Lichtenstein

Kelly

Newman

Mondrain

Stella

Noland

Brown

Louis

Barnett Newman

Morris Louis

Kenneth Noland

Frank Stella

Roger Brown

Ellsworth Kelly

Mark Rothko

Piet Mondrian

Roy Lichtenstein

yay final project idea!

The conversation about weak ties and strong ties and how they are created and things like that has sparked an idea for my final project. It kind of came out of the comment that was made about how those not familiar with the art world would be intimidated by places such as Mess Hall. It'll be a sort of DIY getting to know certain artists by turning their work into a paint by numbers that people will color in and sign as that artist, thereby forging a weak tie between those unfamiliar with modern artists and the art community.

Above I have posted the paint by numbers that I have created for people to complete and sign. I will then scan the colored images and post them as well. I'm hoping to find some more images to work with, but taking out the color and turning them into something as simple as a paint by numbers is somewhat difficult with a lot of work, any suggestions of artists or works would be appreciated!

The idea remains forging weak ties to the art world for those who are not usually involved through utilizing a DIY mentality. I am hoping that through this those involved will in the future when confronted with work such as what they colored in, they will feel a connection to it and be able to better relate to it and therefore the contemporary art world at large.

If any of you are interested in participating I can e-mail you the image you'd like to color and then you can print it and scan it or generally find a way to send back the completed thing for me to post here. Although, the point of the project is more for those not yet involved in the art world, at least not as much as those in this seminar but if you'd like to do it for fun anyways I am not opposed.

Interview with Luis Maldonado!

This interview was conducted by e-mail in May 2007, between myself and Luis Maldonado. His branch of It's All About Things was in Chicago at the Three Walls Gallery during March 2007, which you can read more about below.

What are your influences? What movements or artists inspire your work and how do you see yourself fitting into art history and the contemporary art world?

I usually don't like to state what artists or movements are my favorites. It's too difficult and there are so many that have influenced me. I would like to start by mentioning that the history of creating things (The term “art” is so recent and problematic that it might not be a proper term to use. Maybe the term “the creating of things” should be used) since the cave era until its recent time is what influences me. I am really drawn to the history of how people create. I prefer to stay open to all forms of creating. Have it be architecture or even painting. I would favor the way an anthropologist looks at art., as to study how someone creates and why, rather than choosing a side. What also catches my attention is the differences that people claim are “good” art.

Some of my major influences are sometimes not even artists. For example: James Clifford who has written many essays based on the history of collecting art and its problems within culture. C.B. Macpherson an expert on possessive individualism and Susan Stewart who has written many essays on “longing” are also considered important within the project It’s All About Things “IAAT”.

As a person that studies and creates things I believe it’s very important to look at the larger world. The art market and its history play very important roles of course within my structure. What stands out to me as a problem within say the “contemporary art world” is how reality is created. Much of the art market is relied upon myth making. The stories and descriptions is what drives the market value up. I really question how art is perceived in a market that treats art as if it were commodity. Since I find this to be a problem I actually use it as part of the work process.

In your artist statement you talk about the title "It's All About Things" being influenced by Heidegger's essay "The Origin of the Work of Art". How does his philosophy play a role in your work? Are there other philosophies that are linked to your practice?

I would like to stress that the overall essay is more important than just specifics. In Heidegger’s essay he uses the term thing as a reference to art. What struck me when I first read the essay was how he was approaching this heavy term. Since the word was founded in the West it has been carefully placed on a pedestal and only used for specific reasons. I actually found the essay very amusing because the term thing is used by “common” people to describe basically anything and Heidegger is seriously using the term within the entire essay.

Within the project IAAT it’s a must to stay open to different value systems that people put on things. Within the Heidegger essay I feel a sense of openness that is hard to find in essays that are written around the same time. During the modern era and even up to now many people have written the parameters for what makes a work of art, but it’s usually very strict. Within Heidegger’s essay it seems very open to me and liberating.

For my work I like to read what comes my way. Some days I might read Marx, but then on others I might be reading Hegel or even essays on biology. The philosophy behind my project is very muddy because of the influences in my life. Have it be working at Christie’s auction house or even where I have lived.

"Barter Days" seemed to be a lot about the value of the "thing", so what kind of process do you go through to decide the value of both what a visitor is offering and what they would get in return, since the final exchange is determined by you? What does value mean in terms of art? Also in conjunction with this, since all the bartered objects become art, how do you define art?

Determining the value of the thing is always difficult for me because there is no set plan because the potential client is always different. I also have to disagree on the idea that I have final say because it’s a mutual agreement on both sides to produce the final result. If the person on the other side of me does not like the agreement then they don’t have to participate. They can walk away if they choose so. Part of the project at the same time is to cause this want or crave and to see what I can get for the thing. Participation can be very basic for example: walking into and around the exhibition space. But of course I want something more; I want people to want something and to give up something personal at the same time. The things received in exchange are placed in a space and treated as if works of “art”. I call it art, but other people might not which is all part of the game. There are many people I know will not call the objects I have received “art”. It’s all subjective! I believe that the experience at an event sponsored by IAAT can be art. I believe this interview can be art. The final draft of the blog made by you can be a work of art by collaboration with IAAT. It’s really endless; it can go on forever it seems. What depends on the parameters is the rules that I create and then try to break those exact rules that makes the things art.

How do people seem to respond to your work, since it deviates from the traditional expectations of an art exhibit? Also why is a participatory structure behind work like "Barter Days" so important to contemporary art practice? Does it add something that is lacking in the traditional art world?

Usually the overall response is open, but with a lot of questions. Many have asked me why this? And I usually respond why not. I don’t think what I am doing is new. What I feel I am doing, is gathering these particular worlds then combining it into something else. It’s basically sifting and then mixing!

When looking back at say Fluxus and much of the “art” of the nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies the viewer participation was a necessity. The viewer at that time was thought about in a way never before. The viewer was believed to be part of the art. Say if someone walked around a Judd sculpture, the viewer actually finished the piece physically. I believe that to be a powerful statement within the art world. Since knowing this, I am very interested in giving the viewer an experience and to make people feel needed. I feel that the traditional art world lacks the devotion to bring people to participate in something. Usually it’s about the artistic genius that is portrayed within traditional art. To have some kind of communication that is deeper is what I am looking for. I don’t want to seem like a romantic because there are limitations within the term art, but I believe in these experiences can actually influence people to want change. And why can’t art do that? I believe that people that come across great art experiences no matter what kind of level, it can produce a feeling of wanting something higher within humanity. When people feel these emotions then true change happens.

Luis Maldonado "It's All About Things" critique

Upon entering Luis Maldonado’s “It’s All About Things” branch “Barter Days”, at Chicago’s Three-Walls Gallery, the viewer, although you can hardly call him that he really is more of a potential collector, is cheerily greeted by the artist himself who is in the role of the auctioneer. Passing through the doorway the visitor finds himself in a compartmentalized space that hardly resembles an art gallery, but that is precisely the point. Instead the space is divided in parts based on a real auction house. “The point behind these galleries is to act as how rooms for “things” which are later exchanged for within the store.”[1] First one enters the auction floor where all of the collectors’ items, i.e. Maldonado’s artwork, are displayed for the newly arrived collector. It is also here where the artist wanders, microphone in hand, emceeing the event, pointing out important spaces to the visitor and alerting them to the “things” available for barter. To the left is the Lounge with magazines and seating available where Maldonado offers refreshments in the form of wine and water as any auction house would. Directly to the right is the Private Viewing Room where a potential collector can view their “thing” of choice independent of the countless other “things” available. In the back corner the “Barters Received Research Center” displays the objects that Maldonado has received through bartering with past visitors complete with description and display instructions.

The process seems simple; the visitor finds a “thing” that they want and barters what they have to offer to Maldonado for it. As banal as a trade may seem, being involved in this process is exactly what gets to the heart of the artist’s intention and reveals the underlying signification of “Barter Days”. It is about a person’s interaction with “things”. This is apparent as the visitor enters the auction floor and is confronted with a plethora of dioramas, paintings, and drawings, which quickly becomes disorienting making it difficult to filter all the information that the eyes are receiving. There is a conglomeration of everything from tasteful abstract painting, to serene landscapes, to seasonal paintings and political drawings all displayed in close proximity to each other, thereby clouding meaning. But this does not pose a problem because the show is not about individual works. Once the decision is made to barter the confusion seems to somewhat dissapate, and now it becomes a hunt for the perfect item to add to your collection. This is another simple task raising deeper issues. Now the thought goes towards the “concept of the … value systems put on objects”[2].

We are very used to the monetary value of the “thing”, but how can the exchange value of that same “thing” be determined in terms of the seemingly random objects we have brought in to trade? Most of us go into a gallery knowing we do not have the means to become a collector, but how do we react when the art is within our reach? It turns out that the value of what the collector has put on the table is determined more by sentimental value and the story accompanying it than by any aesthetic standards, which is somewhat a result of the types of object that visitors were bringing in[3]. In fact upon being presented with the items that my sister had to barter with, he insisted upon hearing the origin and stories behind each object to help him decided their worth within his auction house. Don’t worry if you did not think ahead and bring something with you, there is also the option of trading a live karaoke performance, which is videotaped, for one of the “things” on the auction floor, provided that it is deemed worthy by the auctioneer. Luis Maldonado “wants to illustrate that art can be accessible to all and make a statement on the attitude of exclusivity and status that dominates the art market”[4] and I found him to reach his goal with “Barter Days”.

It is as though Maldonado becomes the art market, the entity that determines what is considered good, or more accurately creates his own art world with new rules and norms. Within this world the average Joe who is not part of that exclusive, elite group of buyers and critics is invited to join and participate[5]. An interesting shift in the common interaction between an artist and a visitor occurs because usually it is the visitor who determines whether they find what is on display to be good and the artist is the one who is being judged. Another reversal of the concept of the gallery occurs through the dual roles that both Maldonado and the participant play in this transaction, that of both artist and collector. This is because when an exchange is accepted by Maldonado, he collects the items that were given to him in exchange for the art that he made as the artist, thereby making him play both roles. In return the visitor becomes a collector through their acquisition of Maldonado’s work, but also becomes the artist because ultimately what was given to Luis will be placed in a permanent collection that will later be shown as works of art in another gallery.

I find this process very effective in providing a reversal of roles within the viewing and buying of art. It is unlike any typical art show and definitely makes you think about how art is valued and how you relate to it. Through the bartering process I discovered in myself a hesitancy to assume that what my sister and I were attempting to exchange for a painting was enough or worth enough to convince Maldonado to accept the trade. I thought about what I was looking at in a different way than I would look at a Picasso that I could never even touch, let alone own, unless I wanted a ride in a police car. It oddly created a sort of anxiety due to the knowledge that what we gave him would be considered art in the future and the fear of insulting him with the idea that a squishy tooth from an ex-boyfriend and the Shakespeare charm broken off of a keychain from Stratford-upon-Avon were worthy of his collection. This is why I was very surprised to hear that Luis had once been offered someone’s dirty socks and other sorts of “trash” by previous visitors. Although it seems to me that these might be the people that didn’t quite understand the aim of the project. This anxiety is quickly lifted when we discovered that these objects had enough of a background and were acceptable. To me this was where Maldonado’s intention became very clear. Although we did not have the monetary means to become collectors of art, we could still be a part of this exclusive club, even if only within this specific art world.

I was also very interested by the three interdependent elements of “Barter Days”, namely the artist, the audience, and the “things”. Without any one of these elements, this show could not have existed, or more precisely could not have been experienced as it was meant to be. One could walk in and look at the “things” interpreting them as they would the aforementioned Picasso and read the provided artist statement and know what the show was meant to be, but until it is fully experienced it cannot be completely comprehended. Within these elements an extensive dialogue is necessary for the three to work together. These features of the show make me view it as a performance piece based not on the “things” being bartered, but on the interaction and the event. This is apparent from the initial introduction to the space by Luis as he paces the auction floor with a microphone that is wholly unnecessary in a space so small, to the story telling that accompanies the negotiation, to the final handshake and photograph that is taken commemorating the exchange. This whole process also interests me because it introduces a relatively unknown element to the gallery: the personal and comfortable relationship between the buyer and the artist. It seems as though usually a very impersonal relationship exists in such cases even if an interaction occurs. This leaves the involved visitor with an extra sense of investment in Luis Maldonado’s project, which I believe to be important to the ultimate message behind the project: we can all play a part in the art world. I left with not only a new experience but also a feeling that I was now involved in the art market beyond the position as a passive viewer.

---

[1] Maldonado, Luis R. “It’s All About Things” Artist Statement.

[2] Maldonado.

[3] Stabler, Bert. “Giving it All Away.” The Chicago Reader. March 21, 2007.

[4] Vogt, Jenifer. “It’s All About Things.” The Scarsdale Inquirer; p. 15.

[5] Vogt 17.