I think you should tell us how you really feel!

Also, I agree. Interesting observation.

This, my long-distance dedication, goes out to you, Hrag.

And I still say the Arcangel is prettier.

I’m sure he’s aware of color field paintings. It seems like a visual homage in some ways, perhaps it’s obvious enough that he doesn’t need to mention it in the statement. But who knows if I’m giving him too much credit.

@Paddy Part of the problem in our disagreement probably arises from the fact that I do see the work as a “one-liner”–to steal Jerry Saltz’s characterization of the work. It has very little to offer the viewer outside of the aesthetic on view, which isn’t much in my opinion. Olitski is known for his atmospheric work and Arcangel’s work seems to attempt something similar (the size being a factor here) and I just don’t see what he adds to the conversation. The artist may have another intention for his work but it doesn’t come across IMHO and I don’t prioritize artists’ interpretations above the direct experience of an artwork.

@Brent Wonderful song…so sad, but alas even friends don’t always agree. Though have you experienced a great Olitski up close and personal? It’s pretty awesome! The Arcangel has that strange glare on the surface that distracts from the color in my opinion.

@Ian Aleksander Adams I thought about the possibility that Arcangel was referencing Olitski but then I thought that even if he was it was a very shallow exploration of the aesthetic and ideas in his work of the 1960s.

@hrag I think there’s merit in the one-liner criticism. Karen and I have talked about the fact that so many people have different takes on the work suggests the work functions on more than one level, though there’s something about that argument that doesn’t feel quite right to me. Perhaps it sounds a little too much like, “Everyone is discussing the art so it must be good.”

For me, the instructions make it a one liner, not the physical form of the piece. As an object, I rather like that its production value stands in stark contrast to most art being made now. It’s a slick, over-produced, 2009 update to a koons inflatable. For me, the work poses as something far more conservative than it actually is and that’s interesting.

Also, in the context of Cory’s other work, it seems to be that this is a lot more about computing than it is about painting. Or printmaking. Gradients are very familiar to those of us who grew up with while computer graphics evolved. Maybe he simply said “these have a place in art history, no one has put them there yet, I’m going to do it in a commentative and slightly snide manner.” Which is kind of what he said.

Which is why this confuses me a bit:

““…[it] addresses the role of technology in determining the way that viewers appreciate art.”

Huh? It doesn’t do that at all. If anything it points out that in the digital age anything from history can be updated and copied with ease (and swallowed whole by sad collectors and bad curators). “

You say “it doesn’t do that at all,” but what you are describing is exactly a facet of what he is saying. The role of technology in determining the way that viewers appreciate art includes updating and copying everything and anything from history with ease. If you haven’t noticed, it’s kind of the internet.

Right now most of our youth culture is in a relatively retro phase because with new technology it only grows easier to gain access to things created before – more ancient and embarrassing videos on youtube, more scans of lisa frank folders, more eldritch advertising from unknown eras past. While people are constantly creating new things, I think we’re still in the phase where the vast majority of content uploaded and shared is digitized versions of previously existing work, whether copywork of the original, amateur homage form, big budget remake, or unintentional reference.