"He didn’t write much, saying that the way to know him was through his work." That's also a very convenient way of not answering/sidestepping questions. Quite often, the less explicitly art is explained the greater the number of people who will appreciate. Without a clear explanation, people of opposing viewpoints might both like something, until they find out what it supposedly represents.
I agree it's pretty coy. It also lets him off the hook from having to think deeply about his own intentions. I've wondered about that, too. He's a complicated character! Thanks for the comment, Robert.
Gustav Klimt was an artist living in a volatile political environment. His art was his work. Criticizing the status quo could be difficult as that was what supported him. The female body is the ultimate expression of life and the existence of everything in terms of human understanding. It's a simplistic view of a very complex subject but it allows people to make comments about a wide range of situations, from the basic to the most complex.
Distorting or modifying the appearance allows an infinite number of displays/comments/critiques which range from the easily recognizable to it's never going to be deciphered. The less clear the criticism, the easier it is to avoid condemnation, while appreciation, even popularity, can range from nothing to universal.
Gustav Klimt's work has consistently increased in value over the years and gets some of the highest price paid for art.
Hans Haacke is a modern day artist who uses his art to clearly state his concerns about how and why things are done by the world of business, especially how big business uses large donations to the art world to buy good publicity. He also had two jobs for a while, art and a good day job, which means if his art is economically disregarded, he is still able to do more than just getting by. He does get rejected by some major institutions but he also still gets good exposure.
There is a price to pay.
This is from the New York Times, "He supported himself by teaching at Cooper Union for 35 years, and Gioni told me that he’s one of the only artists of his caliber who still owns much of his work. “Hans is extremely successful,” Gioni said, “but he lives his success in ways that are rarely celebrated by the art industry. He’s Franciscan in his modesty.” The art historian Benjamin Buchloh, who considers Haacke to be one of the most important postwar figures, said with disappointment that at this moment in time, “nothing could be further from the mind of the New York art world than Hans Haacke.” https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/16/t-magazine/hans-haacke-art.html
Of course, if one wants to get to the root of what matters, one only has to seriously look at how money and technology has impacted the human experience. While it is true that they have done great things, quite a bit of the good deeds done are simply fixing bad situations that get created by money and technology in the first place.
"He didn’t write much, saying that the way to know him was through his work." That's also a very convenient way of not answering/sidestepping questions. Quite often, the less explicitly art is explained the greater the number of people who will appreciate. Without a clear explanation, people of opposing viewpoints might both like something, until they find out what it supposedly represents.
I agree it's pretty coy. It also lets him off the hook from having to think deeply about his own intentions. I've wondered about that, too. He's a complicated character! Thanks for the comment, Robert.
Gustav Klimt was an artist living in a volatile political environment. His art was his work. Criticizing the status quo could be difficult as that was what supported him. The female body is the ultimate expression of life and the existence of everything in terms of human understanding. It's a simplistic view of a very complex subject but it allows people to make comments about a wide range of situations, from the basic to the most complex.
Distorting or modifying the appearance allows an infinite number of displays/comments/critiques which range from the easily recognizable to it's never going to be deciphered. The less clear the criticism, the easier it is to avoid condemnation, while appreciation, even popularity, can range from nothing to universal.
Gustav Klimt's work has consistently increased in value over the years and gets some of the highest price paid for art.
Hans Haacke is a modern day artist who uses his art to clearly state his concerns about how and why things are done by the world of business, especially how big business uses large donations to the art world to buy good publicity. He also had two jobs for a while, art and a good day job, which means if his art is economically disregarded, he is still able to do more than just getting by. He does get rejected by some major institutions but he also still gets good exposure.
There is a price to pay.
This is from the New York Times, "He supported himself by teaching at Cooper Union for 35 years, and Gioni told me that he’s one of the only artists of his caliber who still owns much of his work. “Hans is extremely successful,” Gioni said, “but he lives his success in ways that are rarely celebrated by the art industry. He’s Franciscan in his modesty.” The art historian Benjamin Buchloh, who considers Haacke to be one of the most important postwar figures, said with disappointment that at this moment in time, “nothing could be further from the mind of the New York art world than Hans Haacke.” https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/16/t-magazine/hans-haacke-art.html
Of course, if one wants to get to the root of what matters, one only has to seriously look at how money and technology has impacted the human experience. While it is true that they have done great things, quite a bit of the good deeds done are simply fixing bad situations that get created by money and technology in the first place.
All good points, Robert!