I've been reading a lot about Urs Fischer lately by a few prominent New York critics who normally like to cite art historical precedents in their reviews but I was surprised there is no mention of Gordon Matta-Clark's cutting holes in buildings from the 1960s, Chris Burden's “Exposing the Foundation of the Museum” from 1986, Michelangelo Pistoletto's attaching photographic images to mirrored surfaces from the 1960s or William Anastasi's “wall on a wall” pieces from the 1960s.
Fischer is only interesting and original to amnesiacs.
Remember Damien Hirst has a bit of a magpie eye as well - but he has semi-plausible deniability on his side, where urs fischer can't possibly have missed his art historical precedents.
if history is the real subject....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
history is far from his subject (s), and who wants to see bad remakes anyway...........grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr(sound of diarrehetic relief)
This presupposes originality or “ownership” of ideas. This also assumes that one gesture is the same as any other. Holes cut in gallery walls by Urs Fischer today are they same as excisions and cuts through architecture by Matta-Clark 30 years ago? This is completely absurd. Art and culture is all about recycling, re-purposing, citing, invoking &c. Just as there is no “ultimate painting” there is no ultimate anything. The practices of those two artists are completely divergent, but cross paths at certain points.
‘The practices of those two artists are completely divergent, but cross paths at certain points.’
Could you enlighten me on the geometry there? Are we in the fifth dimension yet?
Will they be doing Sergio Mendez covers?
The Fifth Dimension is doing a cover tune of Sam Mendes
artoridioncy, you are criticizing one kind of idealism (there is no such thing as an ultimate painting) and at the same time it appears you believe that ownership of ideas in the marketplace is uncontested.
While I know there is considerably redundancy in the art world, that hardly merrits applause. In fact, this kind of universalism is criticized as the sort of lemming behavior that makes doing anything on a personal level kind of hard.
Put another way, the mob needn't run bartertown.
Hence, when I see yet another a cynical museum ready show designed to impress, I wonder if I might not be better off with the poor facimilies and rip offs that my friends make, and not the friends of my ideological enemies.
But what ideology? Simply that I exist.
In the fifth dimension.
Alot of hype around this “artist”. I use this term liberally in this case because this guy seems more about half baked ideas fabricated in someone else studio. I'm probably wrong, or at least I hope so. Such a waste of a premier newyork space. Why doesn't this space support young or mid career NYC artists? I'm so sick of gavin brown and all his friends monopolizing the conversation. A scene does not pass for genuine artwork.