NYTimes.com: It tickles Alexander Melamid, a 69-year-old conceptual artist and provocateur, that his Chelsea landlord has printed his name on the building’s tenant listing board as “Melamid’s Healing Shrine.” But so much amuses Mr. Melamid, a Russian-born painter with a ready cackle and a fondness for bear hugs, whose past provocations have included deep-frying photographs of artists like Andy Warhol, Picasso and Marcel Duchamp.
8 comments:
Isn't Malmid contradicting himself in his own work? I completely understand his concerns about a shrinking labor pool (though I think his comparisons to art as garbage/sewage are a bit much), but by making these issues known through his art, he is achieving the purpose of art: to reflect the state of humanity through creative expression. If he really believed what he was saying, wouldn't he go back to vocational school and actually become a plumber?
I love the term he created: neo-senility. And once again, he is proving his theory through his own practice; his exhibit of plumbing appliances could be seen as a re-imagination of Duchamp's Fountain, both in its content, and in its thematic questioning of the nature of art and artists.
WOW this guy is the biggest hypocrite ever, or like many other artists putting out what he calls "pollution", he is just a bit crazy. He is clearly only in the New York Times because he is putting out modern art and pounding on the current art out there. He is generalizing all art while the stuff he is putting out is actually not very original. Recycling for the sake of art is not new, in fact is has been done 10000 times, is being done now, and will be done another million times, if not more. The only this different about this guy is that he wants all art other than his own to be destroyed for the sake of his "new" artistic concept. My father is actually a painter and I think that he could benefit from recycling. If he took Melamid's painting and used that canvas to then make real art, that WOULD be a good thing.
I actually had to read this twice because there is so much going on here and Melamid's ideas are both confusing and different from anything else I've ever really heard before. It doesn't get me fired up or annoyed to read Melamid's contractions about how art is wasteful and modern art is pointless, meanwhile being an artist. I think it's just funny and strange perspective for an artist to have. The article begins by stating that Melamid is a man who is amused by a lot of things, and I think his unusual attitude just goes along with the weird amusement he sees in life and art. Why can't an artist openly recognize that what he does is less valuable than plumbing? This is not my own perspective, but I think it's sort of cool to read about an artist like this.
Like Sydney, I actually found it really interesting to read what Melamid's ideas. I didn't feel angered by his words either. I think that a lot of people are going into the arts because it's an easier way out of the "real world". A lot of us are always saying "oh, I would never want to be a plumber" "I would never want to be a lawyer" "I would never want to be confined to a cubicle" but we forget that we need people with those jobs. We need plumbers because they make our daily life so much better. We need lawyers to defend the innocent and help people get the justice they deserve. We need those people with cubicle jobs because they make an impact on our life. Most of the time, art is selfish. Initially, it's a person saying these are my thought and my emotions and my life that I want everyone to see. Of course art is beneficial to the world and we need it, but not everyone needs to be what we define as an "artist". You know, a plumber is an artist in their trade, as is a lawyer, and a cubicle worker. I think everyone and every job is just as important as the next and we should not criticize him for being a hypocrite. These are his thoughts and if he wants to be an artist, let him be an artist. I mean, who are we to judge? I have a lot of friends who started out studying something like engineering or English and now they are artists, costumers, performers, etc. And then I have friends who studied art and work in an office. I think it's up to us to say what is right for us and even if we don't agree with what someone is saying, we should say that we disagree, we shouldn't call them names. That's something I need to work on too. We have our entire life to figure out who we are so even if you're 20 or 50 or 70 or maybe even 90 it's ok to day something that might be a little hypocritical... we're all still trying to figure out who we are!
Sorry, two typos:
1. what Melamid's ideas are.
2. it's ok to say something that might be a little hypocritical
This is so bizarre! Of course, as everyone else has mentioned, it is hypocritical of him to be creating art about how people should stop creating art. However, if artists are his target audience, how else is he to catch their attention? Sure, we could say that if he wants to make a difference then he himself should quit making art and go be a plumber, but all that creates is one extra plumber in the world. Melamid is trying to make specific people (artists) aware of specific problems in the world (art pollution). Although I do not agree with his statements, I think he has found the most effective way to communicate and potentially solve the problem.
This article at many times seemed like satire almost, veering into the ridiculous, often away from the subject. While some of Mr. Melamid's ideas are provocative, some are also quite silly. The most enlightening portion was in his discussion of neo-senility and the blind repetition of art. The concept of inserting depictions of plumbing into art is pending on fascinating while simultaneously not really making sense. Although he may argue there are too many artists, leading to a lack of labor, I believe there is a job shortage in the US, not a need for blue collar labor. While art is easily created, the cream, hopefully, rises to the top.
It's an interesting perspective from an economical point of view, to say that with more people entering the arts and entertainment industry, fewer vocational positions are being filled. I don't necessarily believe that. What I'm interpreting his statement as, which may not be correct, is that the life of an artist is considerably easier than that of a plumber or engineer or what have you, or that it is simply more desirable. I believe in the age-old, albeit somewhat cheesy, adage that everyone has different strong suits. Perhaps this coming generation is more of an artistic generation, but that I believe comes from the technological advancement and exposure to media of this generation. This man is older, from a time where those who worked with their hands were far more common, simply because hands were a far better and more common tool than a computer. Of course he is referring to paintings, but the concept of more artists in this generation spreads over a variety of mediums.
I agree that it is an interesting idea to explore these economic issues, but at the same time he can only do that through the means he knows: art. Which is both hypocritical and sadly ironic.
Post a Comment