the earth belonged to the martians... 
Setting my pandora on "punk" radio (the stupid thing played gorillaz as the first tune, I was looking for something a bit more... hard core), anyway, I skipped that and then this started playing. Jeff Wayne's musical version of War of The Worlds was one of my favorits when I was in my early teens.
I still have the CD-pack. It is great, it is like being back home in my room, dream about other worlds and surreal strange shapes and alike.

I remembering watching the 1953 film version in 2002 and found it quite funny the way they used the atomic bomb in a small valley in a desperate try to kill the attackers (did not work).

Haven't seen the newst version, think I would not like it.
I did like the radio play though.

[ 969 comments ] ( 34996 views )   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink  |  related link  |   ( 3 / 1781 )
Why I blog/ write / what ever 
Just wrote a text about reading, why I read so to say, and I have never read in order to write, but reading is necessary if one wants to write.
Anyway, this blog and I have come a long way in terms of time; never have I so often written something to no one as the last year and a half -- or so I like to think, but the truth is all around us, and there are a few readers out there, some of you also keep coming back, which makes me think: Why to I write comments online?

As Nicholas G. Carr points out in his blog, that blogging is a type of community. That is true, but I am on the very edge here then, I hardly have anyone that I know of doing what I am doing where I am doing it (more or less the northern hemisphere), the only hard core blogger out there doing the same thing as I am where I am doing I am not allowed to link to even, so these blog-fungus going off are not a part of my reality. That was also not my intention starting this blog, I just needed it as a dumpster for thoughts etc. So today. There are no development there, as in my language skills.

But one thing happens more often than not: Writing something, anything helps me sort out thoughts and ideas, and yes, even information. Texts that does not make any sense starts to as I press *post*, or when I get feedback (more seldom).

more to it than that?
I do not think so, the traditional blogging -- might be that I do more of that later on.


[ 688 comments ] ( 8057 views )   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink  |  related link  |   ( 3 / 1204 )
Pontus Hultén dies at 82  
I have heard a lot about Hultén, the one who made Moderna Museet the place we all would like it to be (it is not, not really) - or?
It is always strange when heroes and known people dies, so also with Pontus Hultén, who died not many days ago. He will be remembered as long as the term Contemporary Art means something, and as long as someone tries to define what these so-called curators did during the last part of the 20-century.

From the press text of Moderna:

Pontus Hultén, in effect, founded Moderna Museet, when he became its director in 1960 . Very soon, he startled the Swedish public with a succession of innovative exhibitions, such as Movement in Art, incorporating sculptures by Jean Tinguely and PO Ultvedt; and 4 Americans (1962), featuring American pop art by Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns and others, almost before they were acknowledged in the USA. A string of historic exhibitions followed: Jackson Pollock (1963) and the Dream Museum, where Pontus Hultén persuaded the government to contribute five million Swedish kronor towards buying new works for the collection. Today, these works are the backbone of the museum collection and cannot be valued in money. Pontus Hultén is regarded as one of the world’s most distinguished museum professionals of our time. He devoted his life to art and eventually donated the collection he built up over many years to Moderna Museet.



Moderna Museet won international fame in 1966 with the exhibition SHE – A Cathedral, which consisted of a gigantic sculpture of a reclining woman whose womb was an entrance for visitors who could experience various things inside. The artists behind the work were Niki de Saint Phalle, Jean Tinguely, P O Ultvedt as well as Pontus Hultén himself. When Andy Warhol was shown at Moderna Museet in 1968, this was his first retrospective ever.



In 1974, Pontus Hultén was invited to participate in creating a new cultural centre in the heart of Paris: Centre Pompidou. He directed the institution with great aplomb until 1981, when he went on to start other institutions, including Museum of Contemporary Art, Museum of Contemporary Art, MoCA , Los Angeles, Palazzo Grassi, Venice, Kunsthalle Bonn and Museum Jean Tinguely, Basel.



Lars Nittve, director of Moderna Museet:
“Pontus Hultén is a seminal figure in the history of the museum, with his ability to take advantage of unique opportunities and always being ahead of his time. The works that were added to the collection during his directorship are the mainstay of Moderna Museet. It is no exaggeration to say that no other individual has meant more to Moderna Museet.”

One year ago, Pontus Hultén decided to donate some 700 works, or practically his entire private collection, to Moderna Museet. One of his requests was that the donated works, which were gratefully accepted by the government and Moderna Museet, should not be hung as part of the collection, but should be accessible to the public in a user-friendly storehouse – a typically Hulténesque solution that would give the public the freedom to “browse” among the masterpieces as in an art library. The architect who will create this viewing storehouse is Pontus Hultén’s friend and former colleague Renzo Piano (from Centre Pompidou, Paris, and the Menil Collection, Houston, Texas).

[ 741 comments ] ( 29726 views )   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink  |  related link  |   ( 3 / 1041 )
JERRY SALTZ 
Now, I love the writings of Jerry Saltz, did I mentioned that? Well, I do, don't I. Although pushing the limits of logic, I very much enjoyed reading his "NO NEXT CHELSEA" in the October issue of Modern Painters. He applies Darwinist methodology on the art scene by claiming not only that most art is bad, and that when you react positively to one show, he might react differently, and he does so with bravura(??) debating that NY will experience problems when the prices in Chelsea will raise the next decade or so and force everyone to learn German. Anyway. He tries to explain that most shows are bad in a 6:1 ratio, 85% are bad and 15% might be ok. Without any further ado he states that this ratio may very well be a natural law, "brilliant, absolutely Darwinian survival mechanism."
Anyway, he makes a fantastic argument for this as he explain how this good: bad ratio of show have to be true, because if not "([...] the Leipzig scene would be the best in the world since, according to the moneybags who buy every painting made there simply because it was made there, no bad painters exist in Leipzig.)"

I rest my case.


[ 696 comments ] ( 5482 views )   |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink  |  related link  |   ( 3 / 1038 )
some thouhgts 
During the job interview I had the night before last, some interesting subjects were brought up: why does so many curators/critics etc. turn commercial? why not be in a institution and then just work their way through life having different jobs?
There are some disadvantages working for some institutions: You are expected to have a higher circulation of artists then a commercial gallery. This means that an institution might have a bit of this "hit and run" feel to them as they bring artist in and dumpst them when done. Like a one night stand, being an artist working without at least one commercial gallery might be like that: running around all the time in order to find new projects for new collaborators.

Working with a gallery you have to option to follow an artist over a strech of time, and you do not have to concider problems with the board (you have the bank and the collectors instead, but it seems like they are preferred by some art workers over politicans and boards etc.)

Me, I had a talk about this with artist Řystein Aasan on the phone today. In his opinion can commercial galleries take more chances than almost any institution as they don*t have to concider the audience. He claims that there are no need for a commercial gallery to see if the audience are adapted to the type of art the given artist might produce - and that this is a type of freedom.
FurtherI believe that the museum can also be a laboratorium just like the way it was depicted by Alfred H. Barr and the way Hans Ulrich Obrist have been claiming through greater parts of the 90ties. I believe firmly in the option but viewer, artist and institution have in choosing, and I do not belive that the gallery are less concervative then a institution, they might be more concervative, just look at the situation in Leipzig, the local contemporary art msueum are more up to date then most of the galleries here.

But I have accepted offers to curat shows for galleris in the next comming years, and that is not a problem, and it might actually show that Aasan is right: there are no, not one single, institution that will take a chance on me, not even those in norway, but by the end of 2007 I have, if everything goes as planned, curated 3 shows as I like in three different commercial galleries in three different countries. Strange.




[ 665 comments ] ( 12864 views )   |  [ 42 trackbacks ]   |  permalink  |  related link  |   ( 3 / 995 )

Next