2. There are no verbal supplements supplied by the artist. This "artwork" doesn't even have a title.
3. The medium used is called muslin. It is a cotton fabric of plain weave. It is a very inexpensive material. Maybe that is why the artist chose this material because it is cheap.
4. It looks to me as if the artist sewn together these 3 different colors to create this 1 piece.
5. The scale of the artwork is 6'6 3/4" x 6'6 3/4". It is a perfect square. In my opinion, this scale for this type of artwork is a waste of space. However, the large scale is what makes the artwork more artistic.
6. This was made in 1970. Judging from it's appearance it has lasted a long time and will continue to last. Unless the material starts to breakdown, it is cheap to make.
7. I don't see any context arising from this material.
8. The only thing that arises from this artwork's relationship with art history is that it'll probably last a long time. In addition, I don't think there suppose to be a focal point but I keep looking at the border lines of the colors.
9. I don't think anything will accrue to this artwork as it progressively reveals its destiny through persisting in time. Maybe questioning. For example, why is this considered art? Why is this "artwork" still in the MOMA?
10. There is no content arising from participation in a specific iconographic tradition.
11-13. There aren't any content arising. This was a gift from Jo Carole and Ronald S. Lauder in 1997. Maybe they realized how this piece wasn't art at all. I don't mean to sound so cruel but you did say to pick an artwork that I really hated. This artwork took the cake. It really irritates me how this is considered art.
No comments:
Post a Comment