Noguchi pedestal sells for $320,500  

Great link on Michael Heizer tktoo
Heizer is hilarious sometimes.
I remember the first time I saw his stuff in LA (like 30 years ago) he had a piece at the Ace Gallery in Venice CA I think...
He had three HUGE rocks in the gallery-- (not a 360 ton rock though!) and had the cement gallery floor jackhammered up to dig three large rectangular holes ( "crypts") for each rock-- right into the floor of each room.
Those Southern California artists really seem to love messing with the structure of the gallery space it seems.
Must be all that LA "light and space" stuff getting to them! LOL
He also hollowed out a crater in the desert, to make it into a "sky viewing space". I thought that one was pretty good.
Anyway, thanks! Great story about the journey of the giant rock to the museum.. (second link mentioned above)

Wait, wait, wait...
So since my view differs with yours I'm being stubborn, EH?
Again, do me a favor and get over yourself...
It's a driftwood platform of the most basic construction. I guess it's supposed to contrast the sculptures well. I don't really fancy it, at all if I'm honest. But that's neither here nor there. To call it sculpture because it was intended to hold one up is ludicrous.
Your logic is bewildering.

Nahhh its fine to differ with me Lunchbox.
Its just that you SAY you appreciate Noguchi, but then you you seem to leave out big parts of what he seems to be about.
And to be honest, I think you have not really addressed most of my specific points in my posts. One or two maybe, but mostly you just stick to the narrow way you choose to see this, rather than address any of the other ways of seeing it that have been discussed here. Thats your choice, I get it.
Its fine if you think I am a jerk or whatever, or full of myself. But like you said about a couple of the other posters, your arguments seem to be based not so much in substance, but in redundant blanket dismissal, and ITS ONLY A BASE.
I think its BETTER when we disagree. I really do. Thats half the fun about art. The arguments. Its not easily pinned down. But at least back up a point if youre gonna make one. Dont like my tone? Fuck it, thats just tone. Yeah, in print my tone gets mistaken. My attempts at humor go awry. Sorry about that.
It was tiny armada who encouraged those that appreciated the piece to speak up. I did. And I tried to lighten it up a bit too from time to time. I have something to say about stuff that matters to me.
Welcome to the Design addict forum.

Now it's driftwood and NOT firewood?
I read somewhere that Noguchi had reclaimed pine timbers he found in Japan shipped to New York for use as sculptural material. That's a serious carbon footprint!

More silliness...
You haven't put forward anything of substance. I don't recall these points you claim you've made. You wrote a paragraph a few posts up and then asked yourself what point you were trying to make. "Look at it. It's fantastic. Can't you see!" isn't substance. Meanwhile I've discussed its merit in relation to application, which does not qualify it as art.
I don't love it, per se. And I detest the pierced seat and table. But so what? Am I to love EVERY LITTLE THING Noguchi touched or I'm somehow unable to appreciate what Noguchi was supposedly "about" as you say? What utter drivel.
It's you who are taking a narrow viewpoint on this piece and I would wager art as a whole. Stop allowing name association to affect you so. Open up your eyes and have a bit of courage to disagree with anyone, even the masters every now and then. No one gets it right 100% of the time.
But thanks for the welcome I guess?

Never referred to it as firewood, tktoo...
At least read if you're going to reply.

I have talked repeatedly abou...
I have talked repeatedly about the formal elements of composition in relationship to this piece. I have also talked about context, and how the base was viewed separately (because of the auction)
You really think Noguchi didnt think about it as one piece? He may humbly sit there and SAY they are just tables or bases, but... HES A SCULPTOR. Why do YOU think he chooses a tall legged platform for one, and a short platform for another, with different details?
I dont even LOVE Noguchi. I respect him though, as a great artist.
I dont like much fine art at all actually. Less every year. Looking out a window is much better than most of it.
But I can put TASTE aside.
Art is not about taste. Has nothing to do with taste.
But to say I have ONLY said I like it-- well that is simply inaccurate.
I have been very specific.
OK to disagree. Sorry if it sounded otherwise.
Thanks.

Didn't say you had, Lunch.
Others did, though.
I do, however, find your attempts to define what's not art as silly as any argument here. In fact, the silliness has gotten so silly, it's making me silly.
Or maybe it's just the glogg?

Welcome to Design Addict
Was meant for myself.
I think Design and Art are very different animals.
The practice and study of each leads to very different ways of understanding, and deriving meaning.
Perhaps this forum should stick to design.
After all, the piece is a sculpture. Not a design.

Noguchi was more than a sculptor...
And while I like alot of his abstract metal and stone forms, I appreciate him most as a designer and an idealist.
He designed furniture, you know.
Tables... like this platform.

...
Im not sure which Noguchi I like better. But I doubt he split himself in half and and "sculpted" the stone, then "designed" the base.
Most applied artists who attempt to make" fine art" fail miserably in my humble opinion,
Noguchi is quite the exception.
In my opinion.
Just sayin.

Of course, he excelled in both...
That anyone can agree on. But why wouldn't he have sculpted one and designed the other?
One's a sculpture.
The other's a table.
(-;

jesus....
words words words
No, REALLY....
its the interrelatedness of the juxtaposition of the intent/content that manifests itself in the outright PHANTASMAGORICAL RESONANCE of this stunning example.
I know, way down deep, you were thinking exactly that.

of course...
Sure an artist could sculpt something and then "design" a base for it.
But at some point the edges blur.
I am guessing that I just think the process was more "seamless" than separate, and you think it happened in two different stages.
Furthermore, I would guess there was some preliminary "design consciousness" that went on before making big decisions with the stone. And so of course there would be similar approach to the base I would think.
But in the process of art, so much of the success or failure of a piece often happens in the last pulling together of it, like the last refinements become HUGE make or break issues, to the point where sometimes, the artist doesnt know what it even IS until its "pulling up in the driveway".
Like a Hummer.
So yeah.

One of my favorite instructors told me,
"Often, what determines the success or failure of a piece is knowing exactly when it's finished."