David Hammons made sculptures from elephant dung in 1978.
Chris Ofili followed in 1996, getting all the ink.
For sheer invention, David Hammons is the equal of Bruce Nauman, although Nauman is the bigger name. Why? I don’t think it’s racism alone, although racism can’t be counted out. Nauman will talk to people. He’s willing to participate in the gallery and museum system. Hammons is not.
Hammons:
THE ART AUDIENCE IS THE WORST AUDIENCE IN THE WORLD. IT’S OVERLY EDUCATED, IT’S CONSERVATIVE, IT’S OUT TO CRITICIZE NOT TO UNDERSTAND, AND IT NEVER HAS ANY FUN. WHY SHOULD I SPEND MY TIME PLAYING TO THAT AUDIENCE? (more)
And yet that is the audience who loves him.
David Hammons Rules.
Bruce Nauman is a fool.
I am at a loss to understand why anyone is moved by Nauman, and why anyone is NOT moved by Hammons.
I guess thats why they make Chocolate and Vanilla, eh?
I can agree with Ries’s appreciation of the work and attitudes of David Hammons. After going to his website and familiarizing myself I too felt simpatico towards much of what Hammons had to say. I cannot understand though, why he called Bruce Nauman a fool. Such a negative comment would deserve a clarification, no?
Because it rhymes, of course.
No, I dont really believe Nauman is a fool.
I just dont find his work the least bit interesting.
Its always mean, in the sense that there is no human kindness or soul in it. Its always “fabricated” in the sense that he intentionally has it made in industrial ways, to remove the hand of the artist. If art is a window into the soul of the artist, what I see in a Nauman piece is a guy I have no interest in having dinner with. No fun is ever present.
Plus, you seen one, you seen em all- I walk past those random neon words in every museum I have ever been in- so I can get to the David Hammons down the hall.
If I want clowns, I prefer Red Skelton.
If I want fascist architecture, like his piece up at Western in Bellingham, I prefer Speer.
If I want neon, I will go with Mario Merz any day over Nauman.
In order to formulate an opinion on Nauman I’ll have to inquire further(so much to learn and so little time). I’d have to admit that normally I’d pass over this art as it holds little interest for me. Yes, a lack of soulful connection would be a way of describing my disinterest. Oftentimes I do not percieve deeper intentions while the internet has its shortcomings when displaying the nuance of the craft.
As for neon, I think it is ill served as an art form, both technically and aesthetically. Neon is something I’ll be sure to pursue in my next life.
Hi Marulis. Bruce Nauman has used neon, but his work isn’t about that. It’s about having a mind inside a body and noticing how both move in time and space. Both he and David Hammons are crucial figures.
OK, I’d say at first glance I do enjoy the literary introspective aspects found in Nauman’s work. With my own aesthetic sensitivity, I’d prefer visual gratification to be provided along with conceptual legitimacy. Nauman’s “100 Fish Fountain” looks tantalizing but I’d have to see it up close and in the flesh to be sure that it actually does live up to it’s intention.
Locally, here in Seattle, as an example of a work of art that is ill-served I’d have to point to Oldenberg’s Typewriter Eraser. In my opinion, this piece should not appear as if it’d been placed statically onto that hill but should instead be passing rapidly and joyfully through as it rolls headlong down that steep hillside. This sensation should be evident from all viewable sides but I fear it has been set at an improper angle.
The point being here is that although an idea may have great merit it still must work visually.
Conceptuality is legitimate and ideas are fun and I like the looks of those fish in a photograph, but if I were to stand in front of them and simply see fish squirting water then I’d be disappointed and my thoughts would sadly gravitate towards gimickry.