12/31/16, 11:29am, —– museum
I’mmicrodosing today and having a blast, but JH is being a pain. He’s on his phone and being sullen. He’s wandered off somewhere, and honestly that’s fine with me — he is being a pretty shitty friend right now, and I’ve confronted him, and he’s assured me there’s nothing wrong, and this passive agression is just not something I need.
Looking at a huge comb named Untitled (Comb) by Vija Celmins (1970), which is almost exactly in line with the Lamp Bear. It says on the plaque that it’s inspired by Surrealist René Magritte.
Georg Schrimpf – Child Portrait (Peter in Sicily) (1925)
Baroquism is so confident in the world – everything in crisp detail, which is of course unrealistic as a mimic of the human gaze, but perhaps the point is that we are not mimicking the human gaze – and why would we? God’s gaze is far better, of course. Newer art is much less sure, less interested in exactly portraying a world that is not certain. While modern art is deliberate in portraying the subconscious, I’m not sure that the baroque was equally self-aware.
German expressionism and the bauhaus
socal 60s exhibit art
late 1800s american art – transcendental nature is what I know of it, and it’s very clearly, very immediately apparent. hell, I feel slightly religious just looking at these sublime colors. was sublime ever a concept applied to nature?
the baptism, julius l.stewart, (1892)
the picture as a whole not as abstract as I always tend, but the details of the portrayals of textures is gorgeous, mesmerizing. truly a master of technique. the expressions of the characters are so placid — what an odd portrayal to have of an entire culture. placid. pious. I would suffocate.
magnified pictures of google maps — the rainbow light colors, in stark, powdery detail. hyper microscope on a mechanized phenomenon of modern technology. a phenomenon of a glitch in modern technology. unexpected results from two machines. their cause is explainable by science. their aesthetic is unexplainable because there is no artist behind it. was is the world if there’s no aesthetic artist behind it? there’s no large eye. and who is the creator of that rainbow glitch of two screens? some creator? the photographer of the second screen? science? conceptual art now – how to choose which comes up on top?
chris burden – my favorite type of artist. earlier works are life-endangering performance art. a seeming recklessness and vibrancy and blasé urgency – the streaming city, so meaningless and he just decided to do it. it’s an odd turn after his previous work. I like to think of it as a continuation of the abandon, turning to some mechanical and engineering focused as this.
huge, blown up sketches or architecture – I can’t tell what the fabric is or the media or if it’s 3-d or not or if I’m simply tripping acid. it feels like the lights are flickering above me and yet they are not.
perhaps I’m not quite normal right now, but these scenes seem real; I can barely deconstruct them into their technical parts
I’m enjoying myself acting slightly odd and letting the museum guards act a little cautious around me, hovering behind me, checking that I am indeed staying behind the line on the floor.
one watercolor is amazing in its technicality; as I walk further and further it seems more and more real, a silver liquid mercury depiction of mountains.
another, nothing but a series of subtley shaded black squares, seem velvety and textured, soft and woven pieces of satin
a cave opening or a rip if aluminun foil, from the inside
annoyed me at first. what a cop-out: paintings of nothing that inspire the viewer to reflect. it seemed like a poetic way of saying: art so boring and nondescript that the viewer begins to daydream. reading a bit more helped me question my initial jump-thought. a quote of mclaughlin’s: “asian paintings made me wonder who I was. Western painters, on the other hand, tried to tell me who they were.” perhaps this is the source of all the asian-american conflict: why is my generation struggling so hard for an identity, my parents must say.
“I want to communicate only to the extent that the painting will serve to induce or intensify the viewer’s natural desire for contemplation without benefit of a guiding principle.”
In a way, this is a sort of extension of the intention of surrealism: to explore the mind. but this is not recording the mind or exploring it, rather, this is allowing the mind to wander, but unfocused and unrecorded, unwatched and undocumented. it is peaceful in this release or responsibility; creative energy can dissipate, is allowed to do so.
douglas heubler, the plane of flat gray color represented above (1977)
I love this! this flat denial of reality, in word form. to anyone not quite there, it’s almost true
allen ruppersberg, untitled (2016), silkscreened boxes
“I’ll keep on loving you” – what must it be like to have your world be a person?
carter mull – pacifier
I just like this, aesthetically, and acid-wise. perhaps look at this sober and re-see
friedrich kunath – we could be looking for the same thing
sunset colors, drawn lines on textures, but a white man fucks it up