I thought that Bert's presentation (last night) was sincere, witty and funny. At the end, some of you brought up good points. Unfortunately we didn't have much time left. Let's take the time to share some opinions here. What did you think of his work? His presentation as a whole? Later with pictures. Please, leave your comments.
18 comments:
Bert's presentation was wonderufl his art work was interesting, but the stories from his inspirations were even better. His work was a great combination of irony and sincerity. I think a large part of appreciating his work is meeting him and understading his personality. He seems very good at expressing a phrase/experience in a simple gesture(like the neon heart) It was interesting for him to point out that he really isnt a hands on artist and that most of his work is completed through phone and email. I am interested to see more of his work without hearing his explinations.
Good point Amanda. It;s nice to hear him talk about his work, but there's nothing like confronting the art w/o having to justify it. as he said, art should justify itself without the need of words.
I understand the idea that art should stand alone, but I think in the case of bert his reason behind the work and explainations need to be present to make them more dynamtic.
You brought up that point and I thought it was right on target.
like amanda, i thought that bert's presentation of his work was a great. i was attracted to the wit and creativity in his art work and how his mind works to come up with these concepts. his personality, sincerity, and sense of humor (or irony) are a huge part of his art work. i really think that his art work relies heavily on his personality in order for it to be successful. like naomi says, his stories add to the success of his work.
then again, looking at his pieces without any explanation about them, the viewer would simply have to go by looks--the formal quality of the work. "does it work? does it not work?" for example, the furniture series...i thought it sucked, even as furniture, but hearing the story of how the show came to be made led me to appreciate it and sort of understand (i don't think this particular piece had any "real" concept behind it). i think when viewing his work, one has to base it on experience, his experience to really appreciate it. his work is ultimately a personal expression of his experiences. from an objective point of view, i don't know if i value this so much since it seems deeply personal. it relates to what he was saying about pollock. he's just another guy. he's not superman. so why should bert's experiences be valued any more than next artist. i don't know if this makes any sense.
I agree, the art should not have too much explaining it. In Bert's case, what he's done is to have the courage to project a consistent product for about six years and counting. He's had good exposure, and though he may not sell a lot, he's collected by important collectors and written about by the press. The reason Snitzer has him is that Bert is consistent and honest with his art. Does that pay in the lung run? I think so. You have to be crazy to show the world "this is what I'm about, take it or leave it."
i appreciate the fact that bert has guts to show whatever he feels. he has an edge to him style that isn't afraid to be released. the piece he did with the elevators was probably the most impressive conceptual pieces that i've probably ever seen (that may just speak for my exposure to contemp. art though). like you guys are saying, his work has somewhat of an identity problem. the only that people that can fully appreciate most of his work are those whom he speaks with about his art. personally, a neon line on the wall with no explanation would bother me. but after you hear the story behind it, it makes sense. the neon line with its title is nice, but still a little too vague to get the full effect of its purpose. in my opinion, it seems like a partially wasted effort without the explanation. upon learning the bg story, i think his work is pretty sweet.
I think an iteresting point that bert made me think about was that sometimes the effect that ur art has on people can completely be different then you intention, or even end up being you intention. Like with his elevator piece, it sounded to me like he thought it would be cool to trap people in an elevator with lound music (thats kind of how he explained it) but it ended up making people feel amazing. I like how when he was showing us his newer work, he metioned that he has no idea how it will work out because he hasnt really shown anyone: like the meaning of his work not only comes from himself, but from the people who experience it as well.
I came here by chance and enjoy the site. I guess it's a class with art students. I don't know who Bert is, but would like to visit and participate if you guys don't mind. Very nice pics posted and good explanations.
Art lover
I'm with Ana and Naomi. Bert exhibit was great. He's very creative in the way he is expressing the different happenings of his life, but I think his explanations were needed to made us understand his work better.I enjoyed it.
Heidi
I found several points of interest in Bert's presentation.
First, his admission that he is "sort of lazy"; he then retracted this by saying what he really meant was that a lot of the effort behind his work is in the plannning. It's mental effort and so isn't perceived as being as intense as physical work (even by himself, until he thinks about it). This is an interesting comment on how human psychology still seems to look at physical effort as somehow more significant than mental work. I wonder if this isn't a reaction against an information directed technology.
The artist seemed highly conscious of class issues-he mentioned several times his self-perception of his economic level as not being too high up. An example was when he talked about hiring the Feng-shui priestess to arrange the furniture exhibit, a luxury that only the well-off can generally afford. There were others throughout the lecture, including if my memory serves me right, the direct statement that he was "poor". I have a rather visceral reaction to someone spending $3000 on a pair airline tickets they will not use, while claiming to be poor!! Bert's justification for this was that if he had used mock-ups instead, it would somehow compromise his "integrity". My reaction is to start questioning what, in this context, integrity really is. If the artwork is a symbol of the unfullfilled relationship, I don't see why a mockup would not suffice; it would seem to me the integrity stems from the artist not fabricating the story behind it rather than the actual materials used.
As to the issue of the viewer's knowledge of the artist's motivation for the work, I see we are split on this. Bert said he thought is might be arrogant to impose these details on the viewer. I would look at it in almost the opposite way-might it not be arrogant NOT to reveal these details? Are these secrets to be revealed only to special classes of people, such fellow artists (ourselves) and possibly the purchasers of the artworks?
A larger issue, I think, is if Minimalist art, by its nature, is more dependent on knowledge of the creator's motiviation in making it to give it significance, interest, etc., than in other art forms.
dominic, you make an excellent point about the arrogance in not saying anything about the art work. you said it in a way i couldn't find how to.
Agree on almost all points. But Bert is not a minimalist artist. He is a conceptual artist. Minimalism will reject any kind of interpretation of the work other than itself. Dan Flavin's "lights" are what they are: fluorescent bulbs. You're not supposed to find anything in there. Just that. On the other hand, Bert likes to explicate his works.
I was absolutely blown away by burts work. When i first looked him up on Google, i wasn't really given the best idea of who he was as an artist because there was simply not enough information to be said. the only image to be found was a "got milk" ad with his face in it. Once he came to the our class and gave his presentation, I was actually very moved. He presented himself as a poor hardworking artists who has flaws just like the rest of us. His ideas didnt always come to him in the blink of an eye, and his admittance to that i find deeply admirable. I was also blown away at his authenticity. Like when he described how he actually purchased the plane tickets to paris in his "all the things i couldn't give you" show. The one question i have is.."where does all the money to DO this come from?" I am aware that one is given the gallery space in which to work on, but i have always been in the dark when it comes to the actually MAKING of that art. Where did he go to have all of his art "manufactured" so to say? And how much does it actually take to make a PROFIT off of your art? This concept really confuses me as an artists, because it is this uncertainty that pushes me away from the idea of becoming a self sufficient artist in the future.
I also agree with Naomi and Ana when they say that Bert's personality really shines through in his artwork, and the descriptions of all the pieces really brought them to fruition for me. But it makes me wonder: Would i have appreciated his work LESS had i just viewed them without an explanation? Or would I be more inclined to see things in my own personal perspective and hence the work would have an even deeper meaning. I think these questions add much to Bert's works and his concept of not including explanations in his openings.
I had a great time looking at Bert's work and what I liked the most was that he doesn't seem to stick to one particular medium like Jason does (who mostly paints). A lotof Bert's work was simple but the idea behind it was complex. Some of it seemed pretty much out of this world (I don't think I would spend $3000.00 dollars on tickets to Paris and not use them, only to put them behind a glass case but the idea was gorgeous)!. I also appreciated his honesty and his guts. You could tell he was just trying to be him and didn't have any shame in it! Very cool!
I found him to be a real, different, and creative artist that expresses his emotions, thoughts, and his great personality through his art work in a successful way. The way he uses media has a strong effect on his total concept. He is capable of giving meaning to the most simple and basic elements, and even though most of the pieces are not “beautiful” or might not be considered art for some people, all of them have a message or a statement that can be appreciated without any explanation. I really admired his presentation and I learned that as artists we can not give up when people try to underestimate our work, we have to believe in what we do and we have to be dedicated and passionate in order to achieve our goals.
I like Bert's attitude about not explaining his work unless asked to. If a piece of art can not affect the viewer as how the artist intends without a written explanation of the piece, then that artwork is not successful. In Bert's case most of his pieces are interesting because of how he presents them.
Post a Comment