choice and great concept. It forms its universal character and together with lack of words during the movie, describes indescribable. I think the point gets across with considerate collage and dynamic juxtapositions of images and music.

Poster: Conor Culhane (2015)

Before the human kind appears the 'KOYAANISQATSI' film seems to be a bit boring and tiring for the viewer; scenes are repeated and monotonous. I think the first twenty minutes and some of urban movement in later stage could be slightly reduced to possibly become more interesting from the beginning, right to the end. That's the only thing I would change a little bit. Besides I think it's an amazing production! It's for anybody, it's universal and relates to anyone, to any human. It's like an artistic sight of world existence, a physical visual form of its history. Changes in imagery and a plot are identified by music coordinated with movement and emotions. There are sequences easy to separate. It made me think of continuousness and crumbliness of life. The beginning is all about nature and its power shown from very different angles, shown alive and changing speed. It's about development of towns and cities; its about The Beginning.

After first twenty minutes of the movie I got actually a bit bored and impatient at first. But the first impression has changed and my overall overview gives it a masterpiece status. There're rocks, islands (earth), mosaic of fields (it seems like you swimming while looking), clouds rapidly or very slowly moving (feels a bit like flying in the sky), water, explosions (fire). So there are all four elements of natural power. In about twenty-second minute proper image of people appears (couple of minutes before it would be just human shape). They're looking high up on the glass skyscrapers reflecting the clouds, looking quite surprised, happy, wondering... Then we've got an aeroplane appearing in very hypnotic way, busy urban landscape and age of cars, human masses and all of it was like short-lived illusion. Afterwards there is a war... tanks and rocket exploding into the galactic space... and then city again with its enormous buildings. Three men sitting on the street and others just passing through time to time. Now it reminds me of God a little, as being one but in three persons. And generally I have started to think of it as we were shown God's perspective in the movie... especially after seeing a bit of inspiration from the authors - the eye closed in a triangle (symbolic).

There's beautiful semiotic language applied all the way through the film. Wind, shadows, flock of birds flying there and back, symbols of period of particular times in history. There's a very apocalyptic view of collapsing cities, fog and clouds uncovering birth of new ones. Life goes back to the cycle... American life style (day and night cycle, street lights show, music and image speeding up in final time-laps, 'rat race'), machinery, manufactories and distribution, underground rush again, consumerism and first appearance of computers (it feels like people are marionettes played by time). More cars, subways, lifts, buildings, products... Although I've said before that the movie is universal, it's very accented by American culture, especially nearer the end while the flag is exposed. It goes through the tunnel of news and TV invention, through different styles and subcultures, modernism. Two men sit in the car and seem to move towards the future. 1hour 3 minutes - the first time movie is completely silent for few seconds, before an anxious music continues.

The most influencing and touching moment was to get into an eye contact with some characters. Suddenly viewer feels observed and it becomes almost 3D motion. Really striking for me was seeing a man shaving his beard randomly in the middle of the pavement (looking towards us as into his reflection in the mirror) or quite old woman intensively smoking a cigarette. Afterwards shadows appear and it starts snowing, but it looked a bit like someone was ripping a piece of paper. In the end a rocket explodes again into space for a little while and then it falls slowly back down in blue background firing gently again. The emotional piano music has followed the contemplative singing bit.