I have seen a number of the full size pieces in person that were then used for the labels. I would be astounded that anyone would suggest they are not “art” in and of themselves…whether they are high art, pop art, great art, not so great art, etc., etc., etc. can be debated (and different labels will fit different categories and be viewed differently I suppose). I suspect that both the original pieces and the wood block/plates that were used took an enormous amount of time (see pic below for some of the blocks hanging in the winery).
I am the first to admit that I am not an art critic or art aficionado but these works are far better than a huge swath of “art” that I have seen in galleries and at art shows. They convey mood, texture, character, whatever perhaps better than a huge swath of art that I have seen as well. Up to everyone to judge whether they like them or don’t and it is up to far more knowledgeable people in the world of art than I am to debate whether or not they are great, etc. However, to deny they are “art” is just wrong.
Hook, line, and sinker.
It’s art. It’s just not very good art.
There’s a winning answer!
![[winner.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/07ec25c9fd71159fe15d7f1ba5fad64e91238d0e.gif "winner"){kind=small}
Another thread made stupid in a hurry. SMH
Geez. Why did a well meaning thread asking for thoughts and impressions on the new SQN book degenerate into a discussion on whether SQN labels can be considered art. Such a weird thread drift.
The book is amazing (especially if you appreciate SQN)…some great writing and cool to read some of the older release letters that I hadn’t seen before. Very well done
I’m not a fan of modern art generally, but I always find those who get worked up about it to be sillier than than the people who buy it. And the person who makes it then sells it - pure genius.
Getting back to the post, I’m glad you are enjoying your book and your wine, Brian. I also enjoy the wines but have too many books (and credit card bills) so I passed. I will probably wish I had bought it some day when the memory of cost fades.
No, thank you.
Best, Jim
Just getting started but love the book
Agreed 110%.
I absolutely LOATHE the art of Marcel Duchamp, but I would never in a million years try and say it isn’t art. It’s crap in my book. But it’s still art.
Back on topic, love the SQN book and the art. Interesting to hear some of the back story involved.
I’m on the side that once you define art - you break the artists’ MO - that is to ride the farthest wave as fast as possible along an edge that only the artist sees, time not withstanding.
Add social media, and anyone can be an artist and art takes all styles and shapes as long as someone ‘likes’ you or what you do - then you and ‘it’ - by this fluid definition is art. No matter what the curator says. Art is not assests - it only takes the form of asset when one desires it.
I’m not art guru, but for me the attraction of Duchamp was that he was moreso original rather than derivative. It’s all art, but I think it’s a lot more interesting to consider big creative leaps versus highly derivative endpoints.
When it comes to Krankls art (both written and visual), I’d still prefer my Sandman comic books which some of which the labels are reminiscent of. If only Neil Gaiman had included a bottle of wine with each issue…
My (slightly cynical) view is that the exclusivity and “private club membership” aspect is a bigger allure than the art itself. I am sure I am just a luddite though.
I once used a men’s room at a museum that had a dozen Duchamps on display - all in working condition!
How about “The Moment”……a picture of Elaine in the shower! Didn’t know that.
Everything is art. A lot of this sounds like, “get off my damn lawn you pesky kids!”
Everything can be used for art, but not everything is art.
I hope the next book is twice as arty. And five time the price.