[Back to FLEEDING main page]

Refer to the Southside at Lamar site:

    [Southside at Lamar; Dallas, Tx]

How do you Critique a Readymade

First off, since modern art is *so* personal, we must necessarily
NOT fall into the intentionalist falacy. That is, to assume that
we can *guess* the intention of the artist from merely looking
at the work -- especially for minimalist works. 

For example what are we to make of "the Egg-Timer and the Moose"
(my title for it)?  The time (as seen is set to 53 minutes) - a
signficant or random number? Naturally, if we are familiar with
a given artist's work then we are more likely to "get it"; eg,
the projects of Christo & Jean-Claude.

Thus, i don't think that there *can* be an approach to critiquing
a readymade -- if you aren't "into" ready mades then no amount of
work (other than education) can yield an appreciation.

Naturally some works are offered for shock value or at the very 
least social comentary (pop art type 2, etc). For example "destitute
black woman on the street" (again my title for the work) clearly 
shows not the happiest of circumstances. But, this is a judgement
made from the POV of the bourgeoise. Upon closer inpsection we see 
the young woman has a composition book, backpack and headphones.
The message seems now less clear: Is she a student waiting for
the bus? Does she have hope? Or is she indeed destitute, possibly
even near die-ing?

Again my own work follows a pattern based on use of the objects in
question which take advantage of their un-intended functionality. 
For example, the drinking cups "just happen to be" translucent and
thus that aspect is taken advantage of. In the case of the "Pen 
and notepad on packing crate". The un-intended functionality *may be*
the fact that the crate can be used (or thought of) as a desk.

   

As to the next question: What does a ready made have to do with the
                         environment it is presented within?

This goes back to both the SCALE and the actual space that it is 
presented in. In the case of my "Judd/Flavin/Brancusi" work, the 
space of a flat wall, the way the light is presented into it, and
the fact that the wall is slightly remote from the rest of the 
space tends to create (i would hope/intend) an aloofness, and 
definitely a distancing between us as the observer and it as the
observed. Thus, the space into which it is installed encourages 
the "8 second observation rule" of art -- that most people can 
walk along past paintings in a museum and pause (on an average)
8 second before each one -- unless of course it intrigues them.

This contrasts sharply with Lee's piece "metal things at the end of parking
ticket ribbon" (again my name for the work). In this case, we are forced to
travel along the object which hugs the wall, we have to travel an extensive
distance to "view" the work at all. And again, since it is such an extensive
piece, we can encounter it in a variety of ways -- indeed, as we are walking
around looking at other works, we may re-encounter her work several times
and from several differernt POV's, distances, angles, etc.


   

As to the next question: What does a ready made have to do with its cultural
                         political, social, and artistic context?
                        
Clearly when we encounter something that is from *our* culture, we recognise
it for what it is immediately. But, imagine someone from Mongolia who doesn't
recognise the objects in the work "Red Zone" (Old Spice, Ozarka, and wrapper).
The water bottle might be a recognisable object, but unless they were used
to the cultural "need" to disguise one's normal body odors, they would 
have little chance of figuring out what the Old Spice stick deoderant was
nor its cultural significance. Indeed they might (based on the other two
objects) think that it was something to eat. 

Also, for the most part the works do not display any significant political
context; with the obvious example of "destitute black woman". In general, 
political aspects require the use of specific images or words that would
be "picked up" as having political commentary. One of my print works
consisted of over 30 posters of Arnold Schwartenegge after he became
Governor of California, the sub-text on it read "Never Question the
Authorities". A similar work of prints by John Hitchcock entitled
"Frenzy Feeds Addiction"  

    [His web site with video]
    [Images]
    [Gallery notes]

Clearly indicate the juxtapostion of consumerism/consumption, war, native
american themes, as well as government surplus foodstuffs. These images
can not help but be *interpreted* in terms of politics or at the very
least sociological issues.


   

As to the next question: Which of the ready mades do you think were 
                         the most evocative intellectually and/or 
conceptually? Why and how, and what was evoked? 

Clearly the most outrageous exhibit (and therefore the most intellectually
stimulating) was "the Egg-Timer and the Moose" (my title for the work). 
The juxtaposition of then moose with the two objects that normally would
be associated with the kitchen makes no sense what-so-ever. It is clear
that the work tends to the absurd. Compare this with the "still lifes"
of which there are several "Glass of Water with paper" (on table), 
"floppy disk, with coffee cup and jacket" (my titles for these works) are
mundane to the point of banality. And thus, the least intellectually
stimulating. This brought up the point for us to actually wonder are
these part of the exhibit or not? What if the janitor comes in and 
throws out the coffee cup (or in the case of "Red Zone" throws out the
water bottle?
  


   

As to the next question:  Which of the ready mades were the most sensually 
                          and/or spacially interactive? How do ready mades 
evoke the empty space around it? Which was the most successful? 

This goes back to how invasive into *our* space the work is. Lee's
piece and the "fire hat on fire extinguisher" (my title for the work),
invade our space directly and forcefully, thus they are more sensual
than the still lifes. The floor pieces involve us in that we have to walk
around them. In keeping up with the ideas initiated by Eva Hesse, they 
could have been installed so that it would be *impossible* to avoid 
contact or even disturbing them. In a similar way, the contrast of 
colour presented in my "Judd/Flavin/Brancusi" could have been starker 
had i extended it out into the space where people had to walk over it.
Or even the extent of Eva Hesse's works where it is almost inevitable
that someone will damage or knock over a piece of the work. If we can
imagine a space and having a guard standing by, then people come in
and knock over pieces of the work -- they are naturally upset (well
some of them would be upset, others would dismiss this *stuff* as
just a bunch of junk). But then the guard re-builds (eg, the verticle
column ala Brancusi) and explain: Oh, it's supposed to do that. This
would probably leave the visitor mystified. And then a contrasting
piece where you were *not* supposed to knock it over, but it would
nearly be impossible to not do so. The effect might be quite 
interesting.


   

As to the next question: My favourite?

I think the tennis balls is a great idea (along with the bottle caps)
and that a *lot* more could be done with those ideas. Naturally, i like
my own work (we do art because we enjoy doing it -- one of the four
main tennets of art). 

Also, "Destitute Black Woman" could be pushed a *lot* further. In one 
case, we had four or five art students -- all dressed in jeans 
and looking pretty destitute, out smoking and looking down and out 
-- along with Don Taylor (painting/printmaking professor). The 
photograph was so strong that the dean was quite upset. Since 
that time, everyone of the "destitute" artists in the photo has 
gone on to great things in art.

Also the burnt ruller and packing crate have great potential and a 
certain charm to them. All of the still lifes could be improved, but
then it's just our first shot at it, now isn't it? 

Time will tell; it always does.

-- Frank.