|
 |
28 July 2003 |
5:19:01 PM 
|
|
Rhonda Roland Shearer's thesis is that none of MD's readymades were genuinely off-the-shelf.
-
Shearer, Marcel Duchamp's Impossible Bed and Other "Not" Readymade Objects: A Possible Route of Influence From Art To Science: part one and part two.
-
As reported by Leslie Camhi in Art News: Did Duchamp Deceive Us? - "Shearer has been marshaling support for a radical hypothesis concerning Duchamp's readymades, among the most revolutionary (or anti-art) objects of the 20th century. Most people think of the readymades as mass-produced items transformed into art by Duchamp's choice and by their displacement to museum and gallery settings. Shearer has set out to prove that they are all unique creations, extensively manipulated by the artist's hand."
-
Opinion by Emily Liebert: Taking the 'ready' out of readymade artwork - "a larger question remains: whether or not such a discovery matters. Can a piece of information have the power to subvert a genre of art? The answer, quite simply, is no"
-
An Artist's Timely Riddles (with references)
5:17:42 PM
|
|
555-numbers are fake numbers earmarked for use in movies, tv, radio etc so that real numbers don't get used (and then called). These guys have gathered together a list of 555-numbers that have been used, and where. The UK's equivalent for 555-numbers is Oftel's numbers for drama use.
[via PR-Otaku]
5:16:10 PM
|
|
David Thomson meditates on what glued viewers to 24, and why the show fell short He hints at its fetishisation of mobile phones, which always seemed to be more than simply a plot device to glue together the different story strands and locations.
The sharpest pleasure in 24 has always been to awaken the scenarist in us all. It was evident early in the first series that hooked viewers were not simply asking story questions like, 'Do you trust Senator Palmer's wife?' Or, 'Are Jack and Nina over?' No, we were identifying with the team behind the show, and their self-imposed dilemma. We wanted to know, 'How are they going to spin this out through the middle sections without losing us?' Or, 'It's not just who is the traitor, but is anyone telling the truth?' Or, 'The secret is, it's all about cell phones.'
[...]
[T]he show required commentary. It needed its own talk show, with real-life pundits and senators coming on to discuss President Palmer's situation. It needed a great dash of what Altman tried to do in Tanner, and what Welles was always after – the organic confusion of fact and fiction. It needed to bleed over into the rest of television.
Go one step further: the commercials should have been written and directed by the show's talent, and they should have had the show's actors or characters. Thus you cut away from a car chase to have Kiefer Sutherland proposing this or that SUV. In the midst of telephonic deceit, Nina confides to the camera about the 'love-affair confidentiality' of her latest Nokia. And so on.
[...]
Someone should show it all in one day (Antonia Quirke had that idea for the ICA in London – but there were print problems). And everyone in the audience has a cell phone so they can call home. Or wherever you'd call if the bomb flashes. But the doors are locked – only as much food and weaponry as you can carry in. Give claustrophobia a chance. I told you we needed Buñuel. It's The Exterminating Angel, with Nina presiding, waiting for Jack to sleep.
Also: Top 100 British tv programmes.
[via philgyford]
12:26:58 PM
|
|
© Copyright 2003 rodcorp.
|
|
|
