I never stopped loving you neon made £58,850 in auction today, sorry I didn’t manage to get a picture of it actually turned on. I thought I had better not use anyone else’s as I imagine this is a world where people could get pretty excited about copyright.My own rather cynical thoughts here are, who was the craftsman, whoops sorry person, that actually made the thing and how much did they get paid? Apologies to Tracy if she did all the business of bending the glass tube, as this is something that I have had a go at, making neon signs that is and I found it very difficult.
This all brings into question the business about art and craft and what makes a neon sign, something that is a work of craft requiring considerable skill into a work of art?
This was for a smaller copy of the one in Margate. So how much is the original worth and how long before it gets stolen? Maybe the buyer thought they were getting an original. At least the Turner building fund benifits but what I find odd is that the Turner diretor could not or would not say on BBC radio this week when the gallery will be open. Does this mean that they dont have the cash to finish it or is it just poor planning?
ReplyDeleteWould you question an architect's right to be credited for a building he didn't build?
ReplyDelete20.55 thanks for that I had rather assumed there was only one, makes you wonder how many and if this applies to other works, I suppose there must be My Other Bed, or the lady would be tiring by now.
ReplyDeleteData Hoover, no not at all, but then you nay concede that there is a difference between the architect of a work and the artist.
Personally since so much public money finds it’s way into paying for art, i.e. using your and my money to pay a premium for something, above the materials and a reasonable wage, for turning them into something called art, then the question, what is art? Ceases to be a matter of aesthetic debate and moves toward requiring an answer.
Let's not confuse the "craft" with the "art". Both the artist and the architect are the "authors" or their work. It is their intellectual property. How it was made, and by whom is beside the point. It's the idea, including the choice of material and execution that is being credited. The crafts person gets paid for their skill, but the idea is the authors alone.
ReplyDeleteData Hoover, well with the neon the material is glass, you don’t get much choice, from the look of the colour I would say the gas is helium, not neon. I wonder if the artist would know this or just opted for pink.
ReplyDeleteThat said you raise an interesting point, I suppose I started to think about this back in 1972 when I heard that Carl Andre had used the bricks that formed Equivalent VIII to build a wall in his garden and so when the Tate bought it he sent an order for some more bricks to the builder’s merchant, with instructions to deliver them directly to the Tate.
This all has connotations of.
“Hi Sixtus you hava mi lucre.”
“Mea culpa Ghirlandaio, Bernini he say he painta alla Cappella Sistina”
“Mama mia suba contractor”
Ha ha! Well, even Carl Andre's gesture of presenting bricks as art is an idea. And has a value. Taking a found object, such as a brick, or even a neon found in the street, and then employing it as art in some way, transforms the object in the mind of the viewer. Though, perhaps not in your case.
ReplyDeleteThe projects at the Turner Centre are less of a concern to me than the proposed developments in Ramsgate harbour and night flights. Crazy!
Depends on the object I would say, suppose it was a discarded artwork, that could make problems related to the intellectual property.
ReplyDeleteThe architect of the Coke bottle viewed through the Velvet Underground gatefold, as it were.
Yep I have to say that I am diverting myself from the problems associated with our ill conceived developments on the sea front, in the harbour and the various environmental concerns associated with the airport and the oil bunkering here
The description of Intellectual Property should not be used in connection with Works of Art.
ReplyDeleteIntellectual Property assumes a degree of intellect!
"Anonymous", how much do you actually know about contemporary art?
ReplyDeleteData Hoover all I know about contemporary art is that many of the "works" labelled as such are nothing more than junk.
ReplyDeleteGiven that art includes thought provoking-work, I suppose a pile of rubble may be art but I can't really see there is any intellect involved.
I admit I don't understand "contemporary art", which suggests maybe it doesn't provoke thought as intended and therefore may not be art.
Anonymous, your failure to understand something doesn't disprove it.
ReplyDeleteI agree Data Hoover, there are many things in life that I don't understand, but I've given Contemporary Art my best shot and I just don't get it.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you can enlighten me by explaining how the said pile of rubble can be Art?
If I could only just grasp this theory Thanet would become a much better place to live, and I could walk the streets in awe of the rubbish, sorry Art, strewn everywhere.
Ha! Anonymous, your post reminds me of the story where a hi-fi enthusiast is demonstrating some very advanced speakers to someone, and says "It's as though the band is in the room with you". The listener replies, "I like the Pogues but I don't want them in my #!#?# living room!"
ReplyDeleteSorry, I don’t get that Data Hoover. I must be really thick.
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps I’m contemplating too hard about a work of art outside my house. I’m trying to establish if it has a hidden message, is a monument to something or is perhaps just dog’s poo.
By the way, you still haven’t explained how a pile of rubble can be art. Perhaps that’s the artistic aspect of it in that it provokes thoughts such as “I really can't explain that”.
You know, I think I’m beginning to get it!