The style could be applicable as editorial illustration. For all of the effort, the use of needle point didn't produce an image that takes me anywhere I haven't been. Sometimes, to soak in the ever interesting cattle culture, I attend the annual Fort Worth Stock Show and Rodeo at the Will Rogers Colosseum, across a campus from the wonderful Kimball Art Museum. "Rodeo Clown (Smokey)" and "Oil Clown (Honcho)" are incisive portraits. Is the title of the latter meant as commentary? Hmm...
What pleases me about this comment is that deprived of context, one wouldn't know that the viewer commenting had not seen a physical exhibition. It validates my hypothesis that, although "Seeing the real thing is the real thing," as Darby says in the Aphorisms, we have enough of an understanding of digital representation that we can start from the appropriate assumptions and have an aesthetic experience anyway. Obviously it helps that those viewers let you close in on individual cotton fibers.
Ok, I've never thought of it that way. I'm thinking that, in this group of works the image is clearly the main issue, so, with Darby's idea in mind, would experiencing the tactile dimension have meant that much more?
I should mention that the online museum idea is appealing. Was your hypothesis at least partly the basis of it?
Yes, of course, the tactile element almost always means more. Otherwise, a facsimile like the photos in this group would suffice. If you've seen the actual work in this group, what for you did the tactile element add to the experience?
I have a hard rule about not writing about art that I haven't seen in person. I'm not sure I could elucidate the difference you're asking me, reasonably, to describe. It has to do with how I know what qualifies as true language about my experience of being with the work.
This may not qualify as a compliment, but Curcio strikes me as at least as good as the much more chic Hernan Bas, who's very mainstream, thank you. Too bad about the (cough) toxic masculinity, though.
I'm comfortable with your comment and have no desire to argue. Indeed, I appreciate your compliment as well as taking the time to look at the work. However, can you point out wherein this toxic masculinity lies? I ask this strictly to inform my own sense of how my work can be interpreted against its intention.
I was being sarcastic. It seems practically any kind of masculinity can now be "toxic" to whoever finds it convenient to see it as such (or claim to see it as such).
You got that right. I thought there was about a 50% chance you were kidding. I've been told in the past that some of my other work is toxicly masculine, so I suppose I still have a hair trigger.
I was also alluding to, by way of contrast, the work of Bas, which is full of pretty gay boys, something which never hurt him any in terms of marketability.
Congrats on this launch. Looking forward to others in the future!
The style could be applicable as editorial illustration. For all of the effort, the use of needle point didn't produce an image that takes me anywhere I haven't been. Sometimes, to soak in the ever interesting cattle culture, I attend the annual Fort Worth Stock Show and Rodeo at the Will Rogers Colosseum, across a campus from the wonderful Kimball Art Museum. "Rodeo Clown (Smokey)" and "Oil Clown (Honcho)" are incisive portraits. Is the title of the latter meant as commentary? Hmm...
What pleases me about this comment is that deprived of context, one wouldn't know that the viewer commenting had not seen a physical exhibition. It validates my hypothesis that, although "Seeing the real thing is the real thing," as Darby says in the Aphorisms, we have enough of an understanding of digital representation that we can start from the appropriate assumptions and have an aesthetic experience anyway. Obviously it helps that those viewers let you close in on individual cotton fibers.
Ok, I've never thought of it that way. I'm thinking that, in this group of works the image is clearly the main issue, so, with Darby's idea in mind, would experiencing the tactile dimension have meant that much more?
I should mention that the online museum idea is appealing. Was your hypothesis at least partly the basis of it?
The tactile dimension almost always means more, in my experience. It's as big a difference between live music and recorded.
Yes, that hypothesis was motivating. I've been kicking around these ideas since the time I wrote this.
https://franklin.art/writing/2020/virtual-critic/
Yes, of course, the tactile element almost always means more. Otherwise, a facsimile like the photos in this group would suffice. If you've seen the actual work in this group, what for you did the tactile element add to the experience?
I have a hard rule about not writing about art that I haven't seen in person. I'm not sure I could elucidate the difference you're asking me, reasonably, to describe. It has to do with how I know what qualifies as true language about my experience of being with the work.
This is tremendous - I look forward to many more installations to enjoy from Dissident Museum. Congratulations, Franklin!
This may not qualify as a compliment, but Curcio strikes me as at least as good as the much more chic Hernan Bas, who's very mainstream, thank you. Too bad about the (cough) toxic masculinity, though.
Hi Jack,
I'm comfortable with your comment and have no desire to argue. Indeed, I appreciate your compliment as well as taking the time to look at the work. However, can you point out wherein this toxic masculinity lies? I ask this strictly to inform my own sense of how my work can be interpreted against its intention.
Cheers, David
I was being sarcastic. It seems practically any kind of masculinity can now be "toxic" to whoever finds it convenient to see it as such (or claim to see it as such).
You got that right. I thought there was about a 50% chance you were kidding. I've been told in the past that some of my other work is toxicly masculine, so I suppose I still have a hair trigger.
I was also alluding to, by way of contrast, the work of Bas, which is full of pretty gay boys, something which never hurt him any in terms of marketability.