Some time ago, I wrote about an empty canvas by Bob Law, entitled Nothing to be Afraid Of, which was to be auctioned for an estimated £60, 000. Law was described by the head of the contemporary art department at the auction house as the "most underestimated and overlooked minimalist artist in Britain...who didn't get the recognition that he deserved". In his painting he had apparently "... applied the seductive idea of nothing to a canvas, and asks the viewer to reflect”.
A somewhat puzzled David Hockney was reported as saying "It seems to me that if you make pictures there should be something on the canvas".
In the end, the empty canvas was never sold, at least not at that auction.
Now, I have just read in Real Clear Science about the shortest paper ever published.
It is entitled "The Unsuccessful Self-Treatment of a Case of Writer's Block" by one Dennis Upper.
The paper is an empty page. The referee's comments are reproduced below the empty page and read as follows:
"I have studied this manuscript very carefully with lemon juice and
X-rays and have not detected a single flaw in either design or writing
style. I suggest it be published without revision. Clearly it is the
most concise manuscript I have ever seen-yet it contains sufficient
detail to allow other investigators to replicate Dr. Upper's failure. In
comparison with the other manuscripts I get from you containing all
that complicated detail, this one was a pleasure to examine. Surely we
can find a place for this paper in the Journal-perhaps on the edge of a
blank page."
There is nothing on the page -- and yet "it contains sufficient detail to allow other investigators to replicate..."
Bob Law asked the viewer to reflect by applying "the seductive idea of nothing to a canvas"
Both scientists and artists can now, in the absence of all detail, create their own details.
So science and art do meet, sort of, don't they? After all, who can deny the similarity here?
Maybe someone should ask the auction house to sell a copy of the paper (preferrably signed by Dennis Upper) alongside Bob Law's empty canvas.
That will be a true meeting of art and science - united under money.
The question is: which one will fetch the higher price?
Showing posts with label empty canvas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label empty canvas. Show all posts
Monday, January 27, 2014
Sunday, October 2, 2011
£60,000 for self reflection
Next week in London, a canvas by Bob Law entitled Nothing To be Afraid Of V 22.8.69 is to be auctioned and carries with it an estimate of £60,000.
Law apparently “had applied the seductive idea of nothing to a canvas, and asks the viewer to reflect” (according to the auctioneer’s catalogue).
Metro reports the artist David Hockney as saying, “It seems to me that if you make pictures there should be something on the canvas”.
The idea of “blankness” is not new, and not only in painting. I gather that in some Noh performances (which date back to the 15th century), the actor appears before the audience and says nothing for about half an hour. Half an hour, during which the audience’s imagination can be stimulated.
But I have very mixed feelings about this empty canvas by Law and its price tag.
On the one hand, it seems an awful lot of money to pay, when you could have the same thing for much cheaper, for example by painting one wall in your house in white (see my post about my stay in a Tokyo hotel). You could then project your imagination daily on the empty space. If the space is large enough, one could project films regularly on it, thus turning an empty space into a source of infinite variability and fertile imagination.
On the other hand, given the huge sums spent in auction houses on what I believe is very shoddy work, I would prefer a blank canvas. I can project my concepts on to it regularly, whereas I would have to view a bad piece of art daily, were I unfortunate enough to spend so much money on it.
But of course I defer to those knowledgeable about art. Metro reports the head of contemporary art at the auction house as saying, “Bob Law is the most underestimated and overlooked minimal artist in Britain …[who] didn’t get the recognition that he deserved”
Well, he may now. I hope that the purchaser will enjoy enriching his imagination daily.
As for me, I will stick to a white wall.
Law apparently “had applied the seductive idea of nothing to a canvas, and asks the viewer to reflect” (according to the auctioneer’s catalogue).
Metro reports the artist David Hockney as saying, “It seems to me that if you make pictures there should be something on the canvas”.
The idea of “blankness” is not new, and not only in painting. I gather that in some Noh performances (which date back to the 15th century), the actor appears before the audience and says nothing for about half an hour. Half an hour, during which the audience’s imagination can be stimulated.
But I have very mixed feelings about this empty canvas by Law and its price tag.
On the one hand, it seems an awful lot of money to pay, when you could have the same thing for much cheaper, for example by painting one wall in your house in white (see my post about my stay in a Tokyo hotel). You could then project your imagination daily on the empty space. If the space is large enough, one could project films regularly on it, thus turning an empty space into a source of infinite variability and fertile imagination.
On the other hand, given the huge sums spent in auction houses on what I believe is very shoddy work, I would prefer a blank canvas. I can project my concepts on to it regularly, whereas I would have to view a bad piece of art daily, were I unfortunate enough to spend so much money on it.
But of course I defer to those knowledgeable about art. Metro reports the head of contemporary art at the auction house as saying, “Bob Law is the most underestimated and overlooked minimal artist in Britain …[who] didn’t get the recognition that he deserved”
Well, he may now. I hope that the purchaser will enjoy enriching his imagination daily.
As for me, I will stick to a white wall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)