Sorry I've searched but I can't find the original tweet, so I can't credit the photographer, but nice work!

Loading mentions Retweet

The MAK Center is sponsoring a project called "How Many Billboards?" and has commissioned 21 artists including Kenneth Anger, Kira Lynn Harris,John Knight, Susan Silton to create large images that will be scattered across the landscape of LA. Here's a quote from their website:

The philosophical proposition of the exhibition is simple: art should occupy a visible position in the cacophony of mediated images in the city, and it should do so without merely adding to the visual noise. How Many Billboards? Art In Stead proposes that art periodically displace advertisement in the urban environment. There's an artists' reception on Feb. 27 at the Schindler House from 1-6. Should be fun. Finally, billboards will be good for something.

Loading mentions Retweet

This new theory, from Kevin Kelly at The Technium,  holds that "a creator, such as an artist, musician, photographer, craftsperson,
performer, animator, designer, videomaker, or author - in other words, anyone producing works of art - needs to acquire only 1,000 True Fans
to make a living."

This is the direct result of the paradigm that content wants to be free. Creators of content are no longer supported by large corporations with PR and Sales machines to back up the product launch. So artists, musicians and writers will need to fill that gap themselves..and will need to play dual roles, first as the creator, then as the promoter. These are distinctly different skill sets, not necessarily inherent in an artist's repertoire, but they sure as hell better be, going forward.

My artist husband Campbell Laird (http://www.campbelllairdstudio.com/#/home/) has actually managed to do just this. Through his own paid advertisements and collector "fan" base whom he contacts through newsletters, and now Facebook and Twitter, he has removed the gallery from the financial equation and has over 1000 True Fans.

The benefits are numerous..control over his career and direct contact with his collectors.

But his "work" has doubled, to include promotion, outreach and of course all finance issues.

He has managed to juggle these very diverse skills but it is not easy. And although it sounds like fun to have all this power, it is certainly not for the faint of heart.

But one thing's for sure, it wasn't even possible 10 years ago, so carpe diem!

http://bit.ly/cHNwc

Loading mentions Retweet

In his early days, Ed Ruscha painted single
words that packed a punch: oof, slam, smash, honk. In the ‘80s, he took
a subtler approach, floating equivocal phrases in painted skies.

Consider “I Think I’ll...,” a 1983 piece that has moved into the
first family’s living quarters at the White House, courtesy of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. The longer you look at the painting, the more words emerge from a streaky red sunset.
The phrase “I think maybe I’ll...,” in large block letters, descends
from the top left to lower right of the 53 3/4 x 63 3/4-inch canvas.
Conflicted fragments in smaller print — “Maybe ... yes ...,” “Wait a
minute ... ! ...!,” “On second thought,” “Maybe ... no ...” — take an
opposing path. The final word, “yet...,” all but slips away.

It’s hard to imagine George W. Bush living with the Ruscha. As
president, he called himself “the decider” and seemed to pride himself
on sticking with his decisions no matter what. But Barack Obama is not
“W,” and the L.A.-based artist is delighted.
“I hope my painting has a reverse effect on White House decisions,”
Ruscha wrote in an e-mail from London, where he recently opened
exhibitions at the Hayward and Gagosian galleries. “I am 1,000% behind this administration.”
Like many of Ruscha's trademark works, “I Think I’ll...” is an
amusing take on human behavior that leaves lots of room for
interpretation. But the painting acquired a new layer of meaning when
it appeared on a recently released list of 47 artworks lent to the
White House by Washington museums.

See the full article here http://bit.ly/AWUMx

Loading mentions Retweet

Ed Kienholz, an artist working in Los Angeles during the '50's and '60's, is most famous for his sculpture entitled, " Back Seat of a Dodge '38".

His inspiration was personal experience, as he explained in this interview: "One night when I was about 17, I borrowed  my father’s ’38 Dodge and drove it across the state line to a dance at Chatcolet Lake, Idaho. “This girl was out there, and I enticed her into the car,” he said. “We got some beer and pulled off in the tules someplace and did intimate and erotic things and had a nice time."

Same as it ever was.

But in 1966, when he first tried to exhibit this work, the Los Angeles art world was shocked, and the LA County Board of Supervisors tried to ban the work calling it pornographic. And while it's true that the sculpture portrays a couple engaged in sexual activity in the back seat of a truncated automobile chassis, it won Kienholz instant celebrity then and now defines an entire movement, securing Los Angeles a vaulted place in the domestic and international art worlds.

As usual, no such thing as bad press.

But Kienholz wasn't just shaking up the staid art society, he did the same to the airline industry. In 1968, when he was flying TWA back from
Europe, he was carrying with him a valauble and fragile lampshade. TWA insisted he check it instead of carrying it on the plane with him and
he was quite irate, but agreed, as long as they agreed to pay for any damage. Of course, upon landing, the lampshade was in pieces, and TWA
refused to pay.

What a shocker!

Not one to take this lying down, Kienholz returned to LAX with a typewritten letter, a photographer, and an ax. Kienholz’s letter bluntly stated: “Good morning, my name is Ed Kienholz…you broke my lampshade and I’m really unhappy…so I’m going to cause TWA an equal amount of damage. I’m going to destroy a desk for TWA.” This is exactly what Kienholz proceeded to do; he destroyed the desk and, somehow, made it back to his car before being apprehended by the Los Angeles Police Department.

Hmmm. I guess now we just use twitter. And we don't have to get arrested, but I much prefer his audacity.

Loading mentions Retweet

Talk about stealing, in 2000, Hirst was forced to pay an undisclosed sum to a toy company called Humbrol for copyright infringement of their Young Scientist Anatomy set for his sculpture entitled Hymn. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/754680.stm
 
 Heather
 
whitelaird@yahoo.com
twitter.com/howlvenice
http://howlvenice.posterous.com/

Loading mentions Retweet

Artistic theft has gone on forever and will continue to do so. But it's a funny thing too, and rather similar to a joke, because how funny it is depends on who's doing what to whom. Obviously Damien Hirst has no sense of humor. How else to explain his absurd reaction to a 17 yr old unknown graffiti artist, Cartrain ( http://bit.ly/17TvZ8), who incorporated elements from Hirst's "For the Love of God" into his own work with the same name. There is no similarity and certainly no chance of confusion as to who created which artwork. One piece is a skull of platinum, human teeth and 8,601 diamonds worth $100 million. The other a digital print worth $130. Damien demanded the works be removed from a small site called 100artworks.com and delivered to him. Then partly as a joke, and partly because he's a young rebel, Cartrain actually managed to walk into one of the most respected galleries in London, the Tate, where Hirst's work entitled "The Pharmacy" was being exhibited, and steal a box of Mongol pencils from its shelves. Then, using those pencils to spell the word "Ransom", Cartrain created a poster to ask for his artworks back, promising to return the pencils. If the artworks were not returned however, the pencils would be sharpened. I find this wonderfully amusing, and I am surprised that someone who, at one time would certainly have been considered a rebel in the artworld, would take this so seriously. Since then, Cartrain has been imprisoned, released on bail, and charged with $10,000,000 (yes, that million) worth of damages, and $100,000 worth of theft.
 
 
The real irony here is that a not very well known artist called John LeKay has been accusing Damien Hirst of ripping off his ideas for almost 20 years, and no one has cared much. If you check his site (http://bit.ly/nremF), John shows a similar jeweled skull, originally created in 1993 in a piece called Spiritus calidus, and 5 more artworks Hirst "borrowed" from him, yet he doesn't have the wealth or the fame to act on his rightful claims. I guess it just goes to show might makes right, but it certainly doesn't seem fair. To support Cartrain, and follow this story on twitter, use #hirstisacock. And I guess I'll be changing my twitter background, since I've always used that exact skull.
 
 Heather
 
whitelaird@yahoo.com
twitter.com/howlvenice
http://howlvenice.posterous.com/

         

Click here to download:

To_steal_or_not_to_steal.zip (1379 KB)

Loading mentions Retweet