Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 6:44 a.m.

It's different than CK. Reminds me of a jelly jar or turning womens work into something dangerous. Nice piece--there is always room for more.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 6:54 a.m.

Making top-notch art is extremely difficult, and the only way that it gets made is if someone is willing to try knowing full well that they may not be able to do it.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 8:56 a.m.

Charlie's ceramic hand grenades were absolutely not the first art hand grenades. If you're going to use that ruse, Regina, then please call out Charlie for not being the first. It's also a cheap trick since Charlie's whole series had a completely different set of content. The glass hand grenades have more of a glass/sculptural content playing on the fragility and immateriality of the glass while Charlie's work had a much broader anthropological play on kitsch, our being made insensitive to violence, and the fetishizing of war objects.

We know you aren't confusing Charlie's work with the glass - you know his stuff probably better than anyone. So why the comparison? Why the sudden interest in letting artists own a subject?

Certainly Charlie wasn't the first to make an art gun. Did you dress him down for that?

Carol Milne's work is being shown in a contemporary art gallery, but let's look at it in the context of glass in Seattle and suddenly it's very interesting stuff. Even technically - her casting is extremely unusual.

Kudos to you, Regina, for pointing out this work. Is your animus the fact that it's glass? Or do you really not like it when people make try a subject that has been done before?

Why don't you write a big text on Charlie? He's one of our real stars from the Seattle art world and you deserve credit for standing behind him since he started showing the weapons series and even before.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 11:54 a.m.

And then there was Charles Holzhey's group of constructed and photographed grenades at Corridor Gallery last month.
http://www.tashirokaplan.com/corridor/past.html

The new art making paradigm = google your idea, study all the existing art that relates thematically, figuratively, visually, ethically, socially, spiritually, intuitively, ridiculously, spasmodically and critically, then don't make it because you will be so inhibited from receiving the wrath of the critically inclined that you will no longer see the need to find your voice – we will become so blogillogically influenced by anonymous sources who find solace in the ability to define each others sad state of influence that we will no longer care to share the creative spirit for fear of the great blogging empire and it's mighty power of "ahah we gotcha, ya lame-ass plagiarizing, unoriginal, been there done that, who do you think you are doing a flower again" attitude.

Sure we need to elevate great original work but does it always need to be by reason of comparison and competition? Oh, but for that better world of which you speak.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 12:17 p.m.

I prefer the Pac Man version for my hand grenade art.

http://www.petergronquist.com/peterart_029_op_600x800.jpg

when it comes to gun art, nothing like relaxing in the Elephant Gun Chair.

http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/furnitureweaponschairzs4.jpg

JB

Posted by Regina Hackett at 3/21/08 12:51 p.m.

I don't understand the frilly colored tops of Carol Milne's grenades: home decor as weapons? Maybe that's where she was going, a girlie-girl version of war. To me, they look trivial. I don't care who is first. Krafft's are far more powerful.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 1:12 p.m.

yah, the bow bizz is more of the seattle 'cuteness' palatable, weak idea, lets just be cute. thats always popular, tittle tittle, sorry.
okay, so you have a title with some wack, maybe she should write instead, cos, the work is weak on a strong subject.
perhaps seattle should have the cohones to take the b.s by the horns and do a war show, i know how unpopular that idea with gallerists obsessed with technical marvels could be, to tussle up someones prissy white salon, god forbid!
jb

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 2:44 p.m.

Is Seattle THAT small?!
Krafft's work has stronger ideas and a more solid foundation. But as an artist you need to do what drives you, even if someone has done something like it. If not we wouldn't have art. It's a dialog, so it's ongoing and yes sometimes we repeat each other's words, but there HAS TO BE ROOM for that.

Diem

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 3:20 p.m.

For the record... JB is not jb.. for that matter, who is jb?

Sincerely,

JB aka James Brown

Posted by lawrimoreproject at 3/21/08 4:41 p.m.

Grenades with little bows?

Sounds like a gift to me.

Is it silly to point out that 'gift' in German means poison?

Everyone, quick, go read this: The Gift of Death

Meet me back here in 10 minutes to discuss how these codifying posts are 'gifts' to us all.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 5:32 p.m.

LP, would love to hear more about your post, please indulge? I think your getting the nucleus for the reason these (or other works) were produced. While unfamiliar with Derrida's, The Gift of Death, I'm all ears.

Side note: Keep in mind to expand on the idea relating to these glass grenades.

MM

Posted by lawrimoreproject at 3/21/08 5:52 p.m.

hmm, blogville is nowhere to have such discussions, hence my "quick, go read..." tongue in cheek remark.

That said, there's a really interesting semantic path to go down:

Glass = glas
just as
bell = death knoll

giving = receive
just as
poison = cure

writing is a pharmakon.
pharmakon is a poison and a cure.

blog = poison
just as
grenade = death

blog = cure
just as
_______ = _______.

etcetry. etcetry.

It's all there in uncle D (if Duchamp is papa D).

Posted by lawrimoreproject at 3/21/08 6:02 p.m.

...and I would love to think that the thread starter, Carol or Charles were thinking of such things, or had read such things like, say, an artist like Conrad Atkinson, but I think it unlikely (and probably not even necessary in these cases). I gotz loadz of baggage when it comes to such charged images, objects, histories, precedences and words such as these...

Posted by carolmilne at 3/21/08 6:17 p.m.

"irony: incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs."

It's easy to be seduced by the beauty of glass. That is the point of the bows, Regina. We've packaged the war in frilly little Martha Stewart gift boxes. The bows symbolize the care and loving intentions we professed to be giving away (in the form of war). They're also symbolic of a cultural over-attention to wrapping versus content. And a lack of consideration for how our acts might effect others.

I apologize for using the potent symbol I now know is owned by Charles Krafft (the grenade) as vehicle for these thoughts.

And thanks for the reading list, lawrimoreproject.

Posted by Regina Hackett at 3/21/08 7:58 p.m.

Thank you for your generous response, Carol. I don't think any symbol is owned by any one artist, but Charles sets a high, high standard for hand grenades. This discussion is helpful. I think the frilly tops are clearer to me now.

And Scott. Being pompous seems to be so much fun for you. If you ever decide to close your gallery, you can make attitude pay on stage as art.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 8:38 p.m.

#110644--interesting reading list but you sound like another victim of harsh toilet training.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/21/08 11:01 p.m.

Aesthetically, I like Carol's grenades more than Kraffts, I do however have one criticism. I think they should be functioning to some degree. I'm not kidding. I like the idea of filling them with a low level explosive... living on the edge a bit.. not for the sake of decadance, but for the sake of the seriousness of the situation. maybe if we had such a time bomb sitting in our house, we would consider more the reprecussions of our actions and monetary influence. For us, it's a political and humanitarian "statement".. for all to many it's a life and death reality. If we were in that reality, would we make the same day to day decisions? I think not. I say fill them with notroglycerine.

JB

Posted by unregistered user at 3/22/08 8:55 a.m.

Thanks, Scott, for reminding why I have never gone to Lawrimore Project and never will. Isn't it annoying when there's a discussion about art which is not about you? That's why I am doing the favor of talking about you. Isn't it grand and gay!

I think the bows are what mediate Ms. Milne's grendades. Their transparency is an oblique gesture to the flames of explosion and even the curly-cue shape references an unfurling of potential energy. These are subtle pieces and they certainly take on content that is world's away from Krafft's (btw SL: kraft is power in German and freud is pleasure - why don't you go freud yourself with kraft). As well, Krafft's work was all pre 9-11 and Milne's pieces pull off a frilly reference to domesticity. The war and bombs have come home. Kraft's stuff is so in your face and Milne's are pretty - it's to their credit they would make such great tchotschkes. Milne doesn't seem to be intimidated by referencing the decorative in her work.

Cool stuff, Milne. And way to come around, Ms. Hackett - and calling out Scott for being an ass. Great stuff.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/22/08 10:45 a.m.

Dear #110761,

You are a part of the part of the problem with this online dialogue, and a douche. While it is great that Regina can call Lawrimore out on his sh** every now and then, it is because she is paying attention, goes to SEE the art. You, by adamantly stating that you will never grace the doors of a space because you have a problem with the persona behind the door, are a hypocrite, and deserve no respect for your holier-than-thou attitude. The art itself, is after all, the reason we are reading this blog, and feel driven to make the comments we do. Thanks for bringing me down to your level to make this oh-so personal attack.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/22/08 11:35 a.m.

See, what art can do to us, this has sparked a bit of passion. I recently took a look at Carol's work at Gallery IMA, it's a statement without being "in your face", which I found attractive. All to often, when art is combined with politics of the world, it can be just to harsh when trying to make it's point. I think this gallery has some interesting shows coming up, I'll be going back.

Posted by kenkelly at 3/22/08 10:13 p.m.

Not to get off the subject, when such a gratifying dialog is going on, but all of these "unregistered users" are a bit confusing. Perhaps in the brave new blogosphere nothing matters except free-floating thoughts, but I would kind of like to be able to put it all together at least somewhat coherently...like, who's saying what, etc. No need to put yourself on the line by using your name, god forbid, but at least come up with some cute handle to differentiate yourself from the next one. Anyway, interesting spool.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/22/08 11:07 p.m.

For full disclosure Ken, I am represented by IMA. This however has no impact on my opinion that the glass grenades should be filled with a low level explosive. I've never met Carol, and the work is not my cup of tea, but I do find it aesthetically pleasing. Although I also like the intent, I generally steer away from political art when it comes to collecting or making art, and leave politics to my diatribes. I choose not to register to give myself the option of anonymity, but almost always sign my posts JB aka James Brown or on rare occasion GFS for the Godfather of Soul which I was known by more often than not in another time and place.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/23/08 3:22 p.m.

I'd like to mention to everyone commenting on this piece, that you should go read some of the stuff on Carol's site. I'm pretty sure that she could explain what she was trying to get at with this piece a lot better than anyone else could. Also, I think the point of the bows is trying more to address how sometimes things that are considered gifts (like some wars) and are meant to help people, or better their livelihoods, are really just, well, bombs with bows. And I totally disagree that this is meant to be taken as, "girlie-girl version of war," like Regina said earlier.

J

P.S.
If I said anything anyone has said previously, I'm very sorry, I only actually ended up reading the begging of this discussion as it's becoming quite lengthy.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/23/08 4:29 p.m.

because its girlie girlie twirlie, the inhumanity of it is already lost in the swirl of craft and immediate visual tactile acceptance by those dosed in gender and craftsmanship seduction poison.
so, the war is disarmed and sedated with such great technics and word afterthoughts that will not register via the visual cuteness seduction factor built into plain old reality.
teilhard de chardin, the jesuit mystic, spoke of the love of 'technics' as the real god of this world, the efficiciency, and sleekness of 'expanded process'. this art here is little more than technics as well as most of the pomped up poopoo flyin.
charlie actually, for such great craftsmanship, falls outside of the 'craft' circle and definately lands in the 'art' part of the bullseye. milne is just craft, and thats okay, but (snore).........
jb

Posted by unregistered user at 3/24/08 6:43 a.m.

James Brown is DEAD! Long live James Brown.