[NetBehaviour] Retraction: Andre

[james jwm-art net]

Laurence, you probably think I'm bullshitting now, but no:

(i'm probably only trying to prove i'm not the prejudiced asshole that
i think you think i am. I sometimes write things that are not my
position and assume people will see that.)

>From my limited knowledge of Carl Andre, and from experiencing Equivalent
VII in the Tate Modern, I literally agree with Alan. The bricks (that
they are) were situated in a massive room (an old power station no less)
and I enjoyed their textural qualities (blame Da Vinci for that), with
this enjoyment strengthened by their notoriety in the mass media.

I was attempting to question why 2000 9/11's, being what it is, should
be elevated as a serious work... (but the attempt got mixed up with a
misinterpretation of Michaels comments)...

--]
   I expected some of the references, but the reference to the reading
   of names was not one I expected (because of my detachment) and so
   surprised me.
[--

..(2000 911's) Being what it is, is similiar to Equivalent VII, in that
it requires context (I was wrong earlier obviously - and half knew it),
and it invites speculation and makes references - but only providing you
know the context, and perhaps the full context must come spelled out
from the Artist first (for me atleast it must).

I certainly was not disgruntled with the 2000 911's email.

But the work is less important than the talk that arises from it.

And that does not really say much does it, considering the trouble it's
caused - though that trouble is nothing compared with 911.

Continue ignoring me, I prefer that.


On 11/9/2007, "Alan Sondheim" <sondheim at panix.com> wrote:

>
>
>Andre is interesting in this context, I think of his work, like Buren's,
>as a gathering of the environment, with Buren there's more of a null
>point, painting degree zero, with Andre there's something about the
>materials and the leverage in the landscape, urban, gallery, whatever;
>2000 9/11 references the cultural to the point of drop-out - first, the
>number killed with in the 2000s, second it occurred the year after the
>degree of repetition, third, if anyone remembers, one, two, many Vietnams,
>fourth, nuclear and terrorist proliferation are increasingly part of the
>landscape, fifth, the repetition is related to the reading of names going
>on at this very moment, sixth, the whole thing is granite/tombstone in a
>double mourning, for victims but also for an inescapable loss of innocence
>tied to the very physics of our universe. This isn't Jiri Kolar's apple.
>- Alan
>_______________________________________________
>NetBehaviour mailing list
>NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>