100 Works of Art That Will Define Our Age
This postal service is also published on CELLOPHANELAND* (link here)
I am usually rather sceptical near anything featuring numbered selections. Nowadays hardly anything seems to attain the pages of a mag or a Television screen without being reduced to a seemingly arbitrary list. At best it tin exist of pocket-sized help where information has been distilled from something extensive or complex but at worst is simply a pointless exercise made with minimal critical judgement. The championship of 100 Works Of Fine art That Will Ascertain Our Age therefore aroused suspicion. How much selection was there? Was in that location actually a nice round number? Could, or should, '100' merely have been left off?
Numerical gripes aside this is an exceptional volume. It is a formidable task to attempt to scroll forwards in fourth dimension and make a judgement on how a time to come population will have judged art of the present day or indeed gauge the art of your own era. It would also be like shooting fish in a barrel to go bogged down in an nigh endless series of semantic or philosophical questions only Grovier nevertheless delicately navigates this minefield with humour and skill.
He notes that Vincent Van Gogh's gimmicky view of his own 'Starry Night' was that it was a dreadful 'failure' and by slipping in frequent insights such as this Grovier lets usa glimpse at how the defining views of the art of the past and nowadays are ever fluid.
We see how the artists of today continually draw from the past and how meanings menses in ii directions. Great art never finishes but instead forever participates having the power to alter the art of the past as well equally to influence the future.
Grover really creates a definition of 'Our Historic period' by selecting art from most 1990 to 2010 leaving a certain amount of critical weight to have already been applied. The notorious SaatchiAwareness exhibition from 1997 already seems an historic period ago and a handful of works like Damien Hirst's 'Shark' and Marc Quinn'sSelf are naturally included. Many others like Olafur Eliasson'sAtmospheric condition Project for the Tate Turbine Hall, Jeff Koons'Puppy, Marina AbramovicThe Artist is Present and Tracey Emin's 'Bed' seem natural choices, neatly included in sections with titles like 'Is All Art Nostalgic' and 'Can Art and Life ever be in Sync?'.
At the same time ane does wonder whether the likes of Jeff Wall, Cristina Iglesias, Walid Raad, Sean Scully and Sheela Gowda really define our age. I dont remember so, and information technology is a stretch to think that as many as a hundred works tin can possibly define an age. If nosotros look dorsum another 30 years to Pop art how far do we see beyond a handful of names like say, Warhol and Lichtenstein? Who knows even if the period 1990 to 2010 will always make its mark on history or fade in to a forgotten mist?
However, as i progressed through the book, the pleasure in looking back at some of the great works of our era and reading Grovier's beautifully written and insightful analyses will dissolve all doubts. It reads easily and gently expands our appreciation of works that we perhaps doubted or misunderstood. It may, or may not, in the cease include the works that ascertain our age merely maybe it is best viewed simply as an exemplary record of memorable recent art.
For more information visit www.thamesandhudson.com
Source: https://akickupthearts.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/100-works-of-art-that-will-define-our-age-kelly-grovier/