NYC Storefront Models

[Malachi Constant]

Go away for a few days and the forum gets all intellectual ...............

It alternates ... this week it'll be intellectual ... next week there will be a thread that goes just a "wee" bit too far about using urine to age metal panels or some such.

[W.P. Rayner]

Go away for a few days and the forum gets all intellectual ...............

It alternates ... this week it'll be intellectual ... next week there will be a thread that goes just a "wee" bit too far about using urine to age metal panels or some such.

Either that or Marc will go on again about the party in his pants...

Paul

[marc_reusser]

Forgot to mention, while at the gallery, I picked up a very cool book on New York store fronts; "Store Front: The Disappearing Face of New York"...it even has pics of almost all the shops that the models were based on. A great book if you like this kind of stuff.

http://www.jamesandkarlamurray.com/JamesandKarlaMurraySTOREFRONT.html

The price at the link shows it as costing $65; the gallery was selling them for $27.


You can see some of the storefronts shown in the book, at this porfoloio link, and by clicking on the other portfolio page links in the lower left corner.

http://www.jamesandkarlamurray.com/JamesandKarlaMurrayPortfolioStorefronts.html



Marc

[finescalerr]

I want to say something about Andi's comment: Sometimes a real artist seems almost oblivious to the fact he creates art. Perhaps one reason is that, in the past half century or so, the idea of "art" (not real art) has descended into "who slings bulls--t" in the most popular way. In other words, if I were to put a small end table against the wall, toss a small tablecloth over it, overturn a bottle of bourbon, cordon it off, and post a "description" next to it (maybe something like "Culmination of a bad and drunken evening") people would think it were art.

If, on the other hand, I were to put one of the finest examples of modeling from this forum on display without such a "description" the artsy crowd might dismiss it as "merely a model" or simply uninteresting or perhaps too realistic to be "art".

In reality the first example requires neither skill nor imagination but the salesmanship of the description vaunts it into the realm of "art" to those nincompoops who fall for such garbage. The second example requires observational skills, creativity, vision, manual dexterity, and genuine artistry (whether precisely realistic or impressionistic). But it has no pretentious words to propel it beyond what it is.

Form versus substance.

In today's art world, the former always wins. It's all about contemporary fashion and talk and reputation and pretense. In today's real world, much true art never finds a receptive audience.

Rembrandt, were he alive and painting today, would be dismissed as irrelevant because, after all, we have cameras. And some jackass who paints a yellow dot on a field of gray might be heralded as an artistic genius if he can sling the right line of bull.

Andi, you sell yourself short, along with many of your colleagues here. But I admire your modesty.

Russ

[mad gerald]

...  Perhaps one reason is that, in the past half century or so, the idea of "art" (not real art) has descended into "who slings bulls--t" in the most popular way. In other words, if I were to put a small end table against the wall, toss a small tablecloth over it, overturn a bottle of bourbon, cordon it off, and post a "description" next to it (maybe something like "Culmination of a bad and drunken evening") people would think it were art.

... reminds me of an exhibit I came across at a vernissage happening in a local art gallery: an empty picture frame hanging on the wall, entitled "framed nothing", raising a lot of interest and exaltation ...  

To quote Pablo Picasso: I needed a lifetime, enabling me to paint like a child ...  

Cheers

[BKLN]

Russ,
I see your point, but the humbleness is what I love about this place. It's pure modesty here!
I doesn't matter if we call ourselves artists, craftsmen or miniaturists. (as long as I don't end up in the "toy train" category)

[Ken Hamilton]

Not to change directions of the thread, but since this seems to be an "Arty" discussion it might be an appropriate time
to mention that I've been invited to have a show of dioramas at a gallery in Philadelphia this September.  Pieces will include
the "Playland Arcade", "The Rainbow Motel", "Home Sweet Home" (the camper). and a couple of others.  I'll post details
as the show gets closer if anyone's interested.

Should be an interesting experience..........

[Chuck Doan]

Wow, Congrats Ken! Very cool. Right next to the Barnes collection I imagine?

[Andi Little]

Congratulations Ken, your work is more than worthy of a gallery space. And should provoke much discussion, along with copious amounts of admiration too I would suggest - You already of course - have mine.
Having said that once you are "exhibited", you can never use the term "Arty" again; you see it's such a derogatory term, dismissive at its most benign - spiteful and naive at best.

Just being all temperamental and defensive you understand.............


Congrat's again............... well done.

[Ken Hamilton]

Right next to the Barnes collection I imagine?

Ha!  That's been causing quite a stir arond here.  Barnes never wanted the collection moved,
but its new home is in a building build to duplicate the original gallery space. Haven't seen it yet.....

[Ray Dunakin]

Congrats! That's quite an honor!

[lab-dad]

Congrats Ken!
Funny about this thread.
I was at the Hirshhorn gallery yesterday.
Im sorry but most of the "art" looked like it was created by
a brain damaged 7 year old.
Quite the contrast to what I saw at the National Gallery.
The "masters" really were just that!
Marty

[Geoff Ringle]

That's cool Ken.  I'll be looking forward to seeing the exhibit.  I'm close by in Trenton.  Geoff

[Ken Hamilton]

Geoff....just sent you a PM.
KH

[marc_reusser]

Congrats Ken. Keep us updated.