tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57198975284327285.post884007823298086514..comments2022-08-04T07:46:37.428-04:00Comments on Fugitive Vision: ParallelsEvan Mirapaulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12081536503577305620noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57198975284327285.post-12696096945932382382013-07-16T00:27:05.589-04:002013-07-16T00:27:05.589-04:00Indeed Pae White has plagiarized many, in fact she...Indeed Pae White has plagiarized many, in fact she's made a career of it. Very courageous of Randall Scott to say so publicly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57198975284327285.post-1331673506853191442010-03-02T10:46:34.232-05:002010-03-02T10:46:34.232-05:00Oh, I am sure someone has thought of that curatori...Oh, I am sure someone has thought of that curatorial and exhibited it. :o)<br /><br />RAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57198975284327285.post-73999606145636877212010-03-02T01:16:23.797-05:002010-03-02T01:16:23.797-05:00Thank you for the comment, Randall. I agree with y...Thank you for the comment, Randall. I agree with your last paragraph very much, though I suspect the reference is often only in the subconscious of the artist. As recent posts in the blogosphere have made plain, there is an endless supply of art that somehow looks like other art. You are right that the goal should be to re-contextualize and to make a personal statement which elevates the work above the similarity of the object. <br /><br />I'm expressly not looking for who's first. It seems clear to me that first has little value or meaning including who shows or publishes first. The vicissitudes of the gallery scene and art market have a non-linear logic of their own. Why one artist finds renown and another is obscure while showing similar work is a problem that will nor be solved with a chronology or logic, I believe. <br /><br />As a gallerist, I wonder if you would ever consider mounting a show which highlighted some of these questions. It might not make sales, but it would be an exciting exploration into the machinations of the art world.Evan Mirapaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12081536503577305620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57198975284327285.post-606348983133157772010-03-01T10:30:39.265-05:002010-03-01T10:30:39.265-05:00If you're looking at who came first...I actual...If you're looking at who came first...I actually did this back in 1995. Shown with Bennett Roberts in LA, the work derived as large scale color abstractions of film ends. I was interested in appropriation of discarded non-imagery and raided the local professional color lab weekly for the film discards. The film was cleaned, slide mounted and titled "Untitled Painting #xxx". The idea being to appropriate another photographers discards (or garbage), recontexturalize and present as a painting, although technically a photograph. <br /><br />The paintings later gravitated by my piecing together 4 or 5 separate film ends to create more depth and the illusion of spacial reality.<br /><br />In 1995, the work did not catch on in LA and never made its way to NY, or Europe. I then opened a gallery and work ended, and moved on.<br /><br />Imagine my surprise when I saw Silvios work at an art fair and sent a photo to Bennett Roberts who laughed. <br /><br />It was both wonderful and maddening as when I asked the gallerist I was told that the idea was unique. I smiled, and laughed.<br /><br />Nothing is unique. I took my reference from Rothko, and color field paintings and took my materials from my photographic peers. Being first is only relevant if you are written about FIRST. Then, who came before whom is a cat fight and unless the "idea stealing" was so up front obvious, the first published generally wins.<br /><br />Another reference is Christopher Griffith who's Tire Photographs were published in a book, only to be copied by Horacio Salinas and shown (just before Griffith's book came out) at NYphoto Festival. It was highly talked about as being so original. However, his 8 images (that's all he shot) to Griffith's 100 exposures done a year before were atributed to Salinas. Salinas had not only seen the book, but knew Griffith and photographed the images in the exact way, format and printing. That's an obvious example..<br /><br />So we can turn our attention now to Pae White and the Whitney. Are we to think that Smoke Trails are a new idea? Not to blow my own horn, but I did that for my commercial agent 6 years ago and printed them Huge. Oh, and I took that idea from someone else who had done it and I am sure I was not the only person to have done this since.<br /><br />There are very few Original ideas and when they come round, they are elevated. The rest of the art world should cite references, be appreciative of the inspiration and strive to recontexturalize and make the work personal.<br /><br />randall scottAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57198975284327285.post-30227014647144644042010-02-25T16:25:32.929-05:002010-02-25T16:25:32.929-05:00http://www.fotogalleriet.no/v1/sql/newsimages/hang...http://www.fotogalleriet.no/v1/sql/newsimages/hangonmetal72dpi.jpg<br />Tor Børresen, HANG ON METAL. USE NO WIRE, 2009<br />from my last show @Fotogalleriet.lmthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10296327990055496792noreply@blogger.com