I read our required article and went to
Juergen Teller's show in Chelsea on the same day on accident. It just happened that the images and the article would draw so many parallels from each other: Critical analysis of the museum space, references to antiquity, pushing boundaries, etc. I also saw parallels between the article and my work as well as between Teller's show and my work.
I love making references to the past; past glamor, tribal themes, religious iconography. I love mixing the old with the new, as I had done in my large format class with the female deities images. Simplicity in the presence of decadence intrigues me, so it's no wonder that I was intrigued by "Paradis;" I have always been drawn (both in good and bad ways) to Juergen Teller's aesthetic. It interests me that he blurrs the line between "proffessional aesthetic" and "amateur aesthetic." I also like exploring that idea. I tend to dislike "perfect," commercial, sleek images.
In terms of "On the New," I disagree with Boris Groys when he writes, "Artists and art theoricians alike are glad to be free at last from the burden of history, from the necessity to make the next step, and from the obligation to conform to the historical laws and requirements of that which is historically new." Are you kidding? I
love referencing art history; I have never seen it as a burden. I see it as inspiration. He goes on to say, "The museum doesn't dictate what the new has to look like, it only shows what it must not look like..." I agree to some extent with this statement, at least from a curators point of view. But I think the trick is to mix and match. Because isn't that what art is anyway?
