david, i dont know if i would go that far as to say thats a rule. in this case, nobody was talking, so i wanted to get the ball rolling. the work is very ambiguous and probably deserves a lengthy discussion rather than misinformed rhetoric.
I'm not trying to start an argument but I don't believe the best way to "get the ball rolling" is by pussyfooting around and dodging all embarrassment of a "misinformed" statement. Egos develop fear out of coming across as less than to others. Everyone who looks at these images, which is not very many people by any means, receives the same amount as information.
Or are you telling me you have no interpretation of your own? Not a thought comes through? I'm sure, at least I'd hope, we all spend hours and hours thinking and writing on our own work, if for no one else but ourselves. Shouldn't that give you some boost in discussing the work of others? I'd like to make it a point that the artist writes nothing. Clearly I've made the decision to not include titles. If the three images aren't enough to begin a dialogue on their own there is even a link to a deeper view into Travis' mindset.
Maybe Travis' is so on point no one has shit to say. There are three possibilities, Travis came so hard with this work that he blew everyone out and they have not a word to say about it. Second, everyone's (non existent) Reputation prevents them from making a judgment in fear that their comment may not be totally "On Point". Lastly, everyone hates what they are seeing and would rather not discuss it. But shit, if you hate this work that much I'd like to hear it. Say SOMETHING. Don't be so lazy. Can't we get our own minds moving without the support of others?
I was just being a smart-ass above, but honestly I don't have much to say in regards to this work, visually. I could feign interest to start a dialogue, but I really don't find this work intriguing. I think it's cocky and dull, and without it placed within a particular context, the work loses much, if not all, of what could potentially make it interesting. I was over this before I wasted time attempting to consider it. Sorry to be so blunt, but you asked for an opinion, and there it is. If this fucks up my reputation, so be it.
how much more particular could the context be? it's in a garage!!!
a place where
a. people park cars b. people commit suicide in parked cars c. people make art
"cocky and dull"? "i was over this"? i think it is important to be able to read-- (i mean read visually) you can walk down the street and read anything you understand? this has little to do with your taste artist eyes/minds can read anything
the first image particularly i think is nuts like some twisted black hole back off - cut by the difficult day saber ---- like all night comes day breaking into heads that figure maybe it's still 12:30 cause the lysergic has yet to wear off --- mexico, birds
dave you should change this to the back alley art brawl blog and encourage the most rawkus hell raised, albeit critical, dialogue.
i agree lets rage, im stuck on the last image, icons on the wall, ur wall of icons. like ur bedroom when you still believed in someone or something. the garage is kinda like that, a sanctuary. things are made, things are destroyed, things happen on the hush hush.
haha, I knew I'd start a war with that. Seriously though, my opinion doesn't really change. I still think the work is cocky, taunting the viewer to attempt to understand it, and mocking them if they somehow can't. Clearly anyone can read anything into whatever, but is that the point? That seems like a bit of a cop out to me...and yes, this has everything to do with my taste, as I am entitled to have my own, and if there is one place where opinions should be shared in a non-academic environment, it's a blog. If the work is supposed to be disruptive and vague, than it has definitely succeeded.
how is it that work could be understood? and even more so how could it mock?
you make work and then people understand it or don't?
shit, i don't even come close to fully understanding my own work.
and yes i think reading into things is exactly the point --- moving into them. i would say yea if your not interested in something who would bother right. agreed but this is where taste ends, obviously you have a right to it but i have very little interest in peoples taste --
really think this is fundamentally important stuff we're talking about. meaning, or matter is developed in the coming and going of our eyes and minds. this is why i think artist intention means nothing. we have no access whatsoever to intention (and even if we did intention is what??) -- we have what is actual and our understanding via visual/intellectual/sensual/emotional tunneling. we do this everyday with everything -- and we do it for sport or survival with art.
I agree that artist intention has no real power or significance, and that once a work enters the public eye, it's no longer the artist's decision what it means. I just don't personally think this work has any power, however cerebral it may attempt to be. Sorry man, nothing against the artist, I don't know the rest of the work. I just don't personally like this. Nuff said.
I've been thinking, and my opinion of these works completely changes depending on whether the pictures I'm seeing here are the work (ie: photographs of work inside a garage) or the work is meant to be displayed in a gallery, absent it's setting. Though, I'm not sure which it is.
More from Travis...
ReplyDeleteTravisalexandergalloway.blogspot.com
travis, im interested, can you give me some words?
ReplyDeleteNew Rule.
ReplyDeleteWe are educated adults who think for ourselves and we will not be asking the artist for their say before we write what we are thinking.
well, goddamn.
ReplyDeleteOkay, it looks like a garage with some stuff taped to the walls. Educated enough?
david, i dont know if i would go that far as to say thats a rule. in this case, nobody was talking, so i wanted to get the ball rolling. the work is very ambiguous and probably deserves a lengthy discussion rather than misinformed rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to start an argument but I don't believe the best way to "get the ball rolling" is by pussyfooting around and dodging all embarrassment of a "misinformed" statement. Egos develop fear out of coming across as less than to others. Everyone who looks at these images, which is not very many people by any means, receives the same amount as information.
ReplyDeleteOr are you telling me you have no interpretation of your own? Not a thought comes through? I'm sure, at least I'd hope, we all spend hours and hours thinking and writing on our own work, if for no one else but ourselves. Shouldn't that give you some boost in discussing the work of others? I'd like to make it a point that the artist writes nothing. Clearly I've made the decision to not include titles. If the three images aren't enough to begin a dialogue on their own there is even a link to a deeper view into Travis' mindset.
Maybe Travis' is so on point no one has shit to say. There are three possibilities, Travis came so hard with this work that he blew everyone out and they have not a word to say about it. Second, everyone's (non existent) Reputation prevents them from making a judgment in fear that their comment may not be totally "On Point". Lastly, everyone hates what they are seeing and would rather not discuss it. But shit, if you hate this work that much I'd like to hear it. Say SOMETHING. Don't be so lazy. Can't we get our own minds moving without the support of others?
In regards to "New Rule", maybe I've been watching a bit too much Bill Maher lately.
ReplyDeleteI was just being a smart-ass above, but honestly I don't have much to say in regards to this work, visually. I could feign interest to start a dialogue, but I really don't find this work intriguing. I think it's cocky and dull, and without it placed within a particular context, the work loses much, if not all, of what could potentially make it interesting. I was over this before I wasted time attempting to consider it. Sorry to be so blunt, but you asked for an opinion, and there it is. If this fucks up my reputation, so be it.
ReplyDeletehow much more particular could the context be?
ReplyDeleteit's in a garage!!!
a place where
a. people park cars
b. people commit suicide in parked cars
c. people make art
"cocky and dull"?
"i was over this"?
i think it is important to be able to read--
(i mean read visually)
you can walk down the street and read anything
you understand?
this has little to do with your taste
artist eyes/minds can read anything
the first image particularly i think is nuts
like some twisted black hole back off - cut by the difficult day saber ---- like all night comes day breaking into heads that figure maybe it's still 12:30 cause the lysergic has yet to wear off --- mexico, birds
dave you should change this to the back alley art brawl blog and encourage the most rawkus hell raised, albeit critical, dialogue.
i agree lets rage,
ReplyDeleteim stuck on the last image,
icons on the wall, ur wall of icons. like ur bedroom when you still believed in someone or something. the garage is kinda like that, a sanctuary. things are made, things are destroyed, things happen on the hush hush.
haha, I knew I'd start a war with that. Seriously though, my opinion doesn't really change. I still think the work is cocky, taunting the viewer to attempt to understand it, and mocking them if they somehow can't. Clearly anyone can read anything into whatever, but is that the point? That seems like a bit of a cop out to me...and yes, this has everything to do with my taste, as I am entitled to have my own, and if there is one place where opinions should be shared in a non-academic environment, it's a blog. If the work is supposed to be disruptive and vague, than it has definitely succeeded.
ReplyDeletehow is it that work could be understood? and even more so how could it mock?
ReplyDeleteyou make work and then people understand it or don't?
shit, i don't even come close to fully understanding my own work.
and yes i think reading into things is exactly the point --- moving into them.
i would say yea if your not interested in something who would bother right. agreed
but this is where taste ends, obviously you have a right to it but i have very little interest in peoples taste --
really think this is fundamentally important stuff we're talking about. meaning, or matter is developed in the coming and going of our eyes and minds. this is why i think artist intention means nothing. we have no access whatsoever to intention (and even if we did intention is what??) -- we have what is actual and our understanding via visual/intellectual/sensual/emotional tunneling. we do this everyday with everything -- and we do it for sport or survival with art.
I agree that artist intention has no real power or significance, and that once a work enters the public eye, it's no longer the artist's decision what it means. I just don't personally think this work has any power, however cerebral it may attempt to be. Sorry man, nothing against the artist, I don't know the rest of the work. I just don't personally like this. Nuff said.
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking, and my opinion of these works completely changes depending on whether the pictures I'm seeing here are the work (ie: photographs of work inside a garage) or the work is meant to be displayed in a gallery, absent it's setting. Though, I'm not sure which it is.
ReplyDelete