Ha! With the loads of money they made out of Chihuly, I don’t think they will be in a hurry to demassify. Frankly, Fairchild is a playground for the moneyed who take their art cues from the Tropic section.
(Lichtenstein is not so “obvious” though, his sculpture work is much less known than his painting. Botero, yeah.)
Hey, remember the plants? Fairchild has the special position of being a ‘scientific’ organization in a cultural definition … my guess is that this is the way the org keeps its fundraising up because not enough people are interested in going to the garden just for the sake of the botany … otherwise there would be no inspiration behind these garden sculptures.
If you haven’t seen the Lichtenstein sculptures, you owe it to yourselves to see them before you pass judgment on them as being run of the mill. They are very creative and I would even dare say avant guard.
No, I haven’t seen this show. I have, however, seen any number of his sculptures around. Out of all the pop artists who had one goofy idea and milked it, RL had one of the lighter ideas. It was just barely passable in his 2D work, and his sculptures are far as I can tell are a universal disaster. I’ll be down there sooner or later, and I’ll do my best to approach the stuff with an open mind, so I’ll be reporting back.
“As far as you can tell” indeed. You are not the first one. I believe it was Hilton Kramer who called him the worst artist in America.
He does have a gimmick he repeats ad nauseaum, like many pop artists. But his gimmick actually has meaning. Beyond the pop-culture references and the visual style there’s an ironic commentary about the absurdist reduction of life in banality and cliche. Warhol on the other hand became just the gimmick. Lichtenstein is provocative. Warhol is contemplative.
“Goofy” would be Robert Indiana “love” sculptures or Claes Oldenburg silliness.
alex~ The problem is that “an ironic commentary about the absurdist reduction of life in banality and cliche” is just way too easy to do, and even easier to read into piffle. I agree that Warhol’s work is (even) less “meaningful,” but it is satisfying on a visceral level in a way that Lichtenstein doesn’t even come close to. Of course this is a perfectly subjective reaction, but I think it’s hardly unique. To make matters worse, I’m generally an Oldenburg fan.
“…is just way too easy to do, and even easier to read into piffle”: you got to be kidding on the first -go ahead, try it- and not the fault of the artist on the second. I’ll concede forty years later doesn’t seem as relevant or imaginative as it once was, but it doesn’t mean that half of the conceptual artists mining the commercialism derivative don’t owe Lichtenstein.
I agree it’s subjective. I think Oldenburg’s clothespin or cherry-on-spoon are piffle on a grand scale.
Maybe they’ll bring Henry Moore next. That I’d like.
Oh, come on. You throw together a collage of some guns and TV’s and you’re halfway there. Not that an ironic commentary about the absurdist reduction of life in banality and cliche can’t still be good, but I’m saying it’s not good because it’s an ironic commentary about the absurdist reduction of life in banality and cliche (hereafter an IRAARLBC, right?).
Maybe it all made sense forty years ago, but I bet if you really analyzed it you’d concede that the paintings have more of the “relevant and imaginative” aspect, and the sculptures mostly have the “milking it” aspect. As for the conceptual/commercial influence aspect, I think we could agree that there are enough artists to fill a bus who were more influential in this respect, and who’s work has held up better. I’m thinking of John Baldessari, but you sound like you could come up with much better examples off the top of your head.
A collage of guns and TVs is been-there-done-that-a-million-times by now. That’s the point. It’ll be like painting african masks or dripping paint in a canvas.
Yes, I like the paintings a million times more than the sculptures. The gimmick doesn’t translate very well. But I like the paintings a lot. Anyway, the point was that Lichtenstein as an sculptor is not that “obvious” (or ubiquitous) as Botero and not as big a commercial draw as Chihuly, who is just Britto in a grand scale.
If Botero travels, Henry Moore has to travel. In fact, the NYC botanical Garden has an exhibit in May. Serra, that’s a heavy load.
(BTW, if we are going to make an acronym let me fix it: it should have been “into” as in “absurdist reduction of life into banality and cliche”).
You are reading Critical Miami — commentary about culture, politics, and hedonistic pursuits in our city, written by Alesh Houdek. See about for more info or e-mail suggestions or questions.
This site is published under a Creative Commons License.