![]() ![]() Thus the pullquote up top, which comes from an unpublished of critic Gene Swenson’s flyer for Andy Warhol’s second show at Stable Gallery, the Brillo Box show, from April–May 1964. Swenson, via Smithsonian Archives, via Jennifer Sichel’s article in the March 2018 issue of Oxford Art Journal And to asking, “But what does it MEAN ?” Flyer for Andy Warhol’s 1964 Brillo Boxes show at Stable Gallery, with text and photo by G.R. Warhol was not on my mind, then, but like learning a new word and suddenly hearing it everywhere, I am now hypersensitized to any mention of objects or objecthood. ![]() Lately I’ve been thinking about them as objects, trying to explore the implications of the term and format I adopted semi-ironically from Gerhard Richter, who used it to explain the unsigned stacks of giclée on aluminum reproductions of paintings he began authorizing for museums as fundraising editions. I’m glad to know it’s not just me who finds them interesting. It’s awesome to hear about the experiences of people other than me who are now living with Facsimile Objects. Gene Swenson, unpublished draft, 1964 via sichel/oup Warhol presents objects which, in a sense, we can equate with public, communal feelings…In a way might be said to objectify experience, turn feelings into things so we can deal with them. Yet, in a way, abstract art tries to be an object which we can equate with the private feelings of the artist, the canvas being the arena on which these private feelings are acted out.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |