This isn't what was on show at Madison, but if you read further down it says that the brothers bought Goya's disaster of war prints and reappropriated them. Personally, I think it is unacceptable to take Goya's prints and use them like a personal coloring book. It's disrespectful and childish to me. Some artists are just jerks and I fear the future of the art world when artists get off on using shock values inappropriately to cause a fifteen minute stir in the art world.
Jake and Dinos Chapman are influential British artists who, along with some of their contemporaries, came to the attention of American audiences when they appeared in the exhibition Sensation, which showed works from the Saatchi collection at the Brooklyn Museum in 1999 2000. The Chapman brothers disturbing contributions to that exhibition were sculptures of androgynous adolescents, whose in-your-face sexuality tested the mores of museum goers.
chapman
In 1999, Paragon Presspublished the Chapmans eighty-three print set, Disasters of War. The set refers to a series of prints by Goya which bear the same title, Desastre de la Guerra. The prints were not published until 35 years after his death, probably because they include satires on contemporary figures. Goyas series also records in considerable detail the atrocities and heroism of the Peninsular War between Spain and France waged 1808 1814. Though it contains the same number of prints, some of which refer directly to Goyas series, the prints in the Chapman brothers series do not attempt to recapitulate Goyas series and instead treat Goyas prints without reverence or restraint. [A portion of this set will be on display at the Chazen.]
Some more examples of their portfolio are atParagon Press
chapman
In 2003, the brothers sold another complex war diorama (of wartime atrocities laid out on a swastika-shaped pedestal) and used part of the proceeds from the sale to purchase their own set of Goyas Disasters of War series. They then painted deranged clown and puppy faces over all of the visible faces of Goyas figures. The result, which they entitled Insult to Injury, caused a scandal among critics offended by what the Chapman brothers called their rectifying of the prints. Jake Chapman defined their sense of the meaning of rectified as being the same as when the word was used in the movie, The Shining, when the butlers trying to encourage Jack Nicholson to kill his family, to rectify the situation.---more from the Guardian
10 comments:
very interesting.
personally the people who seem to buy art are not people I want to sell it too.
i'll think about this more and have a better coherent reply later so we can all argue.
guys i like this idea i'm sorry
umm. no. this kinda pisses me off. i have more of a respect for the past than most of my contemporaries though. but what really bothers me is using someone elses art as the BASIS for your own art. everyone is inspired by someone else, and people in a collaborative environment may borrow directly from one another, but taking a master's etchings and drawing clown faces on them is not art. it is a sad attempt at getting attantion for yourself, like a 4 year old drawing with crayons on the family pictures. not something to be proud of.
you can't declare it not art general gow, you can say it's bad art.
i think you guys take yourselves too seriously if this pisses you off.
it's not about me taking myself seriously. it's about having respect for that which came before me.
i suppose once they own the prints it is their decision to do with them as they please. it doesnt make it a good idea, it doesnt make it the RIGHT thing to do.
the only reason they did it was to get attention for themselves. it doesnt make any particularly earth shattering statement that will change the way people think. it was completely self serving. if you want to do something stupid and self serving, thats fine. just dont ruin someone elses art in the process. that is disrespectful.
oh, and i can say it's not art if i feel it's not art. what is art to me is up to me to decide. art is NOT what other people tell me it is...
i like the actual prints that they made.
it's a boring idea though.
graffiti has been around for years.
and i don't know if anything is shocking anymore.
ok so I went to the museum website and couldn't access any of the pics-- did they literally paint over Goya's work- or was it a copy of his stuff that they painted over?? ps- good argument delaware- -- I would need to know more in order to care more about this "scandal"
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/gallery/0,8542,926340,00.html
go to that link mary and click on view gallery
they actually painted or drew on top of the goya originals.
i mean there are other goya originals of the same prints around still but.. ehhh
i don't understand why these guys are artists.
A- I thought you might like the idea just a little bit, and I'm glad it made you think about what art means or doesn't mean to you. General Gow was right when he said "what is art to me is up to me to decide." This is why when people destroy Goya's prints it pisses them off because for them this is their art. Then again a person like you light enjoy this new reinterpretation. Perhaps one feels more connected to familiar imagery than old ones.
Again, the idea of destroying prints raises up other issues too. As we know, there are many other copies of these works, so it raises the issue of the individuality of the print itself. Is there individual value to each print when there an edition created?
from making prints there is an individual value to each print because it's hard to make them exactly the same.
but the market doesn't treat them that way i'm sure
Post a Comment