17 December 2012


post script to Habeas Corpus:

Normally, I never criticize the artist, but as a practicing  painter, I look at the work itself, which is fair game. 

There are loads of Picasso's which I loath but many which I adore… ditto for Cezanne, and even Monet, but also other favorites of mine; Philip Guston and Ian Fairweather. Thus the conundrum when it comes to Abromovic:
How does one look at her work critically when her work is her person (elle-meme)? Which is which? What procedure is there? What is the protocol for taking a cool and objective look at what it is that she really does?

1 comment:

  1. I would add that Abramovic is reflection of our narcissistic culture of which Warhol was most certainly a precursor. Abramovic has taken her 15 minutes and is running with it. Still, she clearly challenges the very definition of art; it could be argued that her work is simply reflection of our times...and isn't that part of art's job description? Similarly, there’s the advent of Gonzo journalism - the art of inserting the writer into the story, until ultimately the writer is the story.
    Thanks for the thought provoking posts Mr Coffey...