Skip to main content

Art For Art's Sake


I watched a rather good doco on SBS yesterday, made by Peter Rosen, called Who Get's To Call It Art?(2006) I could attempt to recap it, but someone at great expense bothered to write the following:
A wild ride through the New York City art scene of the '60s, through the eyes of Henry Geldzahler, the first curator of contemporary art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Geldzahler was an unusual curator who lived among the artists, spending all his time in galleries and studios. Geldzahler possessed a rare eye for beauty and an even rarer willingness to discover it in out-of-the-way places. A cornucopia of archival and contemporary footage - featuring a veritable who's who of painters and sculptors, from Jasper Johns to Frank Stella, John Chamberlain, James Rosenquist and Francesco Clemente - traces Geldzahler's intersections with the changing New York art scene.

Interviews included Mark Di Suvero, John Chamberlain, David Hockney, Jasper Johns, Ivan Karp, Ellsworth Kelly and Calvin Tompkins.

Archival footage was well chosen and plentiful. It included lots of Geldzahler himself as well as material showing Roy Lichtenstein, Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock. Naturally there was plenty of Andy Warhol; his penchant for self-documentation turned out to be very useful for projects like this one.

It’s a Warhol moment that provides one of the highlights of the film. If you haven’t seen it before, this segment is a gem. Warhol appears in a commercial for Braniff Airlines with former world heavyweight boxing champ, Sonny Liston. It’s a cleverly done, one shot ad which begins with Warhol talking to Liston about the beauty of soup cans, something which in his opinion, Michelangelo couldn’t have even imagined. A voiceover intones that Warhol and Liston always fly Braniff, because they “like our girls, they like our food, they like our style.”

There’s a little bit more to it but I’ll leave you to suss it out for yourself here or here.

Elevate the Insignificant!

M. Le Triv


Popular posts from this blog

What's with George Eads' Hair? & David Edwards

Hey Zeitgeisters,

Bet you thought this blog would never top “What’s with Bradley Whitford’s Hair?” For those of you who weren’t part of that historical blog entry, it was the glittering moment where I wondered what’s with West Wing star Bradley Whitford’s hair. Good times.

However, tonight, while watching the current series (in Australia) of CSI :Original Recipe, I was forced to witness the unpleasantness of George Eads’ new(ish) 'do and I felt compelled to blog on’t.

George plays the part of Nick Stokes and has spent some 5 or 6 seasons with a haircut “you could set your watch to,” as Grandpa Simpson might say. It was always short; it always had that US Marine Corps vibe; it was always as dependable as the ebbing and flowing of the tides.

Now in something of an El Nino effect, I note that someone in Jerry Bruckheimer’s organization has decided to mess with the length of George’s crowning glory.

Although I chiefly watch CSI waiting for Grissom…

What’s with Bradley Whitford’s Hair?

Okay, Zeitgeisters, that’s as shallow an attention-grabbing start as one could ever want, but I really want to know. And sure, I’m really talking about Josh Lyman’s hair. (I’m like one of those people who insist on calling an actor by their character’s name – only in reverse. e.g. “Go Knight Boat!”)

Whitford plays Deputy Chief of Staff, Josh Lyman, in the Aaron Sorkin-created, NBC television series The West Wing. He plays this part to a tee and now he’s set to do great things in the new Sorkin drama, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. I know this last bit because the Angriest Ex-Video Store Clerk in the world told me.

Oh, and Whitford’s married to the awesome Jane Kaczmarek who plays mom, Lois, in the series Malcolm in the Middle. So Mr Whitford’s your regular pop-cultural icon and yardstick for excellence. We’re here in this, frankly, puzzling cultural landscape, because I’ve just finished watching season four of The West Wing on DVD. And Josh Lyman’s hair has bothered me throughout. It’s…

Not Canon? Son of A Gun!

So my fellow geeks, is there any way we can consider Joe Pesci's turn on the Snickers' telly ad as canonical to the LETHAL WEAPON franchise, or the Angry Man in Scorsese Films Like RAGING BULL and CASINO franchise? Probably not.

The idea that there is an established body of works that shape a fictional character and others that do not, has spread like Vegemite thanks to Our Beloved Internet. Her, nerds and geeks of every stripe will argue, for example, which movies or TV series about the Teenage Mutant Turtles are canon and which are not. In some versions of the story, Turtles mentor, Splinter is the mutated form of a man called Hamato Yoshi and in other versions he is the mutation of a rat owned by Yoshi.

I am given to understand that Peter Cushing's role in the 1965 movie DOCTOR WHO AND THE DALEKS is not canon, but is considered part of some kind of extended Doctor Who Universe. Science Fiction franchises like Star Wars and Star Trek, often have meandering strands of s…