ARTBASE (1)
BIO
Joy Garnett is a painter based in New York. She appropriates news images from the Internet and re-invents them as paintings. Her subject is the apocalyptic-sublime landscape, as well as the digital image itself as cultural artifact in an increasingly technologized world. Her image research has resulted in online documentation projects, most notably The Bomb Project.
Notable past exhibitions include her recent solo shows at Winkleman Gallery, New York and at the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC; group exhibitions organized by the Whitney Museum of American Art, P.S.1/MoMA Contemporary Art Center, Artists Space, White Columns (New York), Kettle's Yard, Cambridge (UK), and De Witte Zaal, Ghent (Belgium). She shows with aeroplastics contemporary, Brussels, Belgium.
extended network >
homepage:
http://joygarnett.com
The Bomb Project
http://www.thebombproject.org
First Pulse Projects
http://firstpulseprojects.net
NEWSgrist - where spin is art
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/
Notable past exhibitions include her recent solo shows at Winkleman Gallery, New York and at the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC; group exhibitions organized by the Whitney Museum of American Art, P.S.1/MoMA Contemporary Art Center, Artists Space, White Columns (New York), Kettle's Yard, Cambridge (UK), and De Witte Zaal, Ghent (Belgium). She shows with aeroplastics contemporary, Brussels, Belgium.
extended network >
homepage:
http://joygarnett.com
The Bomb Project
http://www.thebombproject.org
First Pulse Projects
http://firstpulseprojects.net
NEWSgrist - where spin is art
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/
NEWSgrist: *Tactical Action @ Gigantic Art Space [GAS]*
NEWSgrist: *Tactical Action @ Gigantic Art Space [GAS]*
============================
============================
NEWSgrist
where spin is art
http://newsgrist.net
{bi-weekly news digest}
free e-subscriptions:
http://www.newsgrist.net/subscribe.html
subscribe // unsubscribe
============================
Vol.5, no.5 (Apr 12, 2004)
============================
*Underbelly*
Bulletin board: post your own news, press releases, urls:
http://pub11.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum
============================
============================
NEWSgrist
where spin is art
http://newsgrist.net
{bi-weekly news digest}
free e-subscriptions:
http://www.newsgrist.net/subscribe.html
subscribe // unsubscribe
============================
Vol.5, no.5 (Apr 12, 2004)
============================
*Underbelly*
Bulletin board: post your own news, press releases, urls:
http://pub11.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum
more on fair use
Here's a brief article by a lawyer and principal of a Baltimore firm that
recently contacted me w/ questions about Molotov -- I went to their
website and discovered some interesting case studies. Here's one article
that spells out the four factors of fair use as set out in Section 107 of
the Copyright Act:
A Book by Any Other Cover
2002-11-08
http://www.agtlawyers.com/thefirm/newsitem.php?itemI
The man is a street artist plying his craft in a Chicago suburb. He
crafted forty, four by two foot sculptures of books available in the
town's library and placed them on sidewalks around the village. The covers
and spines of the sculptures were fairly accurate copies of the real thing
albeit much larger. The idea behind the art was to encourage kids to read,
and the sculptures would be sold with all proceeds donated to a local
charity.
The artist's publisher telephoned and wanted to know whether the
sculptures violated copyright law and whether she would draw hostile fire
by publishing a catalog of the works. "Good question," I responded. But I
was ready with a good answer.
Facially, the artist's actions would appear to violate the copyright law.
Someone, after all, does own the art work on the cover of the books the
artist copied. And the Copyright Act does grant to the owner of the
copyright the exclusive right to reproduce the work and prepare new works
based on the old. Yet, while the copyright law grants what amounts to a
monopoly to the owner of the work, I knew there was more to consider.
"Let's analyze fair use for a moment and see if that helps," I replied. I
explained to the publisher that fair use of a copyrighted work is a
limitation on the exclusive rights granted to a copyright owner.
"Generally speaking," I said, "fair use exists to allow a copyrighted work
to be used for educational purposes, criticism, newsreporting, scholarship
and the like. But it's not a talisman."
Section 107 of the Copyright Act sets out four non-exclusive factors to be
considered by courts in determining whether the use of a copyrighted work
is a fair use. This section provides no attempt to draw a bright line
between fair use and infringement. Rather it merely lists factors and does
not even instruct on the weight to be accorded each. To answer the
publisher's question, I needed to evaluate the artist's use against each
of the four factors.
Purpose and character of use. Is the use commercial or non-profit? Is it
for educational purposes or to make a buck? For a long time, a finding of
commercial use was fatal to the fair use defense. That has changed in the
past decade, but courts are still skeptical, and that shows in the weight
they accord a commercial use. Nevertheless, this artist was not motivated
by profit, instead creating art to raise reading awareness and money for
charity. And the message conveyed by the sculpture was clearly educational
in that people are encouraged to read. Factor one to the artist.
The nature of the copyrighted work. The more creative, the more
protection. Math texts will enjoy less protection than art or fiction.
Book covers, as art and illustration, are likely to enjoy strong
protection under copyright law. Even where the work copied is highly
creative, the reason for the copying may militate against the importance
of this factor. Copying for parody is an example. Here, the artist copied
original art. Factor two to the books.
The third factor, amount and substantiality of the portion of the work
used, gets down to the nub of whether fair use should be permitted. If the
idea behind prohibiting infringement is to protect the market for an
author's work, the courts must examine this factor very carefully. Too
much used, and the copy becomes a substitute for the original destroying
the market for the original work in the name of fair use. This is exactly
why a news show critiquing a new film cannot use large portions of the
film, even though the purpose behind the viewing is to comment or
criticize, two of the accepted reasons for allowing a fair use. Although
the artist took all of the work, that doesn't tell the whole story.
The third factor dove-tails with the fourth, and is perhaps the most
important factor - the effect of the use on the author's potential market
for the original work. Arguably, almost every fair use deprives the
original author of the possibility of entering into a license for the use
of the work in a new work for which fair use is claimed and therefore
adversely affects the potential market for the work. If the test for the
effect on the potential market is whether the new use somehow supplants
the market for the original, the question becomes easier to answer, and
numerous courts have adopted this test including the Supreme Court in a
recent decision dealing with parody of music where that Court appeared to
overlook the possibility that the original author could have licensed a
rap version of its song. If the artist, then, merely deprives the author
of the book jacket from a licensing opportunity, the test should be
decided in the artist's favor. On the other hand, if people will visit the
sculptures instead of reading the original books, the original author gets
the nod, which is not likely.
The analysis of whether a defendant is entitled to fair use is not simple,
and the statute's lack of explanation does not help. People who want to
borrow the copyrighted works of authors must remember that fair use is an
affirmative defense - that is to say that the issue of copying is
generally conceded, yet they claim the copying is not illicit. This means
that the burden of proving fair use is always going to belong to the
person claiming entitlement to the defense, or to put it another way, one
must have faith that the bullets from the firing squad can be caught by
the teeth.
In this case, the factors and circumstances lean towards the artist. Even
if the artist was cognizant of the fair use defense where he created the
sculptures, he probably believed there was little chance he would be sued.
by Jim Astrachan
+
-
recently contacted me w/ questions about Molotov -- I went to their
website and discovered some interesting case studies. Here's one article
that spells out the four factors of fair use as set out in Section 107 of
the Copyright Act:
A Book by Any Other Cover
2002-11-08
http://www.agtlawyers.com/thefirm/newsitem.php?itemI
The man is a street artist plying his craft in a Chicago suburb. He
crafted forty, four by two foot sculptures of books available in the
town's library and placed them on sidewalks around the village. The covers
and spines of the sculptures were fairly accurate copies of the real thing
albeit much larger. The idea behind the art was to encourage kids to read,
and the sculptures would be sold with all proceeds donated to a local
charity.
The artist's publisher telephoned and wanted to know whether the
sculptures violated copyright law and whether she would draw hostile fire
by publishing a catalog of the works. "Good question," I responded. But I
was ready with a good answer.
Facially, the artist's actions would appear to violate the copyright law.
Someone, after all, does own the art work on the cover of the books the
artist copied. And the Copyright Act does grant to the owner of the
copyright the exclusive right to reproduce the work and prepare new works
based on the old. Yet, while the copyright law grants what amounts to a
monopoly to the owner of the work, I knew there was more to consider.
"Let's analyze fair use for a moment and see if that helps," I replied. I
explained to the publisher that fair use of a copyrighted work is a
limitation on the exclusive rights granted to a copyright owner.
"Generally speaking," I said, "fair use exists to allow a copyrighted work
to be used for educational purposes, criticism, newsreporting, scholarship
and the like. But it's not a talisman."
Section 107 of the Copyright Act sets out four non-exclusive factors to be
considered by courts in determining whether the use of a copyrighted work
is a fair use. This section provides no attempt to draw a bright line
between fair use and infringement. Rather it merely lists factors and does
not even instruct on the weight to be accorded each. To answer the
publisher's question, I needed to evaluate the artist's use against each
of the four factors.
Purpose and character of use. Is the use commercial or non-profit? Is it
for educational purposes or to make a buck? For a long time, a finding of
commercial use was fatal to the fair use defense. That has changed in the
past decade, but courts are still skeptical, and that shows in the weight
they accord a commercial use. Nevertheless, this artist was not motivated
by profit, instead creating art to raise reading awareness and money for
charity. And the message conveyed by the sculpture was clearly educational
in that people are encouraged to read. Factor one to the artist.
The nature of the copyrighted work. The more creative, the more
protection. Math texts will enjoy less protection than art or fiction.
Book covers, as art and illustration, are likely to enjoy strong
protection under copyright law. Even where the work copied is highly
creative, the reason for the copying may militate against the importance
of this factor. Copying for parody is an example. Here, the artist copied
original art. Factor two to the books.
The third factor, amount and substantiality of the portion of the work
used, gets down to the nub of whether fair use should be permitted. If the
idea behind prohibiting infringement is to protect the market for an
author's work, the courts must examine this factor very carefully. Too
much used, and the copy becomes a substitute for the original destroying
the market for the original work in the name of fair use. This is exactly
why a news show critiquing a new film cannot use large portions of the
film, even though the purpose behind the viewing is to comment or
criticize, two of the accepted reasons for allowing a fair use. Although
the artist took all of the work, that doesn't tell the whole story.
The third factor dove-tails with the fourth, and is perhaps the most
important factor - the effect of the use on the author's potential market
for the original work. Arguably, almost every fair use deprives the
original author of the possibility of entering into a license for the use
of the work in a new work for which fair use is claimed and therefore
adversely affects the potential market for the work. If the test for the
effect on the potential market is whether the new use somehow supplants
the market for the original, the question becomes easier to answer, and
numerous courts have adopted this test including the Supreme Court in a
recent decision dealing with parody of music where that Court appeared to
overlook the possibility that the original author could have licensed a
rap version of its song. If the artist, then, merely deprives the author
of the book jacket from a licensing opportunity, the test should be
decided in the artist's favor. On the other hand, if people will visit the
sculptures instead of reading the original books, the original author gets
the nod, which is not likely.
The analysis of whether a defendant is entitled to fair use is not simple,
and the statute's lack of explanation does not help. People who want to
borrow the copyrighted works of authors must remember that fair use is an
affirmative defense - that is to say that the issue of copying is
generally conceded, yet they claim the copying is not illicit. This means
that the burden of proving fair use is always going to belong to the
person claiming entitlement to the defense, or to put it another way, one
must have faith that the bullets from the firing squad can be caught by
the teeth.
In this case, the factors and circumstances lean towards the artist. Even
if the artist was cognizant of the fair use defense where he created the
sculptures, he probably believed there was little chance he would be sued.
by Jim Astrachan
+
-
"Tactical Action" opens at Gigantic Artspace on April 14 (fwd)
speaking of the political.... and art.
-J
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 20:28:41 -0700
From: Gigantic Artspace <info@giganticartspace.com>
Subject: "Tactical Action" opens at Gigantic Artspace on April 14
Gigantic ArtSpace [GAS]
59 Franklin Street, New York, NY, 10013
T 212 226-6762 F 212 226-6505
www.giganticartspace.com
Tue
-J
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 20:28:41 -0700
From: Gigantic Artspace <info@giganticartspace.com>
Subject: "Tactical Action" opens at Gigantic Artspace on April 14
Gigantic ArtSpace [GAS]
59 Franklin Street, New York, NY, 10013
T 212 226-6762 F 212 226-6505
www.giganticartspace.com
Tue
Joywar: finale
dear Friends,
Compulsive archivist that I am, I've done my best to compile a full list
of Joywar links, as well a some excerpts of interesting arguments and
attitudes for and against. (I also have made screen shots of nearly
everything, for documentary purposes); this will be the last installment:
http://firstpulseprojects.net/joywar.html
For all of you who've been supportive and managed to have some fun with
this, I'll say thanks again. The legal case seems to have 'gone dark'
which is a good thing considering how much $$$ it would have cost each of
us had it gone on to court.
In the meantime, as far as I can tell:
- it would have been more exciting, especially for the Italian bloggers,
if I had been sued by Pepsi; apologies to the Italians! But this is not
about trademarks or logos or corporate branding; not about Barbie, not
about Toywar even (though joywar has great euphony...); it's purely a case
of artist v. artist, copyright v. fair use, and permissions culture v.
sampling culture;
- the Molotov painting was bought by one of my old collectors in order to
protect it (apparently once it passes from my ownership it can't be
destroyed in the case that the plaintiff is awarded destruction of the
offending painting as part of damages); I wonder if it will fit over his
couch? Anyway it allowed me to pay my lawyer;
- the precedent most often referred to, Art Rogers v. Jeff Koons,
("Puppies") was a landmark loss and blow to fair use; however, from what
I've learned, strides have been made in favor of fair use during the 5
years since that debacle;
- just because a case is lost does not establish morality, right and
wrong (cf: Eldred v. Ashcroft). Al it does is establish that someone can
try and sue you based on the strength of the argument set in that
precedent -- but they could always lose. Copyright law is changing, is
being written and battled over as we speak. See the Prelinger case:
http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/public/
- Nothing is black and white;
- attitudes toward piracy and copyright have been polarized and blown way
out of proportion; everyone here (esp. me!) should read Lawrence Lessig's
new book, Free Culture, or else DL a short version:
http://www.lessig.org/
- copyright law has continuously changed over the decades in order to
adapt to new technologies and new forms of expression; it needs to catch
up badly, now more than ever;
- I still would argue--if I was a lawyer--all kinds of reasons why
'Molotov' is a good example of transformative use. Some of you here have
helped me think of new angles why it is "new". I don't agree that the work
is "derivative" in the legal sense, but I can see why someone might think
so. In all my work I walk the fine line, and that is probably part of the
point of what I do;
- fair use, which allows for parody or commentary on an original work,
unfortunatley doesn't cover work that comments on something other than
the original, as Peter Luining points out in his reference to Rogers v.
Koons below. This came up in the discussion w/ my lawyer. It's why my case
is a little too far ahead of the case law. I hope that some day this
part of copyright law will catch up with art and culture. As it stands
it's too narrow and parochial for my blood.
So that's it, unless someone has something to add.
cheers,
Joy
http://www.firstpulseprojects.com/joy.html
+
-
Compulsive archivist that I am, I've done my best to compile a full list
of Joywar links, as well a some excerpts of interesting arguments and
attitudes for and against. (I also have made screen shots of nearly
everything, for documentary purposes); this will be the last installment:
http://firstpulseprojects.net/joywar.html
For all of you who've been supportive and managed to have some fun with
this, I'll say thanks again. The legal case seems to have 'gone dark'
which is a good thing considering how much $$$ it would have cost each of
us had it gone on to court.
In the meantime, as far as I can tell:
- it would have been more exciting, especially for the Italian bloggers,
if I had been sued by Pepsi; apologies to the Italians! But this is not
about trademarks or logos or corporate branding; not about Barbie, not
about Toywar even (though joywar has great euphony...); it's purely a case
of artist v. artist, copyright v. fair use, and permissions culture v.
sampling culture;
- the Molotov painting was bought by one of my old collectors in order to
protect it (apparently once it passes from my ownership it can't be
destroyed in the case that the plaintiff is awarded destruction of the
offending painting as part of damages); I wonder if it will fit over his
couch? Anyway it allowed me to pay my lawyer;
- the precedent most often referred to, Art Rogers v. Jeff Koons,
("Puppies") was a landmark loss and blow to fair use; however, from what
I've learned, strides have been made in favor of fair use during the 5
years since that debacle;
- just because a case is lost does not establish morality, right and
wrong (cf: Eldred v. Ashcroft). Al it does is establish that someone can
try and sue you based on the strength of the argument set in that
precedent -- but they could always lose. Copyright law is changing, is
being written and battled over as we speak. See the Prelinger case:
http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/public/
- Nothing is black and white;
- attitudes toward piracy and copyright have been polarized and blown way
out of proportion; everyone here (esp. me!) should read Lawrence Lessig's
new book, Free Culture, or else DL a short version:
http://www.lessig.org/
- copyright law has continuously changed over the decades in order to
adapt to new technologies and new forms of expression; it needs to catch
up badly, now more than ever;
- I still would argue--if I was a lawyer--all kinds of reasons why
'Molotov' is a good example of transformative use. Some of you here have
helped me think of new angles why it is "new". I don't agree that the work
is "derivative" in the legal sense, but I can see why someone might think
so. In all my work I walk the fine line, and that is probably part of the
point of what I do;
- fair use, which allows for parody or commentary on an original work,
unfortunatley doesn't cover work that comments on something other than
the original, as Peter Luining points out in his reference to Rogers v.
Koons below. This came up in the discussion w/ my lawyer. It's why my case
is a little too far ahead of the case law. I hope that some day this
part of copyright law will catch up with art and culture. As it stands
it's too narrow and parochial for my blood.
So that's it, unless someone has something to add.
cheers,
Joy
http://www.firstpulseprojects.com/joy.html
+
-
Joseph Cornell road show in NYC (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:47:06 EST
From: SheilaPepe@aol.com
To: SheilaPepe@aol.com
Subject: Joseph Cornell road show in NYC
HI GUYS.. soon my friend Anne Walsh will be in town for these events..
Please join us.
Sheila
On April 8, we'll be hosted by the wonderful artist's book store
PRINTED MATTER for a party launching our new cd,
Visits with Joseph Cornell, (Art After Death volume 3).
Join us from 5-7 at 535 W. 22rd St. in Chelsea
and on April 10:
ARCHIVE presents:
"An Afternoon with Joseph Cornell"
ISSUE Project Room
619 E. 6th St.
7:30 p.m. APRIL 10
Lights out. Sound up: the recorded voice of
professional trance medium Valerie Winborne
speaks as the spirit of the seminal American
artist Joseph Cornell. Cornell muses on his work,
his reputation, his legacy, his dreams. Lights
come up, and the authors of "An Afternoon with
Joseph Cornell," Anne Walsh and Chris Kubick,
step to the lectern. For the next hour, Walsh and
Kubick lead the audience on a journey that
explores biography, storytelling, spirituality,
art history, and mythology.
The primary material of their performance is a
series of audio recordings documenting
"interviews" Walsh and Kubick conducted in 2002
with Cornell at the Whitney Museum of American
Art. Professional spirit mediums were brought by
Walsh and Kubick to the museum, and in the
presence of Cornell's box constructions, his
spirit was invoked, with the mediums serving as
translators and interpreters for his messages.
"An Afternoon with Joseph Cornell" presents
samples of the five mediums through whom Cornell
communicated, framed by a Walsh and Kubick's
witty and thoughtful narration, and slides of
Cornell's enigmatic works, journal entries, paper
ephemera, family photos, historical photos of his
NYC "haunts," film stills, and related themes.
The audio is a musing on Cornell the man,
artist,legend, spirit.
The narration includes discussion of the various
ethical and practical issues involved in the
making of the "Art After Death" series of which
the Cornell work is a part: the odd conflation of
art historians and spirit mediums; the uncanny
"truths" which emerge; the meaning of
"inspiration"; the ownership of an artist's
legacy, and much more.
Recent ARCHIVE Performances have taken place at
the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles; the
J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, the Centre for
Surrealism Studies, Essex, U.K.; ISSUE Project
Room, NYC, San Francisco Art Insititute. Upcoming
appearances will take place in Munich, Germany,
and Terrassa, Spain.
n.b. Art After Death takes the form of an audio
cd series, performance lectures, and museum and
gallery installations which present narrated and
edited audio, recorded during "interviews"
(seances) with dead artists. (We conduct at least
4 separate interviews with an individual artist
in the presence of their work, each time using a
different spirit medium to "translate" the
spirit's responses to questions posed by Anne
Walsh and Chris Kubick.) To date we have
completed extended audio works on three artists:
the seminal American sculptor Joseph Cornell, the
French conceptual painter and performer Yves
Klein, and the 19th century Italian self-portait
photographer, the Countess of Castiglione. We
conceive these compact discs, and the lectures
and museum installations that we develop from
them, as offering an alternative form of "art
history." They suggest that (art) criticism might
be a collaborative and performative practice,
rather than an authoritative one. The act of
using metaphysical communication
prostheses-spirit mediums-to obtain information
about artists' intentions is one that brings the
interpreter's role powerfully into the
foreground. More information is available at
www.doublearchive.com
ARCHIVE is the collaborative production entity of
artists Anne Walsh and Chris Kubick. Together,
ARCHIVE has produced a series of audio CDs,
including "Conversations with the Countess of
Castiglione", "Yves Klein Speaks!" and "Visits
With Joseph Cornell". They have also produced
gallery installations for museum and gallery
exhibitions, including the 2002 Whitney Biennial.
Their work has been heard on public radio in
America, Canada and England, and their lectures
presented at L.A.'s Museum of Contemporary Art,
the Getty Museum, and recently at the Institute
for Surrealism Studies in Essex, England.
Anne Walsh's solo practice is primarily in video
installation. An upcoming screening at Berkeley's
Pacific Film Archive will show a brief
retrospective of her video projects and
performances, which look at the world as an
intricate ensemble of gestures, utterances, and
protocols. Walsh has had solo shows in New York
City, Helsinki, Utrecht, and Los Angeles, and is
an editor of X-Tra, the art and culture journal
published in Los Angeles. Walsh recently joined
the faculty in Art Practice at U.C. Berkeley as
Professor of video art and conceptual practices.
Chris Kubick is an artist and sound designer
whose work focuses on speech and other human
sounds. He is the founder and director of
Language Removal Services. His sound work has
been heard internationally, in installations at
places such as the Whitney Museum of American Art
and the 2001 Venice Biennale, as well as on radio
programs such as NPR's "All Things Considered".
He has also created sound for films and videos
which range from sublime films which have won
awards from places such as the Walker Center for
the Arts, to B-grade monster movies and tv
shows.
--
Anne Walsh
annejunior@earthlink.net
http://www.doublearchive.com
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:47:06 EST
From: SheilaPepe@aol.com
To: SheilaPepe@aol.com
Subject: Joseph Cornell road show in NYC
HI GUYS.. soon my friend Anne Walsh will be in town for these events..
Please join us.
Sheila
On April 8, we'll be hosted by the wonderful artist's book store
PRINTED MATTER for a party launching our new cd,
Visits with Joseph Cornell, (Art After Death volume 3).
Join us from 5-7 at 535 W. 22rd St. in Chelsea
and on April 10:
ARCHIVE presents:
"An Afternoon with Joseph Cornell"
ISSUE Project Room
619 E. 6th St.
7:30 p.m. APRIL 10
Lights out. Sound up: the recorded voice of
professional trance medium Valerie Winborne
speaks as the spirit of the seminal American
artist Joseph Cornell. Cornell muses on his work,
his reputation, his legacy, his dreams. Lights
come up, and the authors of "An Afternoon with
Joseph Cornell," Anne Walsh and Chris Kubick,
step to the lectern. For the next hour, Walsh and
Kubick lead the audience on a journey that
explores biography, storytelling, spirituality,
art history, and mythology.
The primary material of their performance is a
series of audio recordings documenting
"interviews" Walsh and Kubick conducted in 2002
with Cornell at the Whitney Museum of American
Art. Professional spirit mediums were brought by
Walsh and Kubick to the museum, and in the
presence of Cornell's box constructions, his
spirit was invoked, with the mediums serving as
translators and interpreters for his messages.
"An Afternoon with Joseph Cornell" presents
samples of the five mediums through whom Cornell
communicated, framed by a Walsh and Kubick's
witty and thoughtful narration, and slides of
Cornell's enigmatic works, journal entries, paper
ephemera, family photos, historical photos of his
NYC "haunts," film stills, and related themes.
The audio is a musing on Cornell the man,
artist,legend, spirit.
The narration includes discussion of the various
ethical and practical issues involved in the
making of the "Art After Death" series of which
the Cornell work is a part: the odd conflation of
art historians and spirit mediums; the uncanny
"truths" which emerge; the meaning of
"inspiration"; the ownership of an artist's
legacy, and much more.
Recent ARCHIVE Performances have taken place at
the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles; the
J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, the Centre for
Surrealism Studies, Essex, U.K.; ISSUE Project
Room, NYC, San Francisco Art Insititute. Upcoming
appearances will take place in Munich, Germany,
and Terrassa, Spain.
n.b. Art After Death takes the form of an audio
cd series, performance lectures, and museum and
gallery installations which present narrated and
edited audio, recorded during "interviews"
(seances) with dead artists. (We conduct at least
4 separate interviews with an individual artist
in the presence of their work, each time using a
different spirit medium to "translate" the
spirit's responses to questions posed by Anne
Walsh and Chris Kubick.) To date we have
completed extended audio works on three artists:
the seminal American sculptor Joseph Cornell, the
French conceptual painter and performer Yves
Klein, and the 19th century Italian self-portait
photographer, the Countess of Castiglione. We
conceive these compact discs, and the lectures
and museum installations that we develop from
them, as offering an alternative form of "art
history." They suggest that (art) criticism might
be a collaborative and performative practice,
rather than an authoritative one. The act of
using metaphysical communication
prostheses-spirit mediums-to obtain information
about artists' intentions is one that brings the
interpreter's role powerfully into the
foreground. More information is available at
www.doublearchive.com
ARCHIVE is the collaborative production entity of
artists Anne Walsh and Chris Kubick. Together,
ARCHIVE has produced a series of audio CDs,
including "Conversations with the Countess of
Castiglione", "Yves Klein Speaks!" and "Visits
With Joseph Cornell". They have also produced
gallery installations for museum and gallery
exhibitions, including the 2002 Whitney Biennial.
Their work has been heard on public radio in
America, Canada and England, and their lectures
presented at L.A.'s Museum of Contemporary Art,
the Getty Museum, and recently at the Institute
for Surrealism Studies in Essex, England.
Anne Walsh's solo practice is primarily in video
installation. An upcoming screening at Berkeley's
Pacific Film Archive will show a brief
retrospective of her video projects and
performances, which look at the world as an
intricate ensemble of gestures, utterances, and
protocols. Walsh has had solo shows in New York
City, Helsinki, Utrecht, and Los Angeles, and is
an editor of X-Tra, the art and culture journal
published in Los Angeles. Walsh recently joined
the faculty in Art Practice at U.C. Berkeley as
Professor of video art and conceptual practices.
Chris Kubick is an artist and sound designer
whose work focuses on speech and other human
sounds. He is the founder and director of
Language Removal Services. His sound work has
been heard internationally, in installations at
places such as the Whitney Museum of American Art
and the 2001 Venice Biennale, as well as on radio
programs such as NPR's "All Things Considered".
He has also created sound for films and videos
which range from sublime films which have won
awards from places such as the Walker Center for
the Arts, to B-grade monster movies and tv
shows.
--
Anne Walsh
annejunior@earthlink.net
http://www.doublearchive.com