I'll keep it short: imagine that one afternoon the people of New York were all of different monochromatic. What kind of picture would that be if you followed and recorded the people of the city for an hour in the afternoon or evening. What a colorful picture that would be. It would be like a Richter picture. However, despite its obvious beauty, it would say nothing, absolutely nothing, about the people - and even less about the town. Which ones would have met, what would they have said to each other, had they gone their separate ways or stayed together? In that sense there is no, really no information in a Richter picture. To speak about an empty picture as an art historian means to give information that the art historian himself brings into the world. From now on, the image is devalued, just an object that creates an opinion. And in the next step, the gallery owner comes along and devalues the art historian because he exchanges the picture for money. At the end the artist comes and says it's a pity that everyone only talks about the money and nobody about the picture. It should be clear to everyone that we really have to change the way art is viewed.
Olaf, thank you for your keen observation and well perceived statement. The sense of isolation is heightened here, Alienation from the form itself sits upon the Experts ambition to ascend to godly heights. I have seen Molesworth before in her California milieu. I totally agree. It disgusts me. Art is just a commodity, or an imagined projection upon which these value bestowers seek out their fantasy of superior self existence by devaluation of the other.
Really strong questions and great discussion with Benjamin, thank you.
wonderful..but why wasn't the video available ? feel so much is missed in the great dialogue
I'll keep it short: imagine that one afternoon the people of New York were all of different monochromatic. What kind of picture would that be if you followed and recorded the people of the city for an hour in the afternoon or evening. What a colorful picture that would be. It would be like a Richter picture.
However, despite its obvious beauty, it would say nothing, absolutely nothing, about the people - and even less about the town. Which ones would have met, what would they have said to each other, had they gone their separate ways or stayed together? In that sense there is no, really no information in a Richter picture.
To speak about an empty picture as an art historian means to give information that the art historian himself brings into the world. From now on, the image is devalued, just an object that creates an opinion. And in the next step, the gallery owner comes along and devalues the art historian because he exchanges the picture for money.
At the end the artist comes and says it's a pity that everyone only talks about the money and nobody about the picture.
It should be clear to everyone that we really have to change the way art is viewed.
Olaf, thank you for your keen observation and well perceived statement. The sense of isolation is heightened here, Alienation from the form itself sits upon the Experts ambition to ascend to godly heights. I have seen Molesworth before in her California milieu. I totally agree. It disgusts me. Art is just a commodity, or an imagined projection upon which these value bestowers seek out their fantasy of superior self existence by devaluation of the other.
12:40 to skip the long intro
Some of Richters paintings remind me of Monet's garden