“Big Red Book Sculpture” not art
There are some things in the world that are not art, and have zero aesthetic appeal:
- Clay jars filled with the artist’s shit which explode from the high concentrations of methane gas produced over time
- Urinals stolen from pubs and placed sideways, signed
- Commemorative letters made from stacks of books
So, it is with great pleasure that I introduce you to the “Big Red C” book sculpture:
I’ve tried to enhance its appearance and highlight the primary characteristic of the piece, which is its resemblance to the letter C. This torrid waste of resources is being headed by Art Department Chair Buzz Spector:
More than 800 works of literature and arts and humanities scholarship at Cornell add up to a single letter in a new installation by book artist and Department of Art chair Buzz Spector. The structure, “Big Red C,” is Spector’s first major book installation in New York City. [I]t will be reconstructed on the Ithaca campus in April in Olin Library.
The insanity of this “art” is clear from Daniel Aloi’s quote from Spector about his piece:
“The weight of the books above pushes the air out and it shifts,” Spector says. “My first big piece, when I finished it, was 68 inches tall. When the [Chicago] Tribune review came out, they said it was 60 inches high.”
Try and puzzle that one out. The weight of the books above what pushes what air out and what shifts? The whole project is complete nonsense and reminds me of any of the solipsist, dadaist, and other nonsensical philosophical and artistic movements whose core values propound only human insanity.
| This entry was posted on Saturday, January 13th, 2007 at 1:19 pm and is tagged with buzz spector, art department chair, daniel aloi, humanities scholarship, ithaca campus, commemorative letters, methane gas, complete nonsense, chicago tribune, arts and humanities, clay jars, artistic movements, dadaist, aesthetic appeal, c book, letter c, book artist, urinals, resemblance, insanity. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback. |
17 Responses to ““Big Red Book Sculpture” not art”
Leave a Reply
I don’t get it… it’s not red at all. I miss the days when art involved people making fancy paintings and sculptures (mind you, I wasn’t born then).
I’m reminded of the following quote by Robert Rauschenberg: “I really feel sorry for people who think things like soap dishes or mirrors or Coke bottles are ugly, because they’re surrounded by things like that all day long, and it must make them miserable.”
Also, your post is a much better example of solipsism than Spector’s sculpture. You claim that the piece is not only bad or ineffective art but not art at all, and a scandalous waste of resources to boot. Yet there is no evidence that you have made the slightest effort to figure out what the artist was trying to do. You reject it because it doesn’t fit with your preconceived notion of what art is. Sounds like solipsism to me.
glad you have this kind of time on your hands to denounce what you can’t understand, albeit amusingly. keep up the philistinism, doood
What the artist was “trying to do” doesn’t matter if the end result is devoid of value. Values of art which allow anything to become art dissolve the distinction between a work of art and a collection of everyday components.
Paint is an everyday component; what you do with it is whats important.
piling up books is an “installation” now? my son has a tinker toy creation, i mean installation, i hope the cornell chronicle will be featuring it soon.
Values of art which allow anything to become art dissolve the distinction between a work of art and a collection of everyday components.
I can understand this concern. Certainly, blurring the boundaries between art and “the real world” was a goal of many artists in the tradition Spector works in. But of course the notion that anything could conceivably be (or be included in) a artwork doesn’t entail the belief that everything is art. Very few people act as if this is the case. We understand that the BRBS is a work of art because it is presented as such, because Spector is an artist, because it resembles other (presumed) works of art, and so forth. Of course, much of this involves educating yourself, something that far exceeds the needs of a smug, self-indulgent blog “rant”.
And if you thing that the status of an oil painting as art is something that is obvious, immediate and given, you’re wrong. The notion that oil painting is a Fine Art and flower arranging is merely craft isn’t something genetically hard-wired into our brains. Its something we pick up as part of (our) culture.
I have some understanding of the book as art movement, and although not completely jazzed by this installation, I have been rather wowed by how thoroughly Cornell’s administration is supporting it. Some of what you say, or at least the spirit behind it, resonates with me. But I am indeed, sadly, from the Ah Lovely! school of criticism; therefore I must point out the cultural implications of a large, government-subsidized institution funding an art installation produced from books. Freedom isn’t free. This installation is the price you pay.
“We understand that the BRBS is a work of art because it is presented as such, because Spector is an artist, because it resembles other (presumed) works of art, and so forth.”
So, it’s art because the artist is famous, the presentation fits a preconceived standard, and because it fits the contemporary trend? What the hell does any of that have to do with artistic value? It’s still ugly, easy to make, and requires very little talent. Art doesn’t require context or reputation to be art, one should be able to look at it alone and be impressed. This is just a pile of books.
I never said that it was a good work of art, merely that I see no purpose in doubting its status as art. If all art is good, then phrases like “bad art” become worthless or obscure. Many traditional-style paintings are ugly, easy to make, etcetera. You claim that “art doesn’t require context or reputation to be art”. And yet I don’t see what the alternative is. Many man-made objects–furniture, automobiles, books–are beautiful and involve skillfull making, and yet are not considered art. Why is that?
The thing I find confusing about this artwork is the big red “C” floating in front of the books. Does it look like this in person, or has the photo of the installation been altered in some way?
I hope that’s sarcasm, because the big red C is obviously photoshopped…
Never was the color red associated with Buzz Spector’s sculpture until this blog was scripted. You guys should know that true wisdom comes from making INFORMED observations. I see the purpose in this installation was missed on practically everyone here. Too bad.
This article is absolutely ridiculous. I meant the part about the author claiming that the only works of art that actually qualify as art are the ones of which he or she approves.
Now, personally, I don't particularly want to see a gallery full of poo in jars, lol, but I think the old adage about beauty being in the eye of the beholder is pretty accurate. What is beautiful to some may be wholly unappealing to others. The important thing, I believe, is to tell the truth in art, to speak something true into the world. Then, it will be beautiful to SOMEONE. Though not everyone.
Oh, and I believe the quote about the air and the shifting refers to the small amount of air between the pages of the books, which would be pushed out from the books as more weight is added atop them, making the structure settle and perhaps shrink a little.
I don’t think liking a piece or disliking it has anything to do with if it’s art or not. I don’t like the works of Gauguin, and yet, he was still an artist.
Thing to remember is that Buzz Specter is presumably a Book artist, working in a long tradition of book art. The fact that he is affiliated with a university gives him scope to do works that are a bit more academic. I only know a little bit about book art, was actually doing some of my first research on it when i happened onto your blog. But one of the major themes you pick up in the field immediately is the Question of what qualifies a work as “Book Art”. Does it have to have pages you can page through, or can you walk through them as you would through a room? (I’ve seen a walk-in novel and its pretty neat!) Does it have to resemble a book? Does it have to close like a book? Does it have to be made of old books or at least feature paper? Does it have to lead you through a story line with a beginning-tension-end narrative, even though all novels don’t?
It’s a pretty diverse field. Simple as Specter’s installation seems, it pretty much touches on all the questions posed in the genre. It might not agree with some peoples traditional idea of art, but maybe the question you should rather be asking is what you think art is?
“R. Mutt” and other Dada works like “This is not a Pipe” were, among others, explorations of this exact question. It explores the way we attach words and meaning to things and by implication also how we decide that something is or isn’t art. Does it have to be something that goes with your furniture or can it merely be something that challenges the way you think? Can it be both?
The point in “R. Mutt” (the urinal you refer to) wasn’t necessarily to make an “artwork”. There were a lot more politics and processes involved than just merely smacking something against a wall to pee off the gallery owner (and apparently even a blogger generations down the line… It seems like Dada managed to do even more than it set out to!)
Perhaps you measure the “artiness” of a work on some scale of aesthetics.
Would you venture to say that an IDEA can be aesthetically pleasing? I wonder if the aesthetics in an idea would be measured in complexity or simplicity?
Anyhow. Thanks for the link.