to clarify
Sometimes ONLY the context "declares" intent--
Whatever the creator's stated concerns are, the context and use is the ultimate bottom line in how the effort will be assimilated into the culture.
The creator may not like it, but context dominates how the piece gets understood. No matter what he or she says or deludes themselves into thinking.
My Tide box example was easy and extreme, but there are myriad degrees of this at work in any and all situations.
The deer head could be looked at as very "soft" art. Or as a very proud and unapologetic decorative piece. And the creator of it can state intent, but then there is context, like how many were manufactured, how they were presented and sold, and in what venue. Sometimes it is fun to ask oneself: "how would that deer head look in a museum next to ______________? How would it hold up then?
I don't think I disagree with anything you said really. It always comes down to specific examples, situations.
Considering the mention of...
Considering the mention of the Gazelle head again and context etc there is one on Ebay for $15k.
There were only 100 made which was usually the maximum for all his pieces.
It says it came from Gumps dept store in San Fran in 1977.
I have perviously searched the history of the store and it said they had buyers searching the world for exotic pieces for the new oil rich Americans at the time.Or something to that effect.
Just like the Curtis Jere stuff there is pieces you love and not so love.
Now is an Ostrich art? lol
Sergio Bustamante
In the early 80s, while living in Philadelphia, there was a small privately owned gallery at Newmarket that exclusively sold his work and that of a few Mexican print makers. I remember walking in and feeling as if I were in the Amazon surrounded by dozens of colorful birds, and, although not singularly my cup of tea, they were rather breathtaking when en masse.
Where is MJ when you need him?
An piece can be very highly collectable, and very valuable, and be of the highest quality in terms of workmanship and materials, and still be quite a different "animal" than "Fine Art" in the formal sense of the word.
I must say Starline, you certainly do have a "point of view" as a collector, and it is quite admirable that you are confident enough and brave enough go out on a limb.
Gumps was a very high end store, but a DEPARTMENT STORE nonetheless.
And the pieces feels exactly like that to me.
Would I buy my art at a Neiman Markus? No. To me, that would be no different than buying paintings at "Bed Bath and Beyond" or Z galley, except for price and pretense.
The stylized animals remind me of the kind of things that Michael Jackson used to buy on his famous Las Vegas shopping sprees.
Beyond shiny, colorful and "happy", what do they ask of a viewer?
Just my 2 cents.
The ostrich is way over...
The ostrich is way over the top but it would be funny in an indoor garden amongst the trees.
While the Gazelle head is a stunning piece and quite collectible it can also be seen as ridiculous but that's why I like it.It is certainly not bland and stops people in their tracks.
If it were in a Kelly Wearstler or Tony Duquette interior maybe people would see it in a more relevant context.Or maybe not as I think one either gets it or they don't which is fine.
starline
The minute you get some guy like me saying "this cant be art"-- then you know you must be on the right track.
Stick to your guns. Better that than to borrow someone else's taste.
I do like large scale works. Maybe not ostrich though.
Still, it gives the bird a whole "pop" vibe. Ever consider getting a "Michelin Man" for the living room? I think groovy dude can hook you up.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com