James Michael Starr has a pretty solid portfolio of collage & assemblage work. I get a feeling of ‘that’s so obvious, but very well done’ while looking at his stuff.
Take this piece below. It’s obviously quite beautiful to look at; but does it bug you that it’s hanging in a gallery? I’m generally cool with artwork as long as I find it aesthetically appealing; but I know there’s a lot of people out there who’d disagree.
Tags: Art, assemblage, collage, james michael starr
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:57 am
If I really let it get to me, all the stuff that shouldn’t be in galleries but is, I’d be a really crabby person. OK, OK… a MORE crabby person.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
haha. l t, you’re not so crabby to me.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
it’s art if the dude who made it says it’s art.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Actually, I’m not even sure some of it is art myself. But to be clear, the last one, the assemblage of rulers, isn’t actually “in a gallery” but I think in a bin at an alternative art space in Austin. In my opinion, it’s the weakest link in a series of 3 that I made for a fund-raising benefit called Arthouse 5X7, every submission being required to measure in two dimensions exactly 5 x 7 inches. The work is signed on the back (so collectors can’t just snatch things up on the basis of who did it) and sold for $100 each at a series of shows in Austin, Houston and Dallas.
And before anyone lets me off the hook by saying, oh okay it’s for a fundraiser so it can be crap, I try not to make that an excuse for doing work that’s not as good.
You raise an interesting point, though. Should an artist be the one who decides something is art? Does being in a gallery determine that it’s art? Since Bill seems to have summed up our existentialism by reducing life to “it depends on what the meaning of is is,” we get to play fast and lose with both language and reality.
I simply love to make things. And while I call myself an artist and strive to make things worthy of the term “art,” I’m often unsure whether they all are or not. Just before my last gallery show, I took the bicycle in to them and said, I’m not sure if this is art or not. They said yes, and since then it’s been in a museum show as well.
Still, since I’m not forcing anybody to accept them, I’m not going to tie myself up in knots worrying about it.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:01 am
Well said, James. Sorry for the confusion on the ruler piece. It’s funny that you call it the weakest link, as it is one of my favorite pieces of yours.
I’m of the opinion that if someone creates something, shares it with the world, and it causes a reaction of any kind in a viewer than that thing is ‘art.’
I think you’re wise to not bother yourself over people’s acceptance of your work; that would probably lead to a creative hindrance in your artistic process.
Regardless, I love your work. Keep it up!
June 4th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I like this stuff a lot. Whether or not it’s actually art. It’s interesting to look at (which can be said of many things, including medical conditions) and I like that about it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, they say, so maybe “art” is too. Eh?