Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Art after commerce

Here's a recent work made by Julius Popp, a German artist:



And here's a commercial product present since 1989:


Classic questions:
How much of the value is the originality of the project?
How much is there left for the concept? The execution? The richness of the universe that is being created? The "art codes"?
The bluff?
Should one stop/diverge a project upon realizing one is following another's path too closely?
This latter question is quite recurrent among many of the artists I know. Some opt for stopping, while others simply don't let go of their toy. After all, they say, isn't it always mine in the first place? Unintentional plagiarism? So what? If you focus on what you are, on your own path, shouldn't it always lead to an original work? In the best of possible worlds?

9 comments:

nathaniel said...

It should be noted that Stephen Pevnick - the last video you provide is Pevnick Design - is an artist, in fact an Art Professor. The pursuit of his Graphical Waterfall was not originally commercially-based, but moved in that direction out of growing private, and lack of public, interest. Ironically, perhaps Julius Popp is actually the better salesman of the two.

graficacoahuilense said...

he just did, thats a value...any discussion its based in envy

vvoi said...

nathaniel, thanks for the important note! that really does make the story even more fascinating.

grafica - well, i must say i don't really feel it's about envy at all. at least in my case, it's about curiosity and the desire to go beyond over-simplifying answers. process is an absolutely fundamental concept of contemporary art, and it involves dealing with heritage and context, artistic and other. artists do deal with this type of situations, in various ways, and those are tough decisions to make. so at least from my perspective, it's important and interesting to address these issues.

graphismus said...

bitfall is from 2005. still newer than 1989 but just not so recent.

nintendo ds zubehor said...

He did a good job behind it. It really is a fine work and we should appreciate it.

amber renee said...

Hello! Just wanted to introduce myself and say that I adore your blog and it's gotten me lost for quite awhile -- so great and thought provoking. <3

Would love to feature you, swap links, etc. I'm a bit new to the blog community and we've never been formally introduced. :)

Patrick said...

The entire idea of originality as a mark of genius I think is wrong. Genius in art can lead to something new but it does not HAVE to lead to something new. And I think this idea of great art having to be new is one of the main problems in the art world today.

vvoi said...

amber renee, thank you for the very kind words!

if you deem it worthy, i will be more than happy to be featured on your site.

however, i do not trade links, ever. it's a matter of principle: any link you will find on the blog (if not clearly stated as publicity) is there just and only because i find it fits the 'profile' of this blog. which excludes a lot of great sites. but also hopefuly makes your visits to my blog (and from it) all the more pleasurable :)

Mark said...

Stephen Penvick is no doubt an innovator in his creation, and due credit in his implementation of his concept. But, Penvick's solution is tangible and static. It exists in concept only within the confines of its place and use (now as a commercial object). Even the process of patenting such an idea further lends itself to my point. Of course this is completely rational within the confines of a fiscal point of view, but it lends itself to the approach that what he had made was singular. And it is. Thus Julius Popp has broken the confines of the object as a thing and used it as an idea. Popp has created something that exists in an evolving landscape calling from its own creation as both an object reliant on science and technology, and yet still relying on the aesthetic power of the object as a physical thing. The true power of the work lies in the pondering of what it is exactly. The lasting relationship you have with the object is not necessarily in the image of its physicality but within the concept of what has been presented.

p.s. Thank you for introducing me to this work, wasn't familiar with the artist before.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails