Comments on: OK, I’ll Write About Art (or “Nozkowski vs. Heilmann”) http://www.mitchmagee.com/blog/2006/03/08/ok-ill-write-about-art-or-nozkowski-vs-heilmann/ Just another WordPress weblog Tue, 07 Feb 2012 01:24:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Mitch http://www.mitchmagee.com/blog/2006/03/08/ok-ill-write-about-art-or-nozkowski-vs-heilmann/comment-page-1/#comment-292 Mitch Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:33:04 +0000 http://www.mitchmagee.com/blog/?p=48#comment-292 You, Doc? Pretty damn smart if you ask me. You, Doc? Pretty damn smart if you ask me.

]]> By: Doc http://www.mitchmagee.com/blog/2006/03/08/ok-ill-write-about-art-or-nozkowski-vs-heilmann/comment-page-1/#comment-291 Doc Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:31:23 +0000 http://www.mitchmagee.com/blog/?p=48#comment-291 I love these art posts, but I never respond because I feel so dumb. But I have a little tiny bit to say on this. (Note: If you're familiar with Brecht, then stop reading, as my very slight familiarity will expose itself as slight and maybe plain wrong, and you'll just think I'm an asshole.) As I understand it, Brecht was big into this idea in theater that the goal should not be to get the audience to identify with the protagonist. This, he claimed, led to getting emotionally involved, when the real interest should be in getting people to think. So, he did all these things to force the audience out of that identification, to stand up and shout "Hey! This is a play you are watching!" If you read a theater review that uses the word "Brechtian", it usually means that the play in question had some of these elements. I don't really get it all conceptually, but I do know that it does create a different effect, and I like that effect sometimes. The basic idea seems right: when you're knocked out of identifying with the protagonist, your brain starts whirring. Sometimes, that's perfect. What really sucks is when some idiot says, "Hey, I'll go all Brechtian on this," but with nothing to say and no understanding of the theory, and you end up with something empty and horrendously masturbatory. Anyhow, what you said about Rushmore calling attention to itself brought this to mind, so I thought I'd share this bit from the theater side of things with you folks on the painting side of things. Two great movies out right now seem good examples of the extremes on this: on the non-Brecht side, Brokeback Mountain, and on the Brecht side, Cache. Shit. Maybe I shouldn't have posted this. I still feel kind of dumb. I love these art posts, but I never respond because I feel so dumb. But I have a little tiny bit to say on this. (Note: If you’re familiar with Brecht, then stop reading, as my very slight familiarity will expose itself as slight and maybe plain wrong, and you’ll just think I’m an asshole.) As I understand it, Brecht was big into this idea in theater that the goal should not be to get the audience to identify with the protagonist. This, he claimed, led to getting emotionally involved, when the real interest should be in getting people to think. So, he did all these things to force the audience out of that identification, to stand up and shout “Hey! This is a play you are watching!” If you read a theater review that uses the word “Brechtian”, it usually means that the play in question had some of these elements. I don’t really get it all conceptually, but I do know that it does create a different effect, and I like that effect sometimes. The basic idea seems right: when you’re knocked out of identifying with the protagonist, your brain starts whirring. Sometimes, that’s perfect. What really sucks is when some idiot says, “Hey, I’ll go all Brechtian on this,” but with nothing to say and no understanding of the theory, and you end up with something empty and horrendously masturbatory.

Anyhow, what you said about Rushmore calling attention to itself brought this to mind, so I thought I’d share this bit from the theater side of things with you folks on the painting side of things.

Two great movies out right now seem good examples of the extremes on this: on the non-Brecht side, Brokeback Mountain, and on the Brecht side, Cache.

Shit. Maybe I shouldn’t have posted this. I still feel kind of dumb.

]]> By: Mitch http://www.mitchmagee.com/blog/2006/03/08/ok-ill-write-about-art-or-nozkowski-vs-heilmann/comment-page-1/#comment-286 Mitch Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:08:58 +0000 http://www.mitchmagee.com/blog/?p=48#comment-286 Another example: is Rushmore a bad movie because it's so theatrical, using a series of framing devices to call attention to itself? On Pastiche: I think people want to read this as cynicism when it's really a way of understanding how information is received. Another example: is Rushmore a bad movie because it’s so theatrical, using a series of framing devices to call attention to itself?

On Pastiche: I think people want to read this as cynicism when it’s really a way of understanding how information is received.

]]> By: Mitch http://www.mitchmagee.com/blog/2006/03/08/ok-ill-write-about-art-or-nozkowski-vs-heilmann/comment-page-1/#comment-285 Mitch Thu, 09 Mar 2006 17:20:32 +0000 http://www.mitchmagee.com/blog/?p=48#comment-285 Would Tristan Shandy be a better novel if it were less self-referencial? If it didn't make clear how the novel is constructed? (I've never read TS, but I know it's one of your favorite books, K) Heilmann's (and Owens') paintings are doing the same thing, they are in some part meditations on "meaning." This doesn't seem like a copout. The copout may be the painter convinced of his/her work's complete autonomy. Although worse still is the painter who won't address the language at all, whose paintings only "point to things." Would Tristan Shandy be a better novel if it were less self-referencial? If it didn’t make clear how the novel is constructed? (I’ve never read TS, but I know it’s one of your favorite books, K)

Heilmann’s (and Owens’) paintings are doing the same thing, they are in some part meditations on “meaning.” This doesn’t seem like a copout.

The copout may be the painter convinced of his/her work’s complete autonomy.
Although worse still is the painter who won’t address the language at all, whose paintings only “point to things.”

]]> By: kaveri http://www.mitchmagee.com/blog/2006/03/08/ok-ill-write-about-art-or-nozkowski-vs-heilmann/comment-page-1/#comment-284 kaveri Thu, 09 Mar 2006 16:27:36 +0000 http://www.mitchmagee.com/blog/?p=48#comment-284 on second thoughts, scrap the "pastiche" part since that doesn't apply to heilmann. maybe THAT's the difference- sticking with a language- even if the distancing from the language is the same in both Owens and Heilmann cases? help me out, bloggy readers! (you teeming millions...) on second thoughts, scrap the “pastiche” part since that doesn’t apply to heilmann. maybe THAT’s the difference- sticking with a language- even if the distancing from the language is the same in both Owens and Heilmann cases?
help me out, bloggy readers! (you teeming millions…)

]]> By: kaveri http://www.mitchmagee.com/blog/2006/03/08/ok-ill-write-about-art-or-nozkowski-vs-heilmann/comment-page-1/#comment-283 kaveri Thu, 09 Mar 2006 16:18:44 +0000 http://www.mitchmagee.com/blog/?p=48#comment-283 is "look, i'm an abstract painting!" really a conceptual realm where most painters dare not tread, or one where they dare not NOT tread? I am thinking particularly in combination with making a lovely painting. I guess I've received a bit of flack lately for painting and "painting" at the same time, like it's a weak, ass-covering move. The flack-givers inevitably point to laura owens, who heilman i think taught, as an example of the untenableness / softheadedness of this position. Anyone with anything to say re: Laura Owens, and pastiche? is “look, i’m an abstract painting!” really a conceptual realm where most painters dare not tread, or one where they dare not NOT tread?
I am thinking particularly in combination with making a lovely painting.
I guess I’ve received a bit of flack lately for painting and “painting” at the same time, like it’s a weak, ass-covering move. The flack-givers inevitably point to laura owens, who heilman i think taught, as an example of the untenableness / softheadedness of this position.
Anyone with anything to say re: Laura Owens, and pastiche?

]]> By: Mitch http://www.mitchmagee.com/blog/2006/03/08/ok-ill-write-about-art-or-nozkowski-vs-heilmann/comment-page-1/#comment-282 Mitch Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:38:13 +0000 http://www.mitchmagee.com/blog/?p=48#comment-282 the self-consciousness was purely accidental. I like Nozkowski. I guess by "clever types" I meant the type of artist who would dismiss his work as meaningless decoration (at best). the self-consciousness was purely accidental.
I like Nozkowski. I guess by “clever types” I meant the type of artist who would dismiss his work as meaningless decoration (at best).

]]> By: Will Hines http://www.mitchmagee.com/blog/2006/03/08/ok-ill-write-about-art-or-nozkowski-vs-heilmann/comment-page-1/#comment-281 Will Hines Thu, 09 Mar 2006 06:08:48 +0000 http://www.mitchmagee.com/blog/?p=48#comment-281 From these samples, I like Heilmann's stuff better. But I like even more the subtle self-consciousness of the last sentence of this entry. From these samples, I like Heilmann’s stuff better.

But I like even more the subtle self-consciousness of the last sentence of this entry.

]]>