What’s up with rainbows these days?
I’m serious…..it really seems like everywhere I look there are rainbows, rainbow “bursts”, and stripes of color radiating off of things. I am wondering what is it about the rainbow that everyone is latching on to right now…also it seems like most places the rainbow is used similarly…..does it mean anything?
In most cases, I think the rainbow is a kind of “nostalgic future aesthetic”….but there has to be more too it than that right?
And which other weirdly over-iterated trend should we connect rainbow graphics with? Vampires or apocalyptic futures? Like some kind of cultural yin and yang, surfacing in pairs.
Maybe the rainbow is a good way to “cute-ify” the bleak apocalyptic future. I think there is something kind of nostalgic about it too. For me, rainbows, as they’re often used now, read as something to the effect of “Hey, remember how great we used to think the future was going to be?”
My freshmen have conversations about how great the 80s must have been, like those were the happy days or a golden age. I keep thinking: seemingly imminent nuclear war, Reaganomics, high crime rates…huh?
yes, I remember being awakened one night in Philadelphia in the 80’s by a loud noise, and looking out at the pinkish orange nighttime sky and thinking that someone had dropped an atomic bomb. It seemed like something that was plausible then, in a way that it doesn’t now.
The 80’s had a sick, manic quality to them, didn’t seem like a golden age to me at all. “Tainted Love” is the signature song for me.
I remember the 80s too but this doesn’t make me think anything of the 80s. This seems 2004, art world is booming, or something, pre-financial meltdown/death and fall of American Empire.
I think rainbows have always been around, its long enough since gay culture claimed it and doesn’t necessarily have to be an icon for that, so maybe that’s part of the rise in popularity, I don’t know, some of those things will never die, people still use deer. This rainbow came about, in my view, because people sometimes get lazy with their color palettes and an easy way out of that is a rainbow, or some sense of all colors, unity. Done.
My Wizard mat cutter could make ten of those in 5 minutes, at least do all the cutting for me. Anyone?
It kinda bugs me that I know she’s a white girl, not that her name didn’t give it away but, I like thinking their made by some other nationality. Why is that?
I think the 80s thing was more of a tangent about ideas of the future/ideas of the past, not anything that anyone seems to have been connecting to Stark’s work itself.
Tough to successfully accuse someone of laziness and lack of imagination when you’re leaning so hard on the snark yourself—not exaclty the hardworking, imaginative way to criticize someone. You’re also not showing yourself to have much of an eye, since the color combo in the thing above is more complex than you’re trying to say it is, with some pretty clearly intentional rhythmic value things happening and variation in intensity between the 2D and 3D parts.
I guess I just don’t get what’s to resent here. The objects Stark makes seem to exist as ‘gifts’, there’s not any apparent insincerity. You’re not convincing me that they’re symptoms of grotesque art markets or culture of diminished expectations. They’re well made and thoughtful about design and craft, if not particularly challenging or hard-won. They seem like nice things that aren’t really making the world a worse place in any way.
James Kalm has a pretty awesome term for art of the abstract persuasion that doesn’t fit a typical mold; he calls it “eccentric abstraction”. For me, Stark certainly fits the bill. This is the kind of art that reminds me of creativity in all its purity. Not art for art’s sake, but creation for creation’s sake. I really admire art that is so direct and unafraid to just be itself.
this thing you’re saying about gifts really resonates with what I was thinking about with relation to another painter, fergus feehily, he’s kindof Richard Tuttle-ey and uses card and paper and fabric, but there is this definite sense that there is a kind of generosity sometimes in the way he uses colour, just in the way it flashes out half hidden maybe in the side of the painting, hidden at first but then reveals itself in an almost excessive way. Just something I’ve been thinking about a lot very recently and its funny to see you articulate something similar with regards this work, where there is a giddy thrill in, what i think partly comes down to at least, the way such humble materials become kindof joyous. Like paper decorations hung up at a childs birthday party maybe.
I know I came across as “snarky”, and I admit I can be and am most of the time, I have high expectations of art and people who call themselves artists.
Granted the color combo in the work is more than i gave it credit for, it has tonal variations as well, shout it from the rooftops, but is that really enough? This is no offense to her, I am talking about her work, but it doesn’t do anything. I don’t walk away feeling any different about anything in this world when I look at that and that is the laziness I feel in her work. These things don’t make me work, for anything.
I watched the video, she herself even talks about choosing the most economical material with the most possibility. I do that too at times, we all do, but we do it because of its ease, decisions are then made for us.
The most I find laudable in these is the technical effort and time spent cutting all these shapes, yet I again say not enough. (Please see Wizard mat cutter remark from previous comment) Don’t get me wrong I love technical proficiency, but reiterating cut shapes over and over does not equal greatness.
I have a friend, cuts paper and sculpts with it, paints it her own color choices because those choices have value, her work can be seen here,
And these too also act as “gifts” given by the maker to others that she loves and cares for, nothing i have a problem with for either of the artists. As for the “apparent insincerity” I alluded to in my remarks that was all in your read Chris, I don’t have a problem with sincerity at all, I think the art world needs more of it truthfully.
Sincerely answer this: How do these challenge everyone else? Visually? Ideologically? Emotionally?
In a time when our country is fighting wars on multiple fronts, our economy is collapsing and the dollar is dying do we really need another cut paper wall hanging of rainbow colors in varying tones? I ask art to do more, I think others should as well.
Another reason I don’t particularly like these is where do they go from here? What’s the progression? I want there to be one.
Your dig, Chris, about not having a good eye and calling me to task for being a snark when one is just honestly conveying thoughts and ideas about posted artworks in a forum to do so is lame, esp. when I have seen you ask for more local feedback and discussion. I’m here in KC, graduated from the Tute in 99, and left for a few years after staying and contributing to the growing scene . I lived and worked in LA and got my Masters at VCU in painting in 2007, then lived in Brooklyn and came back here because it was the most viable art community I had found in my travels. I do not have a bad eye, perhaps unique, but not bad.
For the record, I don’t think this work is great. It’s nice. We tend to go down to 300-400 hits on weekends, and the discussions drop off, so when I’ve posted on weekends it has tended to be more pleasant, guilty pleasure eye candy type stuff. I don’t disrespect the work, but it is just simple joy and I definitely agree, not very challenging.
Mitch, I think Chris and Matt just put a lot of effort forth over on the Damon Freed thread to state the importance of mindful interpretation and discussion.
The tone of that first comment was stressful. I’m not saying I haven’t been guilty of terrible snarkiness or very poor interpretation, just saying that when comments put people on edge it can have the effect of shutting down discussion.
Yes, that’s a good point. MWC is forum for discussion. And it seems that, while it’s fine to come out taking shots as something we’ve posted, it also seems logical that there might be some resistance to that. And if the main tactic someone is using is sarcasm, then that tactic might attract some fire. I think that would be true if I or any of the regulars made comments like that, not just new post-ers. The forum works more on a ‘don’t dish it out if you can’t take it’ model.
wow, very effective
i showed this profile of ms stark’s work to my senior seminar students this semester:
What’s up with rainbows these days?
I’m serious…..it really seems like everywhere I look there are rainbows, rainbow “bursts”, and stripes of color radiating off of things. I am wondering what is it about the rainbow that everyone is latching on to right now…also it seems like most places the rainbow is used similarly…..does it mean anything?
In most cases, I think the rainbow is a kind of “nostalgic future aesthetic”….but there has to be more too it than that right?
And which other weirdly over-iterated trend should we connect rainbow graphics with? Vampires or apocalyptic futures? Like some kind of cultural yin and yang, surfacing in pairs.
I’m connecting it to the proliferation of cuteness.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2009/12/cuteness-200912?currentPage=1
Maybe the rainbow is a good way to “cute-ify” the bleak apocalyptic future. I think there is something kind of nostalgic about it too. For me, rainbows, as they’re often used now, read as something to the effect of “Hey, remember how great we used to think the future was going to be?”
My freshmen have conversations about how great the 80s must have been, like those were the happy days or a golden age. I keep thinking: seemingly imminent nuclear war, Reaganomics, high crime rates…huh?
I thought the 80’s were a solid decade of Purple Rain.
Perhaps the decade is better summed up by the Minutemen’s “Paranoid Chant.”
yes, I remember being awakened one night in Philadelphia in the 80’s by a loud noise, and looking out at the pinkish orange nighttime sky and thinking that someone had dropped an atomic bomb. It seemed like something that was plausible then, in a way that it doesn’t now.
The 80’s had a sick, manic quality to them, didn’t seem like a golden age to me at all. “Tainted Love” is the signature song for me.
I remember the 80s too but this doesn’t make me think anything of the 80s. This seems 2004, art world is booming, or something, pre-financial meltdown/death and fall of American Empire.
I think rainbows have always been around, its long enough since gay culture claimed it and doesn’t necessarily have to be an icon for that, so maybe that’s part of the rise in popularity, I don’t know, some of those things will never die, people still use deer. This rainbow came about, in my view, because people sometimes get lazy with their color palettes and an easy way out of that is a rainbow, or some sense of all colors, unity. Done.
My Wizard mat cutter could make ten of those in 5 minutes, at least do all the cutting for me. Anyone?
It kinda bugs me that I know she’s a white girl, not that her name didn’t give it away but, I like thinking their made by some other nationality. Why is that?
I think the 80s thing was more of a tangent about ideas of the future/ideas of the past, not anything that anyone seems to have been connecting to Stark’s work itself.
Tough to successfully accuse someone of laziness and lack of imagination when you’re leaning so hard on the snark yourself—not exaclty the hardworking, imaginative way to criticize someone. You’re also not showing yourself to have much of an eye, since the color combo in the thing above is more complex than you’re trying to say it is, with some pretty clearly intentional rhythmic value things happening and variation in intensity between the 2D and 3D parts.
I guess I just don’t get what’s to resent here. The objects Stark makes seem to exist as ‘gifts’, there’s not any apparent insincerity. You’re not convincing me that they’re symptoms of grotesque art markets or culture of diminished expectations. They’re well made and thoughtful about design and craft, if not particularly challenging or hard-won. They seem like nice things that aren’t really making the world a worse place in any way.
James Kalm has a pretty awesome term for art of the abstract persuasion that doesn’t fit a typical mold; he calls it “eccentric abstraction”. For me, Stark certainly fits the bill. This is the kind of art that reminds me of creativity in all its purity. Not art for art’s sake, but creation for creation’s sake. I really admire art that is so direct and unafraid to just be itself.
Well said.
this thing you’re saying about gifts really resonates with what I was thinking about with relation to another painter, fergus feehily, he’s kindof Richard Tuttle-ey and uses card and paper and fabric, but there is this definite sense that there is a kind of generosity sometimes in the way he uses colour, just in the way it flashes out half hidden maybe in the side of the painting, hidden at first but then reveals itself in an almost excessive way. Just something I’ve been thinking about a lot very recently and its funny to see you articulate something similar with regards this work, where there is a giddy thrill in, what i think partly comes down to at least, the way such humble materials become kindof joyous. Like paper decorations hung up at a childs birthday party maybe.
wow jeez, sorry for complete incoherence by the way
I know I came across as “snarky”, and I admit I can be and am most of the time, I have high expectations of art and people who call themselves artists.
Granted the color combo in the work is more than i gave it credit for, it has tonal variations as well, shout it from the rooftops, but is that really enough? This is no offense to her, I am talking about her work, but it doesn’t do anything. I don’t walk away feeling any different about anything in this world when I look at that and that is the laziness I feel in her work. These things don’t make me work, for anything.
I watched the video, she herself even talks about choosing the most economical material with the most possibility. I do that too at times, we all do, but we do it because of its ease, decisions are then made for us.
The most I find laudable in these is the technical effort and time spent cutting all these shapes, yet I again say not enough. (Please see Wizard mat cutter remark from previous comment) Don’t get me wrong I love technical proficiency, but reiterating cut shapes over and over does not equal greatness.
I have a friend, cuts paper and sculpts with it, paints it her own color choices because those choices have value, her work can be seen here,
http://www.larissagoldston.com/exhibitions/hootenanny/index.aspx
These are cut paper with a purpose.
And these too also act as “gifts” given by the maker to others that she loves and cares for, nothing i have a problem with for either of the artists. As for the “apparent insincerity” I alluded to in my remarks that was all in your read Chris, I don’t have a problem with sincerity at all, I think the art world needs more of it truthfully.
Sincerely answer this: How do these challenge everyone else? Visually? Ideologically? Emotionally?
In a time when our country is fighting wars on multiple fronts, our economy is collapsing and the dollar is dying do we really need another cut paper wall hanging of rainbow colors in varying tones? I ask art to do more, I think others should as well.
Another reason I don’t particularly like these is where do they go from here? What’s the progression? I want there to be one.
Your dig, Chris, about not having a good eye and calling me to task for being a snark when one is just honestly conveying thoughts and ideas about posted artworks in a forum to do so is lame, esp. when I have seen you ask for more local feedback and discussion. I’m here in KC, graduated from the Tute in 99, and left for a few years after staying and contributing to the growing scene . I lived and worked in LA and got my Masters at VCU in painting in 2007, then lived in Brooklyn and came back here because it was the most viable art community I had found in my travels. I do not have a bad eye, perhaps unique, but not bad.
I’ll stick by my response. You’re first comment was sophist and snarky. I don’t think it was intellectually honest discussion.
(I do like your friend’s cut paper work.)
For the record, I don’t think this work is great. It’s nice. We tend to go down to 300-400 hits on weekends, and the discussions drop off, so when I’ve posted on weekends it has tended to be more pleasant, guilty pleasure eye candy type stuff. I don’t disrespect the work, but it is just simple joy and I definitely agree, not very challenging.
Mitch, I think Chris and Matt just put a lot of effort forth over on the Damon Freed thread to state the importance of mindful interpretation and discussion.
The tone of that first comment was stressful. I’m not saying I haven’t been guilty of terrible snarkiness or very poor interpretation, just saying that when comments put people on edge it can have the effect of shutting down discussion.
Yes, that’s a good point. MWC is forum for discussion. And it seems that, while it’s fine to come out taking shots as something we’ve posted, it also seems logical that there might be some resistance to that. And if the main tactic someone is using is sarcasm, then that tactic might attract some fire. I think that would be true if I or any of the regulars made comments like that, not just new post-ers. The forum works more on a ‘don’t dish it out if you can’t take it’ model.