Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
I espoused a very similar statement with regards Andy Warhol on Saturday night. Have you noticed that rarely will someone talk about their emotional attachment to a G&G or a Warhol, but will endlessly circumvent their entrepreneurial nous? Also, both Warhol and G&G have a strong Catholic element to their work - Warhol's screen tests as confessional.
I find G&G moderately diverting; Warhol annoys me endlessly. No artist is deserved of any position, in many respects, but it doesn't concern me when the odd one gets remunderation for their efforts, whether I like their efforts or not.
|
Yeah, but whereas Warhol is certainly "branded" as being the guy who repeats the images, his work is much more than that. Warhol idolized Picasso. He had several phases he went through with his art.
With Gilbert & George, what we get is the early artschool installation (video & otherwise) experiments (as Tokolosh referred to) and then in the '80s they became known for doing this one certain thing. And they've just continued to do that same thing right up until the present. Look, there's no way to get around it. No matter how much they've "varied" the work internally over the years, it's still the same damn picture when one gets right down to it with the same damn philosophy of art. It's madness.
If anything, maybe we can open up a dialogue on why we feel certain artists are more-or-less insulated from the ordinary vicissitudes of the art market.
Chuck Close is another case in point. I just don't get how this guy has branded himself and stuck around all these years. It's gotta be some in$ider crap combined with the vacuum being filled with a lack of talent because no really great artist has come along in some time and there are no groups or art movements of particular note in far too long as well.