W November 2007 : The Art Issue

[rollagasper]

Mmmm...I'd need to see a doctor to be able to do that. And for this W issue it looks like he would have to be pretty generous with the prescription pad too

I really don't see why people bother with art that looks positively bad. From that time period, I far prefer the futurists, at least they had some feeling.

I don't think Duchamp's "Fountain" looks bad. I obviously would not display that in my living room, but in a gallery, I actually think it looks good as a piece of art. It's just the connotations that are bad - people link toilet with ugly, but if you don't look at the toilet functionally and conventionally, then it can become something pleasing to the eye.

So perhaps that could apply to Prince's covers too; like someone mentioned, these pieces would present irony better if displayed in a gallery rather than a mass-marketed magazine which kind of cancels things out.

 

[masquerade]

Mmmm...I'd need to see a doctor to be able to do that. And for this W issue it looks like he would have to be pretty generous with the prescription pad too

I really don't see why people bother with art that looks positively bad. From that time period, I far prefer the futurists, at least they had some feeling.

the thing is, Duchamps "Fountain", as well as all his ready-mades, is a conceptual art piece. The aesthetics are secondary to the message really. Once you really understand and appreciate the piece for what it is, the aesthetics follow, at least thats how it is for me.

 

[iluvjeisa]

Of course I understand....it's pretty obvious to say the very least and was entertaining for about 2 minutes (not now, for me, but years ago). It's not just Fountain. It's everything he's done (that I have seen), I just think it's particularly flat, boring, empty and ugly. It was groundbreaking at the time, of course, there is some merit in that. I can respect that, but I still don't like it. Conceptual art - to me - is about the emperor's new clothes and elitism and that is it. Unless it looks good of course, in which case it's a different question. Marcel Duchamp opened the floodgates for talentless hacks to spread their boring crap around, with the perfect excuse "Oh, those stupidissimos just don't understand".

In a way, though, I guess art is always about elitism. I want it to be affirmative elitism rather than empty suffering for credibility.

Contrary to you guys, I think it is more interesting to show this on the cover of W rather than in an art gallery....it's just been done so many times before. At least this has just been done once before

 

[BerlinRocks]

Of course I understand....it's pretty obvious to say the very least and was entertaining for about 2 minutes (not now, for me, but years ago). It's not just Fountain. It's everything he's done (that I have seen), I just think it's particularly flat, boring, empty and ugly. It was groundbreaking at the time, of course, there is some merit in that. I can respect that, but I still don't like it. Conceptual art - to me - is about the emperor's new clothes and elitism and that is it. Unless it looks good of course, in which case it's a different question. Marcel Duchamp opened the floodgates for talentless hacks to spread their boring crap around, with the perfect excuse "Oh, those stupidissimos just don't understand".

In a way, though, I guess art is always about elitism. I want it to be affirmative elitism rather than empty suffering for credibility.

Contrary to you guys, I think it is more interesting to show this on the cover of W rather than in an art gallery....it's just been done so many times before. At least this has just been done once before

I truly understand...
but Marcel Duchamp was a "genius" and his works (mainly the ready-mades and boxes) opened the doors for all the post-modernist art...
He also changed the status of the artist... But honestly most of his ready-mades were re-activated in the late 1950s - and really not when he did them first (in the 1910s)
Minimalism and Conceptual Art (etc.) are not that elitist, but the 1980s was an important period for this "elitism" and "powerful" thoughts about these movement...
Anyway, we're doing an art history class...

But I really understand your thinkings... it's not that easy for everyone to erase several centuries of conception of art and artists' status...
But contemporary art, in the begining, is mainly about "what is art? what is an art work?"

 

[nanker_phledge]

Even the so called 'fashion-meets-art= editorial looks fugly.I'm definitely going to save some money without it.

 

[TomFordforGucci]

Some of the features are already up on the W section at style.com
Ugh, I'm not a fan of the cover.

 

[kissmesweet]

Definitely not looking forward to this... Last year's was wonderful. This, however, seems a little lazy.

 

[seanutbutter]

what a bunch of crap

Precisely. There's no use in penning a paragraph or two when a sentence like this will do.

Art is such a complex matter, and these covers may fall into someone's definition of it, but certainly not mine.

 

[seanutbutter]

"John Baldessari"
Curated by Dennis Freedman and Neville Wakefield
Photographer: Mario Sorrenti
Stylist: Andrew Richardson

One of the most influential artists to emerge since the mid-sixties, John Baldessari has produced work ranging from phototext paintings to installation and video. Here, in collaboration with photographer Mario Sorrenti, he turns his eye to fashion.

style.com

 

[seanutbutter]

"Marc Jacobs"
Photographer: Philip-Lorca diCorcia



style.com

 

[unipine]

What the hell is that? Was it done in MS Paint?

 

[kiddokiddo]

^^ergh Marc Jacobs should refrain from taking his clothes off...we get it, you just got a brain new physique, now get over it

 

[Candice89102]

Dear God please let me get the Jennifer Aniston cover in my mailbox

 

[BerlinRocks]

Marc Jacobs ed. makes me think of Richard Hamilton...
I really like it...
just posting one image because i didn't find more interesting ones...

studiopesci.it

 

[KhaoticKharma]

I wouldn't hate these covers if celebrity culture wasn't as overexposed as it is anyways. It is no longer witty or clever to point this out- it's everywhere.

Oh, and if I get the Jessica Simpson or Britney Spears cover, I will be pissed.

 

[frednginger]

What a waste of an issue

I got mine in the mail today and I was so disappointed. I hated the cover, the articles, and the editorials. I think the only thing I DID like was the letters from readers page.

 

[MissMagAddict]

Yeah I'll have to agree with you...a waste...if I didn't have my subscription I wouldn't have bothered buying it...

 

[testinofan]

Boring issue

 

[mikel]

What a waste of an issue

I got mine in the mail today and I was so disappointed. I hated the cover, the articles, and the editorials. I think the only thing I DID like was the letters from readers page.

Were people complaining about the nudity and smoking?

 

[frednginger]

Yeah I'll have to agree with you...a waste...if I didn't have my subscription I wouldn't have bothered buying it...

Same here. I never would have paid a cent for this issue if I didn't have my subscription. I'm already kinda pissed that I did contribute money to this issue in the first place (by paying for my sub). I can see them getting some pretty nasty letters about this month's rag.