Some-thing for everyone?
Bruce Nauman, Life, Death, Love, Hate, Pleasure, Pain
(1983), Collection Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, Gerald S. Elliott Collection
Here are some things to take in:
Polsky discusses being an art broker
and knowing where the bodies are on
Artnet. Although he thinks Murakami's prices are out of whack he misses the point that Murakami is probably the most important artist of the last 15 years and his importance goes deeply into graphic design in a way a pure art market person might not get.
McCormick loves Portland, nice to have you back MM
. I think a lot of us
have similar moments after traveling a lot.
Libby looks at Brad Cloepfil's design for UMMA here
. I think Cloepfil is
great but his museums and gallery spaces often annoy me a little in their floaty non-corporeal use of natural light (it can and does work but it requires intervention to keep the space from muting a show's thunder). I prefer
maybe SAM's addition will turn that view around.
I also really enjoyed David
Cohen's take on Bruce Nauman and the other artists who use neon words
diminished effect). I agree, Ive seen a lot of prank art with neon and most
of it is forgettable. Only Joseph
seem to do it with any worthwhile effect, for most others it's an
easy way to make C+ grade hack conceptual art (every city has 2 or 3 of em and they are interchangable).
Rhoades' solution works because his scenic route style absurdity rivals Nauman's anti-scenery. Kosuth makes it work because of its incredible bluntness rivals Nauman's blunt obfuscation. Still, Nauman is the man because of his relentless, pitiless existentialism and I can't wait for his
neon show at the Henry in 2007
Posted by Jeff Jahn
on September 26, 2006 at 12:04
| Comments (3)
Sorry Mr. Jahn, but it appears the only one missing the point here is you. Polsky while being an occasionally amusing point of view on money in the art world who has it (the people who don't write about it) and who wants it (him) has never claimed to have any more insight than that. This is evidenced in the article you cite, by his "hell my kid could do that" view of Mike Kelly, but is nothing more than his own personal and short sided opinion like the Murakami quote. He isn't here to criticize or even analyze (unless it's auction results), he is here to write about how much things sell for if they're "good ones". If you read his book "I Bought Andy Warhol" it is almost immediately evident that Polsky his not interested in anything but money, pictures, deals, steals, and the coolness factor, of yeah that's my Warhol.... His voice does not pretend to be any bigger or far-reaching than this. So let's not pick on the Labrador for not being a blood hound ok?
Posted by: BS at September 27, 2006 09:59 AM
Neon will light up PDX in October.....
shimmering neon lights....
and at the dawn of night,
this city's made of light."
Posted by: TJ Norris at September 27, 2006 10:54 AM
Um BS, sure. Read closer, "that" was my point. Don't confuse giving supplementary context or critique for attack... simply a counterpoint that you then restated yourself. I pointed out Polsky's article for what it is, an interesting window, to which I added a different context and a link.
Polsky does his thing (well) and one of the reasons I pointed out his article is that I have noticed many longtime secondary market people have a similar response to Murakami. Like Koons though, Murakami has transcended the ground floor of New York's art trading floor, becoming the target of such cheap shots. Koons has become the chief brand of 80's crassness and Murakami has become the top brand for Otaku culture's worldwide assimilation.
By becoming the iconic Otaku King, Murakami has come to symbolize the influence of Tokyo design on global visual culture (whether he deserves that credit or not is debatable).
Since historical significance isn't Polsky's strong suite and since my comment on PORT isn't anything but a comment on his take, my opinion is quite a valid. I'm not trying to put Polsky down, from a market perspective his argument holds water. From a historical outlook it is like Greenberg dismissing Warhol, old king vs new king. The difference is Polsky isn't a Greenberg and Murakami might be this era's Warhol.
Posted by: Double J at September 27, 2006 11:56 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in,
. Now you can comment. (sign
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by
the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear
on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)