Posted by ben on 21 Aug 2009 at 02:43 pm | Tagged as: art + bikes, conceptual art, coverage
In my first post in a long time over at Glasstire, I call out Elaine Wolff for her characterization of Daniel Saldaña as “post-contemporary.” I like the pieces he has on display at David Shelton Gallery, but her implication that his art is at odds with current art-making trends is a stretch, and I think a misreading of what’s happening in the art world.
today i went running in the rain. actually i was hoping it would rain because of the sweltering heat. so it did, huge rain drops pouring down so hard i could barely see. After a while i decided to take a break to breath and open my eyes, and the exact second my foot hit the ground in my first non running step the rain ceased. That same second precisely.
While it appeared to be at the same moment, in fact a unique moment and a same moment, simultaneously. Time is relative; not constant. Einsteinian not Newtonian – and that is not entirely accurate nor precise. Anywho… dynamic symmetry at best:)
Perhaps more apt:
At least that is what I had thought the day after yesterday. dz:)
so what is happing in the art world today?
Like I’d sure hate not to folowing the Heard in Art.Mooow
the author is competing with the New York Mag piece, and wants his story to be optioned as a post-cyberpunk post-911 paranoia-era genre flick (to be directed by Tony Scott);
2) the author is desperate to leave Newsweek so he can finally go write for Gawker.com (but he lacks the essential combo of a filthy mouth, a modicum of intelligence and irony, so he may as well get used to writing for Newsweek until he dies of old age — or commits suicide);
3) the author is actually an agent for the Church of Scientology and is a victim of mind control by crazy idiots from another planet.
I’m confused. Either something is contemporary, or it is not.
I have felt for some time that there are many parallels b/t the usage of contemporary today and the usage of modern in the past. While the words modern and contemporary were used interchangeably there was is a notable distinction; they became only interchangeable when speaking of a moment and not an artistic current. That being said – some of us see a similar deviance in the usage of contemporary. It would be interesting to look into how often the word contemporary is used in reference to current works and which works the word most frequently references. I doubt all current works fall in the ‘contemporary’ camp as much work was not ‘modern’. It is a fascinating form of control b/c if something is not ‘modern’, ‘contemporary’ or whatever say ‘current;)’ then it is out, dated, not included in the laminar flow of the current and exiled to turbid waters. The word is used so ubiquitously today – I do believe its usage may have peaked… someone recently asked about my contemporary artistic interests – that word has been a stumbling block for me for some time. Though, I know many insist it only means of the moment and in that regard I say they are more right than they know or more right than the smarter ones are willing to let on.
I read a phrase about “post-contemporary” that described it as the ever-fast overtaking of the present. No matter how fast your computer, you look for faster; an Ipod or cell phone is passe as soon as you take it out of the box; more channels, more downloads, more ways to see things. Even if you are content at this moment with the technology you possess, you feel obliged to move into tomorrow’s novelty as soon as tomorrow arrives. “Contemporary” only exists in the ever passing away, replaced by the always emerging future. Some people personify this attitude and cannot “stand still.” To do so is to become yesterday.
Now, Kitty, let’s consider who it was that dreamed it all.