Yves Klein was a French artist who did a lot of cool shit: he painted with fire, faked a photo of himself jumping off a roof and put it on the front page of a fake newspaper, even invented his own colour of blue paint. He released 1001 blue balloons in Paris, had an art gallery opening in an empty white room and gave everyone bright blue cocktails, even got naked models to paint themselves blue and then roll themselves along a canvas while musicians played a symphony that consisted of a single chord held for 20 minutes followed by 20 minutes of silence.
That last one got him a lot of attention. In fact, an Italian documentary film crew asked him to recreate the event. Klein agreed, but it was a big mistake. When the movie turned out to be a sensationalist shockfest more interested in exploiting the nudity than exploring the work, Klein was so disgusted they say it killed him.
That last one got him a lot of attention. In fact, an Italian documentary film crew asked him to recreate the event. Klein agreed, but it was a big mistake. When the movie turned out to be a sensationalist shockfest more interested in exploiting the nudity than exploring the work, Klein was so disgusted they say it killed him.
Here's how it went down according to the timeline of the Yves Klein Archives site:
May 12: at the Cannes Festival, Klein attended the screening of Mondo Cane. He left utterly humiliated by the portrait done of him, which completely distorted his work. Unbeknownst to him, the sequence which was to have lasted twenty minutes was reduced to approximately five minutes; the Monotone-Silence Symphony, which began as planned on a D-major chord, was rapidly replaced by the soundtrack of some other tune. The blue-covered models were filmed making somewhat ridiculous lascivious gestures, bearing no relation whatsoever to the session of Anthropometries staged by Klein. The same evening, Yves showed the early signs of his first heart attack.
May 15: opening of the exhibition Donner à voir at the Creuze gallery, in Paris, for which Pierre Restany organized a hall of New Realists. Arman’s Portrait-relief was shown. Klein had another heart attack.
June 6 at 6 PM.: Yves Klein died at his home, 14, rue Campagne-Première, in Paris.
You can check out some of the footage from Klein's original event (not the recreation that appeared in the documentary) in this video — along with some footage of his fire painting:
You can check out some of the footage from Klein's original event (not the recreation that appeared in the documentary) in this video — along with some footage of his fire painting:
-----
You can check out the Yves Klein Archives here.
5 comments:
Was he all fucked up on the Walter white?
Ok, so basically bunch of men fully dressed in suits are ordering naked women around, placing their body like a material against canvas, totally objectifying them. Nothing against nudity in art (or life), but here the models seem to have zero agency.
In actual fact, Klein's “art” could have been done by anyone. In kindergarten we dipped our hands in paint and then made hand prints on white paper. Klein dipped naked women in blue paint and had them press their bodies onto large canvases. What's the difference? Doing that did not require talent. I must add that I personally don't care what someone paints. The problem here is that the art industry has worked for years to make Klein into a “genius” and have successfully convinced large numbers of people of that. But Klein was not an “innovator.” He was no “genius.” He wasn't even an artist. But of course, millions say otherwise. One more thing, and this is a very important point: All the colors already exist in the light spectrum. In other words, it is not possible to invent a “new” color. There is no such thing. To repeat: All the colors already exist. For someone to even suggest that Klein could have invented a new one is the height of stupidity. But the art industry goes on promoting any number of hacks (a term usually applied to bad writers) who've done nothing more than present the public with blank canvases, paint splatters, or (as in the case of Yoko Ono), piles of dirt. People are afraid to point out the obvious lack of talent so obvious in so many of the “works” being presented today ~ they're afraid to be thought “narrowminded” or “full of hate,” blah blah blah. But the fact is that Klein had no talent whatsoever. Maybe even less? What is necessary now are people who are willing to be politically incorrect and acknowledge that ...
What would you define as art nowdays, Alvino? I'm not trying to make you angry, I'm just curious if you meant to say that all non figurative and non descriptive art is garbage, or just Yves Klein and Yoko On ect.
I'm not going to define art. That discussion is neverending. As I said, I don't care what people paint. But ... Yves Klein did nothing ... the art industry, however, wants to continue making money from what he made. Therefore they go on lionizing him and naive people believe him to have been a "genius." And no, I am not someone who tosses all non-figurative paintings into the trash. The point is that we should be bright enough to know when we're being conned. Yoko Ono does nothing. Yves Klein did nothing. And there are many painting blank canvases ~ that is, they paint a canvas all one color ~ or they'll do huge canvases of one color and put a round disk on one end, something that anyone could do. I saw an exhibit of that kind of thing back in the 1980s. I will never forget how the people holding the exhibit were all acting very snooty and looking down their nose at everyone. The canvases were huge (8 feet long, 6 feet high) but they could all have been done in one night, easily. In 1964 an exhibit was held for a painter by the name of "Pierre," and various works were seriously critiqued by several professional critics. Finally after so much had been said about this new and "talented" painter, it was revealed that they were the work of a chimpanzee. When human painting and chimpanzee painting can no longer be told apart, perhaps we should take our cue from that? I sit on the sideline not caring whether or not someone buys a large canvas and then simply pours a large can of bright red Sherwin-Williams house paint onto it. Why would I care. But ... afterward don't try to convince me that such "works" as that are on a par with Rembrandt, Wyeth, Bierstadt, John Singer Sargent, Ivan Shishkin, or some of the more talented German Expressionists. We need to recognize the difference between a person who is simply playing around with paint and someone with actual talent who seeks to create something powerful. Today people go into galleries and stare at blank (or nearly so) canvases and then walk away convinced that this person is actually an "artist." I heard recently of someone who'd "created" an invisible sculpture and sold it for a huge amount of money. What that story a hoax? I hope so. We need to stop being intimidated by an art industry that nearly has us genuflecting (and bowing) before creations hanging on the wall that anyone could very easily have created. I do not say that any kind of painting should be restricted or banned. No. But look at what Klein and Yoko Ono did. It would be far better to die of boredom while standing in front of their "works" than to seek to have them "canonized" as "artistic geniuses." Klein was not. Yoko is not. Let people paint what they want. Of course. But as Oscar Wilde once wrote, "Art should not try to be popular. Rather, the people should try to be more artistic." That is, we should develop more refined tastes and stop pretending to be having a religious experience every time we stand in front of anything that has oil paint smeared on it ...
Post a Comment