I feel sad for those who can't understand it. Often, art is for conveying emotion. And what emotion is more universal than loss? This kind of art is literally loss.
I don't know art. I don't know how to judge art or how to define art but this story, the act behind the erasure. I get it. And I even get Kooning's motives. People are saying Robert committed vandalism by erasing it but Kooning went along with it. He didn't like it, he didn't agree with it but he understood the idea. To take something and make it into nothing. The words "I want to give you something I will miss" says it all. Kooning wanted Robert to put in the effort of erasing his art but at the same time he wanted to _feel_ the loss of the art. To experience the nothing that was made by feeling the pang of loss for his lost artpiece. I don't think it gets more abstract than that. I think it also says that Kooning also respected Rauschenberg and what it was he was trying to do. Can it really be called vandalism when Kooning took part in it?
The best comment on this work was by De Kooning himself: by giving Rauschenberg a drawing he cherished, he showed that he got it right away; he understood that the boundaries of art were being pushed to unknown territories. An older genius acknowledging a younger one...
Well he didn't really do it TO him, he did it in conjunction with his approval. De Kooning let him do it to one of his pieces because he understood the poetic value in the situation.
I like Rauschenberg too, and he is funny...but I feel you missed a crucial point. He did it as an honorable thing. He admired De Kooning and his work...that's why he chose to approach him with the project. It was a collaboration you see, nothing to do with trying to be funny or arch or clever or cheeky.
I have always been enchanted by RR act of erasing another painter's work. I will always consider this act to be at the very top of what art is supposed to be... an expression. Thank you Robert Rauchenberg. Thank you for giving us this amazing expression of art.
One of my teachers in art school pointed out that the faint lines on heavy paper which were somewhat still visible after erasing numerous practice drawings, in class, constituted a matrix whereby we could pull out more imagery as we re-re-used that paper. We used balls of white bread as erasers, which worked quite well. His name was Charles Stokes, the last of the Northwest Mystics. (Seattle, the Cornish School). A friend of mine has a personally signed Rauschenberg.
This story actually shows what a great artist De Kooning was and his deep understanding of what art is. He quickly got RR's point and gave him one of his drawing he prized most.
I uploaded it when RUclips was new to the world. I was finishing up my graduate work at Purdue University and I simply went through many of the VHS tapes they had and made things available. Some of the material I've had to take down, but there's never been a copyright claim made on this particular footage. 2007 does seem a lifetime ago!
@@svsugvcarter I was hoping for a story like that hahah. I was thinking the exact same thing, 2007 youtube was in its first steps, just had been sold to google, looking back the world was different.. Just checked your channel, congrats for making all these material available, pretty neat... im working on a scientific paper in art history, this video was extremely usefull to me. Thank you! may i ask what did you graduate in?
@@Raphaelpiano My PhD is in Rhetoric and Composition. Geoff Sirc's _The Composition of Everyday Life- draws on a number of avant-garde artists and it's in that work that I discovered Raushenberg and came to post this video. I has been used in a number of art history projects over the years as I've received notices at various times. Good luck on your project, Raphael!
I think you have it. Part of Rauschenberg's genius was in understanding that art is not merely a communique from the artist to the viewer. It involves the viewer's unique makeup, the viewer's genetic qualities, their experiences of all sorts, their connections with others, all those things that shape a person's unique perception of the world -- of every art piece they see, hear, touch, or otherwise encounter. All art is collaboration of artist's work and viewers' individiual perception.
I think its interesting how he erased a drawing that was worth almost £15,000 by a well known artist then 2 years later used his own bed as a canvas as he didn't have anything else to paint on!!!! crazy, poetic ideas from one of the greatest artists of all time!!! rest in peace Rauschenberg :-)
The truth is that "It is a very complicated story", and this is why it is art. It is not just the end product, the erased drawing with another drawing hidden in the verso...It is about why he did that, what it meant (not only to us, the spectators, but to the artist and to De Kooning himself). It is about how far you can push the boundaries of art and still call it art. If one person calls it art, and a billion others don't, well, it is still art...
I am happy to read these comments of outrage. I would much rather see that than indifference. Actually, the more a work of art outrages conventional taste, the happier I am. A non-critical, complacent response is so stagnant. I am of the "camp" which believes that the best art is not for everyone--not for most folks, actually. It's a rather snobbish attitude, but it does keep out the riff-raff.
I can tell you someone who critiques this work in an absolutely wonderful way. If you can get your hands on it, read "Name No One Man" by John Paul Ricco. It's a mind-bending, fabulous experience that forever changed my view of the blank canvas.
You might be interested to know if you like this work that just recently there were some new photographs taken with some ultra sensative camera (sorry I'm a little bit tech illiterate) that have managed to pick up some of the erased drawing, so much so that you can see the figure that Dekooning erased.
Let’s return to Rauschenberg and the ERASED DE KOONING DRAWING. In 1953, Rauschenberg visited De Kooning and asked him for one of his drawings. Rauschenberg explained he intended to erase the drawing entirely. De Kooning was shocked. But finally he gave Rauschenberg one of his best works. He said he didn’t want to make it easy for Rauschenberg. It is one of Rauschenberg’s most famous work of art.
Its especially ironic because de Kooning would reuse his canvas almost a hundred times before he finished his piece. he'd paint, erase, paint erase, over and over layer on layer until he finally achieved the piece he wanted
If you see this, I'm interested in knowing more about what you think about the '50s post-Rauschenberg. Why do you think it was universally misunderstood and reviled?
@Gowanee1 -- As a rule I don't engage in Internet debates, but you made a valid point. In the '40s De Kooning (Pollock, et al.) did work that had style and charm. Unfortunately, they all stopped. The '50s, when Rauschenberg came a-calling, was the scribble-and-dribble Expressionist period that was universally misunderstood and reviled. Pollock's death made the AbEx prices soar, but the art world gladly dropped these artists when Pop Art emerged in the early '60s.
Yes, and wouldn't it make a perfect "point" and be ever so Poetic, Creative, and Artistic if the next "artist" not only emulates RR by erasing 1 drawing, but goes one better and erases EVERYTHING RR ever did! Now THAT is Art!
It turns out that just about every painter of note agrees with my statement, and many have stated so explicitly and emphatically. Which pretty much discounts your stance.
To start off, the previous comment was erased due to grammatical errors, I thought I posted a corrected version. Eng is my second language and RUclips isn't the kindest forum when it comes to editing you know. Anyway, my point wasn't that art progress. My point was, as you have denied, that you seem to value old convention of what it "good art" over new simple because the old are older.
I'm glad you said that, getting to the REAL point. That is EXACTLY wrong, and why most modern "art" is so, so pathetic. Art is EXACTLY about what it looks like. We use eyes to see art (although sculpture can be well appreciated by the blind, since that is tactile). Art has always been about "what it looks like", that is, until now. Now everybody is an "artist"! Hooray! No talent needed, now everyone can be a great artist!
I am not talking about his technical qualities as a painter, but about the content of his paintings which was, for lack of a better term, rather "low-grade" in comparison to artists like Magritte or Robert Frank(not a painter or surrealist, but photographer).
In my opinion Dali wasn't successful because he was a man with a vision or had intricate ideas, but because he was a formidabel showman who happened to have talent as a painter. Dali as artist, actor or showman it wouldn't really have mattered too much as long as he could be in the spotlights. That is the impression I have.
This is fantastic. I neve knew the whole story. Its akin to dark matter or empty spaces in the universe - are there really any empty spaces or does everything carry an imprint?
Yes. DeKooning made art, while Rauschenberg made only "a point". Sadly, some think that "point" is also art. Wouldn't it make a great "point" if some "artist" erased everything RR ever did?
"Living artists frighten me into silence"?? Oh I see, I must cover every possible topic to please you. Or is it that everyone's comment here is invalid because the topic is Rauschenberg, a DEAD artist?? Btw, never said I was "mad at Picasso". He was a great artist, who COULD draw. Interestingly, no one has disputed the merits of my comment that RR couldn't draw. That's all I was saying. He was not really a painter either, but more of an entertainer. In the category of a mime or a clown.
@OlPook77 I doubt de Kooning would've given you one of his works to erase when you were three years old. Nor do I think you would've though to ask him when you were three years old. Nor do I think you knew who de Kooning was when you were three years old.
Poets've written about war (vandalism) of course. This was a different statement. It said that that the act itself WAS poetry. Can you see the difference ?! The silly Chapman brothers followed by destroying some of Durer's work as a sad 'art 'act . Cheek ! I would be furious if I'd been Durer. Real poetry (poetic justice)did follow however, when their large Soldier piece was burned in a storage warehouse. I couldn't help wondering if Durer had called on the Furies to reek revenge.
Simply a genius to do such a thing and recreate a work that speaks about the futility of existence in such a poetic and artistic way. By destroying a De Kooning and creating a grey rubbed out Rauschenberg/de Kooning a statement about how defacing a piece of art and the recreation becomes frustratingly deep in meaning.
And yes, I realize he is "established", as are many others who do not deserve to be to the degree they are. To mindlessly accept others' hierarchies in art is to lose one's potential for artistic standards and discernment.
i think you missed my point and proved it at the same time. I dont mean hostility towards posting. My qualm is with the arguments that arise from dissagreements that arise from misunderstandings that are due to the weak communicational qualities of posting and the general use of language over electronic devices. Either way every ones opinion is valid regardless of what it is. i see how i have fallen victim also.
You fail to grasp the fundamental point here. The Emperors new clothes is actually a great analogy... just like the emperors new clothes, they exist in all their splendour in the eyes of the beholder who knows what to look for. Only immature brats point out that the new clothes don't have any visual qualities, of course they don't, that's the point. This would be a farce if it was pragmatic objects like clothes we were discussing, but art, unlike clothes, ultimately exist in the mind.
That is what Rauschenberg says Carly. He was a famous painter in his own right, but erasing his own drawing just didn't work. Just as de Kooning erasing his own work wouldn't work.
svsugvcarter - thanks so much for posting this - could you enlighten us as to what this is excerpted from? also auroraabstract if you think you know something about rauschenberg from traveling around with clem greenberg you're deluded - he probably had the least nuanced understanding of rauschenberg I've ever encountered
It was a way to cause a schandal. A cry for attention. Similar to how Dali painted pants with poo on them because he knew it would piss off the surrealists and he would have his greatest pleasure in it. In my opinion some artists (like Dali) are more known because of the controversial person they were and not because of their art. Agreed he has done alot for surrealism and gave it a "new dimension", yet I feel this dimension was entirely constructed and part of the act. I see similarities here.
These are facts, not opinions. Art collectors, and the public, found little to relate to in all these flat, enigmatic abstracts. The few paintings that sold went for peanuts. When the very relatable Pop art emerged, based on comics and advertising, it sold like crazy and made the Abstractionists who did not change with the times instantly irrelevant.
every development is not necessarily progress. Of course you would say that I just "don't get it", that my view is in the camp of phillistines who would have reviled the Impressionists, then the Post-Impressionists, championed the Pre-Raphaelites and all academics, and so on in retrograde fashion. Well, I don't believe in the idea of "progress" in art. If progress were true, then why is expressive early Cave Art, or ancient Egytian or Greek art so often vastly better than what passes now? [cont]
i think you missed my point and proved it at the same time. I didnt mean any hostilisty toward posting , but this cant really be expressed by this means.
I never prejudged Rauschenberg, I saw his large vacuous silkscreen prints (etc) as they came out. They were all bad art. The man could not draw, back to my original point here. He generally made "visual art" (albeit mostly of poor quality), so this talk about conceptualism in this one case of the erased Dekooning is off the key point. Yes, the great visual artists had "concepts". But when a work of art is neither created nor attempted, but only "conceptualized", it can at best be [cont'd]
Yeah we all have red blood, even mosquitos. Might as well let them vote! You're right, modern art is the lowest common denominator. It even connects humans to apes and elephants, whose art is indistinguishable from the big mod artists.
I see how ridiculously you would have to think to believe that any of these people were actual artists. By the way, no genuine artist would ever be so insecure as to believe that any other so-called artist could ever be a threat.
"If you can't draw, you can't paint." To make a statement such as that leads me to believe you do not know what painting is, pretty much discounting your stance.
Well, by now we are all on the same page: 1. It wasn't "art". 2. It was an act of vandalism. 3. It was a sad cry for attention, to "connect' himself with a greater artist. 4. It wasn't even creative. 5. RR himself could not draw.
Yes googling DOES give any of us the ability to look at the artwork. If artwork requires a description, it's something other than art, it's literature. I don't care about a Rothko "chapel". I can look at his art and it's indistinguishable from that of a well trained toddler who smears paint in rectangular blocks. I find it very sad that some people consider such BS "art".
hahahahahahahaha... Pardon me, I'm still laughing that you had to remove your comment earlier. Confused? Didn't sound so good after all? Needed editing? Having second thoughts? Anyway, I agree that art is not static, but to imply that there is somehow an ineluctable progression tantamount to "improvement" or even maintenance of quality in art is just ludicrous. Any human endeavor is subject to periods of great foibles and self-delusion, of convoluted and misguided movement, where [cont'd]
Like adults still in kindergarten who get paid by adult's with child-minds who make adult wages. What an odd existence those people live. To spend each day working on something that is easily surpassed by a newborn with some finger paints and crayons.
Conceptual art requires a special point of view, a mindset, a talent if you will. You don't get this work, which I would like to claim is a true conceptual masterpiece, so you must lack the talent. Congratulations: You can't become a great conceptual artist! Art is yet again saved from nihilism.
Well, Picasso said it too. Maybe he wasn't that original after all. His son Claude, age 5, would scribble and sign it Henri Matisse, show it to papa and say "now there's a REAL painter!" Now back to RR. The man couldn't draw. Period. If you can't draw, you can't paint. But oh yes, he could have his printer turn out loads of big lousy silkscreen prints!
I feel sad for those who can't understand it. Often, art is for conveying emotion. And what emotion is more universal than loss? This kind of art is literally loss.
I don't know art. I don't know how to judge art or how to define art but this story, the act behind the erasure. I get it.
And I even get Kooning's motives. People are saying Robert committed vandalism by erasing it but Kooning went along with it. He didn't like it, he didn't agree with it but he understood the idea. To take something and make it into nothing.
The words "I want to give you something I will miss" says it all. Kooning wanted Robert to put in the effort of erasing his art but at the same time he wanted to _feel_ the loss of the art. To experience the nothing that was made by feeling the pang of loss for his lost artpiece.
I don't think it gets more abstract than that. I think it also says that Kooning also respected Rauschenberg and what it was he was trying to do.
Can it really be called vandalism when Kooning took part in it?
The best comment on this work was by De Kooning himself: by giving Rauschenberg a drawing he cherished, he showed that he got it right away; he understood that the boundaries of art were being pushed to unknown territories. An older genius acknowledging a younger one...
Wow, Rauschenberg certainly inspires passion for art discussion among people. This is great....it's poetry.
I've always like Rauschenberg , what a funny guy. And what a cheeky thing to do to De Kooning.
Well he didn't really do it TO him, he did it in conjunction with his approval. De Kooning let him do it to one of his pieces because he understood the poetic value in the situation.
I like Rauschenberg too, and he is funny...but I feel you missed a crucial point. He did it as an honorable thing. He admired De Kooning and his work...that's why he chose to approach him with the project. It was a collaboration you see, nothing to do with trying to be funny or arch or clever or cheeky.
I have always been enchanted by RR act of erasing another painter's work. I will always consider this act to be at the very top of what art is supposed to be... an expression. Thank you Robert Rauchenberg. Thank you for giving us this amazing expression of art.
One of my teachers in art school pointed out that the faint lines on heavy paper which were somewhat still visible after erasing numerous practice drawings, in class, constituted a matrix whereby we could pull out more imagery as we re-re-used that paper. We used balls of white bread as erasers, which worked quite well. His name was Charles Stokes, the last of the Northwest Mystics. (Seattle, the Cornish School). A friend of mine has a personally signed Rauschenberg.
Two fantastic artists and one hell of an interesting story. Saw the Erased DeKooning at MOMA in San Francisco, and knew I was looking at history.
This story actually shows what a great artist De Kooning was and his deep understanding of what art is. He quickly got RR's point and gave him one of his drawing he prized most.
Its incredible that this video was uploaded in 2007
I uploaded it when RUclips was new to the world. I was finishing up my graduate work at Purdue University and I simply went through many of the VHS tapes they had and made things available. Some of the material I've had to take down, but there's never been a copyright claim made on this particular footage. 2007 does seem a lifetime ago!
@@svsugvcarter I was hoping for a story like that hahah. I was thinking the exact same thing, 2007 youtube was in its first steps, just had been sold to google, looking back the world was different.. Just checked your channel, congrats for making all these material available, pretty neat... im working on a scientific paper in art history, this video was extremely usefull to me. Thank you! may i ask what did you graduate in?
@@Raphaelpiano My PhD is in Rhetoric and Composition. Geoff Sirc's _The Composition of Everyday Life- draws on a number of avant-garde artists and it's in that work that I discovered Raushenberg and came to post this video. I has been used in a number of art history projects over the years as I've received notices at various times. Good luck on your project, Raphael!
@@svsugvcarter Awesome!! glad to hear that. thanks for everything
I think you have it.
Part of Rauschenberg's genius was in understanding that art is not merely a communique from the artist to the viewer. It involves the viewer's unique makeup, the viewer's genetic qualities, their experiences of all sorts, their connections with others, all those things that shape a person's unique perception of the world -- of every art piece they see, hear, touch, or otherwise encounter. All art is collaboration of artist's work and viewers' individiual perception.
Art is in the eye of the beholder, Much art is uncertain and often the reward is uncomfortable rather than reassuring.
Poetry... I knew Rauschenberg, amazing human.
Well. I stand corrected. I didn't realize famous people would enter into the argument and apologize for wasting your time.
I think its interesting how he erased a drawing that was worth almost £15,000 by a well known artist then 2 years later used his own bed as a canvas as he didn't have anything else to paint on!!!! crazy, poetic ideas from one of the greatest artists of all time!!! rest in peace Rauschenberg :-)
Bob, I Love You For Ever!
The truth is that "It is a very complicated story", and this is why it is art. It is not just the end product, the erased drawing with another drawing hidden in the verso...It is about why he did that, what it meant (not only to us, the spectators, but to the artist and to De Kooning himself). It is about how far you can push the boundaries of art and still call it art. If one person calls it art, and a billion others don't, well, it is still art...
:44 - the Cedar Bar in NY. I used to drink there (til to was converted to condos)!
one of my favorites! erased dekooning,great, a masterpiece in my mind!
very cool 👍
i think whats so great about art is the broad definition that it has taken on
that is what art is about. simply amazing.
I am happy to read these comments of outrage. I would much rather see that than indifference. Actually, the more a work of art outrages conventional taste, the happier I am. A non-critical, complacent response is so stagnant. I am of the "camp" which believes that the best art is not for everyone--not for most folks, actually. It's a rather snobbish attitude, but it does keep out the riff-raff.
i would like to add that he was at black mountain at the time and probably around 19-22 years old when he did this
In 1953, when he created this work, Rauschenberg was 28 and living in New York City.
What a great anecdote. Was this an excerpt from a full length documentary? Does anyone know where this is from? Would love to know. Thanks.
Man At Work.
It's a documentary on Robert Raushenberg. ♡
I can tell you someone who critiques this work in an absolutely wonderful way. If you can get your hands on it, read "Name No One Man" by John Paul Ricco. It's a mind-bending, fabulous experience that forever changed my view of the blank canvas.
You might be interested to know if you like this work that just recently there were some new photographs taken with some ultra sensative camera (sorry I'm a little bit tech illiterate) that have managed to pick up some of the erased drawing, so much so that you can see the figure that Dekooning erased.
the figure that rauschenberg erased you mean
Let’s return to Rauschenberg and the ERASED DE KOONING DRAWING. In 1953, Rauschenberg visited De Kooning and asked him for one of his drawings. Rauschenberg explained he intended to erase the drawing entirely. De Kooning was shocked. But finally he gave Rauschenberg one of his best works. He said he didn’t want to make it easy for Rauschenberg. It is one of Rauschenberg’s most famous work of art.
Its especially ironic because de Kooning would reuse his canvas almost a hundred times before he finished his piece. he'd paint, erase, paint erase, over and over layer on layer until he finally achieved the piece he wanted
If you see this, I'm interested in knowing more about what you think about the '50s post-Rauschenberg. Why do you think it was universally misunderstood and reviled?
@Gowanee1 -- As a rule I don't engage in Internet debates, but you made a valid point. In the '40s De Kooning (Pollock, et al.) did work that had style and charm. Unfortunately, they all stopped. The '50s, when Rauschenberg came a-calling, was the scribble-and-dribble Expressionist period that was universally misunderstood and reviled. Pollock's death made the AbEx prices soar, but the art world gladly dropped these artists when Pop Art emerged in the early '60s.
Yes, and wouldn't it make a perfect "point" and be ever so Poetic, Creative, and Artistic if the next "artist" not only emulates RR by erasing 1 drawing, but goes one better and erases EVERYTHING RR ever did! Now THAT is Art!
Actually that quote was by Henri Matisse and he was talking about all artists not just painters.
Lol every video on RUclips has to have an argument, I didn't expect one on here. -_-
Thank you for sharing
It turns out that just about every painter of note agrees with my statement, and many have stated so explicitly and emphatically. Which pretty much discounts your stance.
To start off, the previous comment was erased due to grammatical errors, I thought I posted a corrected version. Eng is my second language and RUclips isn't the kindest forum when it comes to editing you know.
Anyway, my point wasn't that art progress. My point was, as you have denied, that you seem to value old convention of what it "good art" over new simple because the old are older.
I had to watch this for my humanities class... I think I may fail the test...
I'm glad you said that, getting to the REAL point. That is EXACTLY wrong, and why most modern "art" is so, so pathetic. Art is EXACTLY about what it looks like. We use eyes to see art (although sculpture can be well appreciated by the blind, since that is tactile). Art has always been about "what it looks like", that is, until now. Now everybody is an "artist"! Hooray! No talent needed, now everyone can be a great artist!
“One coffee, no cream”
“Sorry, we don’t have cream, is coffee without milk okay?”
I am not talking about his technical qualities as a painter, but about the content of his paintings which was, for lack of a better term, rather "low-grade" in comparison to artists like Magritte or Robert Frank(not a painter or surrealist, but photographer).
Agreed. Rauschenberg was a genius.
GENIUS!!!
An interesting approach to art...
Katalyzt
Art is chaos...Rauschenberg took it to the next level.
I don't get blank painting. Can someone enlighten me?
We shouldnt be afraid to say that even giants once in a while have their heads up their asses. Framed of course..
In my opinion Dali wasn't successful because he was a man with a vision or had intricate ideas, but because he was a formidabel showman who happened to have talent as a painter.
Dali as artist, actor or showman it wouldn't really have mattered too much as long as he could be in the spotlights. That is the impression I have.
This is fantastic. I neve knew the whole story. Its akin to dark matter or empty spaces in the universe - are there really any empty spaces or does everything carry an imprint?
Yes. DeKooning made art, while Rauschenberg made only "a point". Sadly, some think that "point" is also art. Wouldn't it make a great "point" if some "artist" erased everything RR ever did?
Nice.
"Living artists frighten me into silence"?? Oh I see, I must cover every possible topic to please you. Or is it that everyone's comment here is invalid because the topic is Rauschenberg, a DEAD artist??
Btw, never said I was "mad at Picasso". He was a great artist, who COULD draw. Interestingly, no one has disputed the merits of my comment that RR couldn't draw. That's all I was saying. He was not really a painter either, but more of an entertainer. In the category of a mime or a clown.
@OlPook77 I doubt de Kooning would've given you one of his works to erase when you were three years old. Nor do I think you would've though to ask him when you were three years old. Nor do I think you knew who de Kooning was when you were three years old.
Does anyone know where this video comes from or who the woman is at the end? Quoting it for my dissertation! thank you
did you ever find out?
dekooning was hella lot more aappreciated than RR....his work surpasses RR often
-shakes fist- Dang you, Humanities!
Poets've written about war (vandalism) of course. This was a different statement. It said that that the act itself WAS poetry. Can you see the difference ?! The silly Chapman brothers followed by destroying some of Durer's work as a sad 'art 'act . Cheek ! I would be furious if I'd been Durer. Real poetry (poetic justice)did follow however, when their large Soldier piece was burned in a storage warehouse. I
couldn't help wondering if Durer had called on the Furies to reek revenge.
good on you! nice comment 〠
the title reminds me of
reverse graffitti
ｐｅＡＣＥ〠
Simply a genius to do such a thing and recreate a work that speaks about the futility of existence in such a poetic and artistic way. By destroying a De Kooning and creating a grey rubbed out Rauschenberg/de Kooning a statement about how defacing a piece of art and the recreation becomes frustratingly deep in meaning.
What are you smoking on to believe that shit
He literally erases content
an evolution of art that had to happen! who better? its done,move forward.
I like it
I wonder who the painting behind Rauschenberg is by...
Do you who originally produced this documentary, was it the BBC?
Who is the interveiwer?
How so?
how can you erase paintings which are already white?
This is dark, like really really dark. Postmodernism flies in the face of most things I hold dear.
Nothing is sacred (everything?), and nothing lasts forever...
And yes, I realize he is "established", as are many others who do not deserve to be to the degree they are. To mindlessly accept others' hierarchies in art is to lose one's potential for artistic standards and discernment.
i think you missed my point and proved it at the same time. I dont mean hostility towards posting. My qualm is with the arguments that arise from dissagreements that arise from misunderstandings that are due to the weak communicational qualities of posting and the general use of language over electronic devices. Either way every ones opinion is valid regardless of what it is. i see how i have fallen victim also.
You fail to grasp the fundamental point here. The Emperors new clothes is actually a great analogy... just like the emperors new clothes, they exist in all their splendour in the eyes of the beholder who knows what to look for. Only immature brats point out that the new clothes don't have any visual qualities, of course they don't, that's the point. This would be a farce if it was pragmatic objects like clothes we were discussing, but art, unlike clothes, ultimately exist in the mind.
it was two years ago, I don't remember lol
That is what Rauschenberg says Carly. He was a famous painter in his own right, but erasing his own drawing just didn't work. Just as de Kooning erasing his own work wouldn't work.
@beefking69er couldn't have said it better myself.
svsugvcarter - thanks so much for posting this - could you enlighten us as to what this is excerpted from?
also auroraabstract if you think you know something about rauschenberg from traveling around with clem greenberg you're deluded - he probably had the least nuanced understanding of rauschenberg I've ever encountered
@valdezc2 YAY!!!!!!!
YAy.
Yay.
Yay.
You have no idea how I appreciate this comment.!
@humiliat3dGrape why is art supposed to make a point ?? so if it doesn't make a point then its not art ?
It was a way to cause a schandal. A cry for attention. Similar to how Dali painted pants with poo on them because he knew it would piss off the surrealists and he would have his greatest pleasure in it. In my opinion some artists (like Dali) are more known because of the controversial person they were and not because of their art. Agreed he has done alot for surrealism and gave it a "new dimension", yet I feel this dimension was entirely constructed and part of the act. I see similarities here.
Oh please...put the clothes back on the Emperor..!
Oh please...stop with this tiresome, automatic cliché..!
These are facts, not opinions. Art collectors, and the public, found little to relate to in all these flat, enigmatic abstracts. The few paintings that sold went for peanuts. When the very relatable Pop art emerged, based on comics and advertising, it sold like crazy and made the Abstractionists who did not change with the times instantly irrelevant.
The fact that he needed a bottle of Jack Daniels to make the reasoning work says a lot about this.
Says what? Bringing a bottle of wine or liquor when paying a visit is considered a cordial gesture by any interpretation. Old school manners.
every development is not necessarily progress. Of course you would say that I just "don't get it", that my view is in the camp of phillistines who would have reviled the Impressionists, then the Post-Impressionists, championed the Pre-Raphaelites and all academics, and so on in retrograde fashion. Well, I don't believe in the idea of "progress" in art. If progress were true, then why is expressive early Cave Art, or ancient Egytian or Greek art so often vastly better than what passes now? [cont]
i think you missed my point and proved it at the same time. I didnt mean any hostilisty toward posting , but this cant really be expressed by this means.
I never prejudged Rauschenberg, I saw his large vacuous silkscreen prints (etc) as they came out. They were all bad art. The man could not draw, back to my original point here. He generally made "visual art" (albeit mostly of poor quality), so this talk about conceptualism in this one case of the erased Dekooning is off the key point. Yes, the great visual artists had "concepts". But when a work of art is neither created nor attempted, but only "conceptualized", it can at best be [cont'd]
Yeah we all have red blood, even mosquitos. Might as well let them vote! You're right, modern art is the lowest common denominator. It even connects humans to apes and elephants, whose art is indistinguishable from the big mod artists.
I see how ridiculously you would have to think to believe that any of these people were actual artists. By the way, no genuine artist would ever be so insecure as to believe that any other so-called artist could ever be a threat.
"Didn't draw" and "couldn't draw" are two different things.
Exactly. It was nothing. As it remains nothing.
He says he kept erasing his own drawings. That's because he knew they were so crappy.
"If you can't draw, you can't paint."
To make a statement such as that leads me to believe you do not know what painting is, pretty much discounting your stance.
Maybe that's where the last page of Bach's Art of Fugue went...
Handel rubbed it out, the cheeky git.
@humiliat3dGrape dekooning didnt do this piece....
Well, by now we are all on the same page:
1. It wasn't "art".
2. It was an act of vandalism.
3. It was a sad cry for attention, to "connect' himself with a greater artist.
4. It wasn't even creative.
5. RR himself could not draw.
Yes googling DOES give any of us the ability to look at the artwork. If artwork requires a description, it's something other than art, it's literature. I don't care about a Rothko "chapel". I can look at his art and it's indistinguishable from that of a well trained toddler who smears paint in rectangular blocks. I find it very sad that some people consider such BS "art".
hahahahahahahaha... Pardon me, I'm still laughing that you had to remove your comment earlier. Confused? Didn't sound so good after all? Needed editing? Having second thoughts?
Anyway, I agree that art is not static, but to imply that there is somehow an ineluctable progression tantamount to "improvement" or even maintenance of quality in art is just ludicrous. Any human endeavor is subject to periods of great foibles and self-delusion, of convoluted and misguided movement, where [cont'd]
Like adults still in kindergarten who get paid by adult's with child-minds who make adult wages. What an odd existence those people live. To spend each day working on something that is easily surpassed by a newborn with some finger paints and crayons.
Conceptual art requires a special point of view, a mindset, a talent if you will. You don't get this work, which I would like to claim is a true conceptual masterpiece, so you must lack the talent. Congratulations: You can't become a great conceptual artist!
Art is yet again saved from nihilism.
Well, Picasso said it too. Maybe he wasn't that original after all. His son Claude, age 5, would scribble and sign it Henri Matisse, show it to papa and say "now there's a REAL painter!"
Now back to RR. The man couldn't draw. Period. If you can't draw, you can't paint. But oh yes, he could have his printer turn out loads of big lousy silkscreen prints!
Onu yok etmiyor, onunla birlikte var oluyor.
poop-a-loop... hey look i just made art! thank you all for this entertainment
Research praxis vandalism or poetry from 1953
Wrong again. I never said you are not entitled to your opinion, or that it is wrong. All I did was point out your mistakes in intrepeting mine.