To make connection of Rem Kuhass and Buckminster Fuller might be very arbitrary.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Buckminster Fuller: Starting with the Universe
One of the great American visionaries of the twentieth century, R. Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983) endeavored to see what he, a single individual, might do to benefit the largest segment of humanity while consuming the minimum of the earth's resources. Doing "more with less" was Fuller's credo. He described himself as a "comprehensive anticipatory design scientist," setting forth to solve the escalating challenges that faced humanity before they became insurmountable.
Fuller's innovative theories and designs addressed fields ranging from architecture, the visual arts, and literature to mathematics, engineering, and sustainability. He refused to treat these diverse spheres as specialized areas of investigation because it inhibited his ability to think intuitively, independently, and, in his words, "comprehensively."
Although Fuller believed in utilizing the latest technology, much of his work developed from his inquiry into "how nature builds." He believed that the tetrahedron was the most fundamental, structurally sound form found in nature; this shape is an essential part of most of his designs, which range in scale from domestic to global. As the many drawings and models in this exhibition attest, Fuller was committed to the physical exploration and visual presentation of his ideas.
The results of more than five decades of Fuller's integrated approach toward the design and technology of housing, transportation, cartography, and communication are displayed here, much of it for the first time. This exhibition offers a fresh look at Fuller's life's work for everyone who shares his sense of urgency about homelessness, poverty, diminishing natural resources, and the future of our planet.
Above is the quote from the exhibition introduction of touring exhibition Buckminster Fuller: Starting with the Universe. Full's design and theory become extremely relevant to today's global situation. This is also probably why more and more professionals start to refer Fuller's concept: environmentalist, artists, architects, designers, economist and even politics. Besides this big retrospective exhibition, the November ArtForum issue also featured Buckminster Fuller. It is the time to re-rethink his idea and concept and extend them into much wider field.
In 1969, Buckminster Fuller's book Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth was published. In this book, Fuller weaves together micro and macro concerns of the universe and how they relate to human survival, sustainability and synergy. He does so in reflection of earth as an integral whole by connecting the evolution of our past to our necessary future evolution.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Painting in today's context
Why are conceptual artists painting again?
Because they think it's a good idea.
A series of talks and conversations organized by Jan Verwoert
What is the future of medium-specific practices after Conceptualism?
What is the future of Conceptual Art after the 1990s?
How have the basic conditions of art practice changed and what words and models could we use to open up the potentials at the heart of these developments in art after Conceptualism?
The dominant models no longer satisfy. It makes no sense to melodramatically invoke the "end of painting" (or any other medium-specific practice for that part) when the continuous emergence of fascinating work obviously proves apocalyptic endgame scenarios wrong. Yet, to pretend it were possible to go back to business as usual seems equally impossible because the radical expansion of artistic possibilities through the landslide changes of the 1960s leave medium-specific practices in the odd position of being one among many modes of artistic articulation, with no preset justification. How can we describe then what medium-specific practices like painting or sculpture can do today?
Likewise, it seems, that we can still not quite convincingly describe to ourselves what Conceptual Art can be: An art of pure ideas? As if "pure" idea art were ever possible let alone desirable! An art of smart strategic moves and puns? We have advertising agencies for that. The social and political dimension of Conceptualism has been discussed, but often only in apodictic terms, not acknowledging the humour, the wit, the existential, emotional or erotic aspects, as well as the iconophile, not just iconoclast motives, that have always also been at play in the dialectics and politics of life-long conceptual practices.
The talk will start off a series of monthly talks and conversations about the conditions of contemporary practice. The idea is to invent a new language together in discussions that could describe the potentials of contemporary practice; a language that would acknowledge a shared sense of crisis and doubt, yet fight the senseless paranoia over legitimation that too much bad-faith criticism today exploits in the wake of second-generation institutional critique. In other words: how could, in response to the concerns of contemporary art practice, a critical vocabulary be developed that would break the spell of the oedipal infatuation with the laws of (institutional) legitimacy - and instead help to transform criticism into a truly gay science based on a shared sense of appreciation and irreverence?
Jan Verwoert is an art critic based in Berlin. He is a contributing editor to Frieze magazine and also writes regularly about contemporary art for such art magazines as Afterall, Metropolis M. Teaches at the MA Fine Arts department at the Piet Zwart Institute Rotterdam.
the building
Platz der Vereinten Nationen 14a
10249 Berlin DE
T: 030 28 04 79 73
Because they think it's a good idea.
A series of talks and conversations organized by Jan Verwoert
What is the future of medium-specific practices after Conceptualism?
What is the future of Conceptual Art after the 1990s?
How have the basic conditions of art practice changed and what words and models could we use to open up the potentials at the heart of these developments in art after Conceptualism?
The dominant models no longer satisfy. It makes no sense to melodramatically invoke the "end of painting" (or any other medium-specific practice for that part) when the continuous emergence of fascinating work obviously proves apocalyptic endgame scenarios wrong. Yet, to pretend it were possible to go back to business as usual seems equally impossible because the radical expansion of artistic possibilities through the landslide changes of the 1960s leave medium-specific practices in the odd position of being one among many modes of artistic articulation, with no preset justification. How can we describe then what medium-specific practices like painting or sculpture can do today?
Likewise, it seems, that we can still not quite convincingly describe to ourselves what Conceptual Art can be: An art of pure ideas? As if "pure" idea art were ever possible let alone desirable! An art of smart strategic moves and puns? We have advertising agencies for that. The social and political dimension of Conceptualism has been discussed, but often only in apodictic terms, not acknowledging the humour, the wit, the existential, emotional or erotic aspects, as well as the iconophile, not just iconoclast motives, that have always also been at play in the dialectics and politics of life-long conceptual practices.
The talk will start off a series of monthly talks and conversations about the conditions of contemporary practice. The idea is to invent a new language together in discussions that could describe the potentials of contemporary practice; a language that would acknowledge a shared sense of crisis and doubt, yet fight the senseless paranoia over legitimation that too much bad-faith criticism today exploits in the wake of second-generation institutional critique. In other words: how could, in response to the concerns of contemporary art practice, a critical vocabulary be developed that would break the spell of the oedipal infatuation with the laws of (institutional) legitimacy - and instead help to transform criticism into a truly gay science based on a shared sense of appreciation and irreverence?
Jan Verwoert is an art critic based in Berlin. He is a contributing editor to Frieze magazine and also writes regularly about contemporary art for such art magazines as Afterall, Metropolis M. Teaches at the MA Fine Arts department at the Piet Zwart Institute Rotterdam.
the building
Platz der Vereinten Nationen 14a
10249 Berlin DE
T: 030 28 04 79 73
Thursday, October 2, 2008
The Problem of Curating in China
Why there is no real international curator who is from China and is based in China?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
