Tool For Paralyzed Artists

Eyewriter

The Couch

Dire Straits "Walk of Life"

Cool Artist Alexa Meade

http://www.alexameade.com/about.html

Very Interesting

http://www.adamfrank.com/index.html

Marina Abramovic Review at the MOMA

    I don't get it. I don't like it. I don't consider it as requiring talent. I'm sorry but I cannot consider two people staring at each other good art. That's called the staring game and you play it when your a kid at school, you don't display it as revolutionary, amazing thought provoking performance artwork worthy of being at the MOMA! Come on seriously. I am sure that I will hear some crap for not thinking that this is a ground-breaking art movement started by her and this show is one of the best collections of her work.

    Now, that being said, I can appreciate it for other reasons. To have the courage, and stamina that these performers were required to have to let thousands of people stare at them naked while remaining still, and emotionless, was impressive. But is it art? I think of it more as an interesting social experiment. Specifically the walking between the two naked people. I found it very fascinating watching people's interaction with the two performers and which way they would face, and how they first approached them. 

    The Superbowl style coverage of the staring contest on the second floor I found to be a little overkill, and was just amazed at people's strange attraction and fascination with the performance. While I personally may not consider this kind of stuff quality art, I suppose it has it's place in the world. I even though I did not like the exhibit, it was clearly effective and thought provoking, which I believe is the point. 

    I would have to say it was a successful show overall. It made people look and think, and feel uncomfortable. It walked the line of American social taboos, and made strong visual statements, and that is art.

Whitney Biennial Review

    When I go to a prestigious museum such as the Whitney for their Biennial show featuring a reported collection of memorable, good, past works from other Biennials, I would expect to see some pretty impressive art. This was not the case however. What I unfortunately saw was an appalling mix of garbage. I am only speaking about the sculpture in this case, and new media work at the show. I did not have enough time to look at all the paintings and 2D work.

    Are my expectations too high? Should I be expecting less from this new type of media based art? I really don't think so because there is so much potential, and I have seen cool stuff online so I know it exists. Maybe I am just too impatient and intolerant of the cheap, lazy, unimaginative and boring trend of making some nonsensical video/film and then having it just projected against a white wall. Can these artists not think of more visually intriguing and creative ways of displaying and projecting their videos? I typically won't spend more than fifteen seconds at any piece without any physical presence beyond the light projected on  a wall. But what do I know, that was apparently the point. Charlie Finch of artnet who reviewed the same show said "This is not only the greatest of Whitney Biennials, it is the greatest show ever produced by the Whitney Museum." Click here for the full article.

    Of the maybe four new media artists that presented some form of sculptural element or other substantive quality to their work, only two of them were slightly interesting. But only one of them was documented on the Whitney website with photographs so that I could better recall what the piece looked like, (since of course you can't take your own photos). The Bruce High Quality Foundation, which isn't even an individual artist but a group of anonymous artists, had a kinda cool piece on the fourth floor called We Like America and America Likes Us. 

    The piece projects contemporary cultural media from movies, the news and YouTube videos on the inside of the windshield of an old Ghostbusters style Cadillac ambulance/hearse. The voice-over in the piece speaks about a conflicting relationship with America as if it were a abusive or dysfunctional person. As far as being impressed by the piece, not so much, but it was pretty much one of the only ones that even stuck in my mind in the first place so, in that sense it was successful. It was just the least bad new media piece at the show in my opinion, I just don't get it.