Friday, August 20, 2010

Daniel Danger Art Toy



Gallery 1988 will release Daniel Danger’s first art toy in very limited quantities during the opening of his ‘they will take it back’ solo on Thursday, August 5th (7-10 PM). Based on one of Danger’s original sketches, the piece created by Pretty in Plastic takes the road less travelled recreating a scene rather than focusing on an isolated character. This design choice leads to a distinctive piece which pushes the parameters of ‘art toys’ -- a definite plus in our book. 1988 has only shown the above unpainted protos so far. We’re looking forward to seeing the finished piece which looks to deliver an unsettling, eerie experience.

via: vinylpulse.

Jeff Koons at Galerie Jerome De Noirmont


Jeff Koons is set to make an impact of mass proportions in France again, following his widely acclaimed Versailles exhibition. This time Koons’ will have a collection of his highly coveted Popeye works on showcase at Galarie Jerome De Noirmont. Opening on September 16 the exhibition actually coincides with fellow artist Takashi Murakami’s show opening at Versailles.

Info from Arrested Motion.

Interview Magazine: Takashi Murakami




“The Japanese Andy Warhol” is the shortcut many critics use to describe the complex and wide-ranging work of artist Takashi Murakami. And while it is probably one of the most hackneyed, if not reductive, monikers in the book, the Warholian model does provide a useful point of departure for understandingMurakami’s oeuvre.

Blurring the traditional lines between art, commerce, pop, and subcultural concerns, the range of Murakami’s creative pursuits are seemingly boundless. In addition to producing some of the most iconic paintings and sculptures of the past two decades, his “business-art” activities span from designing a full gamut of consumer merchandise (either for his own Kaikai Kiki label or for fashion houses such as Louis Vuitton and Comme des Garçons) to running a gallery that promotes young Japanese artists to hosting a weekly radio talk show in Tokyo—to name just a few of the many preoccupations that keep him working on a legendarily nonstop clock.

Yet as this conversation reveals, Murakami cannot be reduced to being a mere disciple of the American Pop master. Indigenous Japanese culture—whether in its reverent, sacred forms, or in more spectacular pop guises—is at the heart of every aspect of Murakami’s work. But while his nationalism might not always be immediately legible to Western audiences, his multitentacled enterprise can be understood as a campaign to reverse the tide of Japan’s postwar cultural inferiority complex and overturn American Pop hegemony by capturing both the Western market share and the popular imagination with more purely
Japanese forms and content.

Understood in these terms, the 48-year-old Murakami will stake a major victory by colonizing one of Europe’s most revered palaces next month with the opening of a retrospective of his work at the Château de Versailles in France, which will feature a panoramic selection of paintings and sculptures installed throughout the Hall of Mirrors, the apartments of the king and queen, as well as in the Château’s legendary gardens. I spoke to him recently in New York.

ALISON GINGERAS: How’s your dog? His name is . . .

TAKASHI MURAKAMI: Her name is Pom.

GINGERAS: Why don’t you start by telling us a little bit about how Pom came into your life?

MURAKAMI: [laughs] Well, this last year was very busy, so I thought I had to take a rest—a holiday. I was looking for a good place to go where nothing was happening, and I saw a photo in a magazine of a small, dirty hotel, and, in the photo of the hotel, there was this very dirty dog. The hotel was in the very southern part of Japan, a place called Yoronjima . . . It’s just a small coral island—there is nothing there. It was a popular vacation place in Japan in the 1970s, but now it’s very, very quiet, almost like a ghost town. But the hotel there is still alive. The owner is, like, a crazy local guy. Everything there looks really unnatural. This hotel has two dogs. One dog was the one I saw in the picture—it’s a very small dog. But the second one was grown and was pregnant! So I asked the owner when this pregnant dog would give birth, and he kept saying, “Tomorrow, tomorrow . . .” I was waiting for the puppies, so I wound up staying at this hotel for four days. It was a sad situation—there was no sun and no puppies.

GINGERAS: Not a great vacation then.

MURAKAMI: No. But I am not fun. [both laugh] I always have stress. It’s not funny. So I was just there, watching this dog and waiting for the puppies.

GINGERAS: You didn’t go to this island with the idea of acquiring a puppy?

MURAKAMI: No. It was a boring time where I could just watch life go by . . . I could see that having an animal is nice. When I went back to Tokyo, the hotel manager e-mailed me: “The dog had babies. What do you think? Can you pick one up from here?” I immediately replied, “Yes, okay.” So I got these four puppies.

GINGERAS: Four?

MURAKAMI: Yes. I told my studio staff and I anticipated everybody would say, “Yes! Thank you, Takashi!” But everybody went quiet. Silence. No reaction. I asked, “Why? Dogs are cute and funny.” Then one of my assistants said, “But, Takashi, who will take care of them?” And when I answered, “You and me,” they objected because I’m always traveling outside of Japan. [both laugh]

GINGERAS: I guess they were thinking they have too much work already with you!

MURAKAMI: Yes, they are already overwhelmed with fixing paintings and other things. They were saying, “Oh, my god!” It was a mistake in my judgment. So after we talked about it I decided just to take one dog and made plans to go to the hotel to pick it up. When I brought her back, I went to the veterinarian to get her checked out. The doctor said that she looked like a Japanese dog.

GINGERAS: She’s a Japanese breed?

MURAKAMI: A mix.

GINGERAS: What is the breed, exactly?

MURAKAMI: No name.

GINGERAS: No breed? She’s just an indigenous Japanese dog?

MURAKAMI: Yeah. It was fascinating. The vet told me that almost 90 percent of dogs in Japan come from the West. So she is like an original. The vet was excited and was asking about where she came from. He wanted to meet the breeder. [both laugh] It’s the first time for me to be taking care of a pet. It’s not like taking care of the cactuses that I have.

GINGERAS: You breed lotus plants, right?

MURAKAMI: Yeah, and also very small guppies. I also keep something else—these small insects.

GINGERAS: Yes, I heard that you’re breeding beetles. Is there a dedicated animal manager at your studio?

MURAKAMI: [laughs] Yeah, I have two guys who do that.

GINGERAS: Two guys? And that’s all they do, right?

MURAKAMI: Yeah, yeah. All day, all the time.

GINGERAS: Is there just one person in charge of Pom?

MURAKAMI: No. Two guys. They take turns. There are shifts.

GINGERAS: I saw this chart on the wall when I went to the Kaikai Kiki studio in Long Island City while we were working on the Tate Modern show last year [Pop Life: Art in a Material World]. Shin [Shinichi Kitahara, director of exhibition production at Kaikai Kiki] showed me the chart that tracks how Pom is trained and cared for, which I thought was amazing because it’s like the same way you make paintings. It detailed this almost step-by-step process. I thought that somebody who didn’t know you might think it’s too clinical a way of treating a dog. But I thought it was interesting because it showed that you were treating this process of training and caring for the dog with the same level of respect that you do the process of making paintings—which is with an enormous amount of respect.

MURAKAMI: [laughs] Well, it’s very serious.

GINGERAS: Did you make that recent self-portrait sculpture with the dog [Pom & Me, 2009] before you got Pom?

MURAKAMI: That piece was planned more than three years ago. I don’t know why I depicted myself with a dog. I saw a show at P.S.1 [in Long Island City] with a very funny video where a dog is biting himself for, like, 20 minutes. So I was thinking, “Who’s training for that? What is that? This is art? This is not art! What is that? What is this dog?” It made a big impression on my brain. I was like, “What is a pet? What is a dog?”

GINGERAS: What were you thinking about the representation of dogs in more traditional terms? I don’t recall having noticed so many dogs when I’ve visited Tokyo. Is there a genre or iconography of dogs in Japanese visual culture in the way that there is in, say, European art?

MURAKAMI: I think so, because there are many statues in Japan that feature dogs. You know that film Hachi with Richard Gere?

GINGERAS: About the owner who disappears while the loyal dog stays and waits for eternity for his return?

MURAKAMI: Yes.

GINGERAS: I think almost every culture has that story. Do you think Pom is going to appear in your work?

MURAKAMI: Oh, I don’t know. But for now I’m focused on breeding her. It’s like making a Jack Russell Terrier, because her breed seems similar to one of those. I want the mix to be exact.

GINGERAS: So we can add dog breeder to the list of all of the various things that you do. You’re a painter, sculptor, animator, gallerist, an entrepreneur . . .

MURAKAMI: Being a breeder is so very hard! [laughs] You’re working with DNA.

GINGERAS: Well, your work is so much about hybrids, isn’t it?

MURAKAMI: I don’t think I’ve realized that until now. I’m always very interested in breeding. Raising cacti is breeding. My lotus plant collection is breeding. The insects are breeding.

GINGERAS: But isn’t that part of what you do visually? Especially in your most recent work—for example, the epic 16-panel painting you made for Palazzo Grassi, [727–272: The Emergence of God at the Reversal of Fate] . . . In a way, you’re cross-breeding Western, postwar art language and the Japanese superflat aesthetic.

MURAKAMI: This specific work is like a DJ style.

GINGERAS: DJ style?

MURAKAMI: You know, bringing records and mixing.

GINGERAS: But you don’t think that what you’re doing is more analogous to bringing together a Western Jack Russell dog with an innate breed of Japanese dog? I don’t think it’s like when you’re deejaying, because with that kind of mixing you know what you’re going to get. But when you make a painting, you don’t always know what’s going to happen.

MURAKAMI: Oh . . . That’s the critics’ take?

GINGERAS: Yes. [both laugh] I was thinking about the work you made for the Pop Life show at the Tate Modern, where you took a Western Pop reference—The Vapors’ track “Turning Japanese”—and retranslated it into a Japanese otaku sensibility [otaku refers to people who have an obsessive interest in things like manga, anime, and video games] in a video starring Kirsten Dunst as a majokko [magical] princess. I thought it was such a perverse and subtly complex way of making your work accessible to a public that might not know who you are—which was the case in London. Yet you weren’t dumbing it down.

MURAKAMI: When I approached the film director, McG, for this project, I proposed for him to use the Akihabara neighborhood—Tokyo’s “electric town”—as a backdrop. The film was supposed to star the Japanese otaku cult girl band AKB48, but at the very last minute, they dropped out. After they dropped out, we had just three days. So I was ready to give up.

GINGERAS: Really?

MURAKAMI: We had the money and planning in place and I thought it would all fall through, but McG didn’t let that happen. He said, “Okay, Takashi, I have a question: Do you want to make a film or not?” So in just one day he got Kirsten Dunst to come to Tokyo, he brought in this music, and he asked me if it all fit with my ideas. It was perfect because my goal was just to introduce people to what is Akihabara and try to explain its significance to Londoners and to serious art people. I was trying to capture what was happening in Japanese kid culture. I didn’t at first understand this process of shooting a video. The whole planning happened over the phone. Three days later, McG arrived in Tokyo and started shooting. It was all done after an 18-hour shoot.

GINGERAS: Had Kirsten Dunst ever experienced this aspect of Japanese culture? Had she ever been to Akihabara? Did she know about cosplay [costume play] and all that?

MURAKAMI: No, no. She may have had some information, but she had no experience with it. I think she really enjoyed it. That McG is really talented with people. He was great at making the actress feel good and motivated. You know, McG twisted my idea so it could fit with Western expectations . . .

GINGERAS: It’s funny, because I had the impression at first that McG twisted your idea by adding this pop song to your piece. But what made it even more perverse is how you then assimilated the hybrid of the Hollywood star and Akihabara landscape in the way you made this monumental wallpaper backdrop for the video for the Tate presentation.

MURAKAMI: I had to do that. I had to make up my identity, right? [laughs]

GINGERAS: Yes and no. Your contribution to that show speaks to how, despite your being one of the most famous and popular artists working today, most people still don’t grasp the complexity of your work. It still seems that most people understand that your work is the Japanese version of Western pop art. But I’m actually captivated by the indigenous Japanese side of your work. It seems that you try to translate or make accessible this deep Japanese-ness to non-Japanese audiences. Just the other day I was talking to this art historian who was saying, “Takashi Murakami is like a Renaissance artist. He has all these different assistants and young artists working with him under the Murakami school.” And while that’s true, as you’ve said yourself, your whole model of working comes out of the Edo period [the pre- and early-modern period running from 1603–1868] and the archetype of the Temple School. I was also thinking about how Geisai [a Tokyo art fair created by Murakami to support emerging artists] is founded on an indigenous Japanese idea—that of the arts festival. It’s not the application of a Western idea of an art fair onto your contemporary reality. Does that make sense?

MURAKAMI: It’s true that I pick up many ideas from different Japanese things. The way I formed my studio and how I organize things actually came out of the model of the Japanese animation studio and the manga industry. The manga industry is gigantic in Japan. There are so many layers to the business, like making a video, making a spin-off game, cards . . .

GINGERAS: And figurines and printed matter . . .

MURAKAMI: Yes, everything. It’s kind of like creating something like the Star Wars franchise. A single big hit for a manga studio means tons of money. One can gross more than a movie. The Japanese invented this industry. I’ve been immersed in manga since I was a kid. I grew up with this culture. So I started to think about how to compare manga to contemporary art. The contemporary art industry did not yet exist in Japan when I was starting out. Contemporary art and manga—what is the same about them? Nothing, right? The manga industry has a lot of talented people, but contemporary art works on more of a solitary model. No one embarks on collaboration in contemporary art in order to make money. But in the manga world, everyone is invested in collaboration. The most important point is that the manga industry constantly encourages new creations and creators.

GINGERAS: Like passing the creative baton?

MURAKAMI: Yeah. Manga culture grows and educates these artists. So I learned from that experience. Manga uses Japanese traditional structures in how to teach the student and to transmit a very direct message. You learn from the teacher by watching from behind his back. The whole teacher-master thing is part of Asian culture, I think. So I guess I agree with you in that respect.

GINGERAS: That’s why I think that your inclusion in the Pop Life show almost misrepresents you. In a way, it positions you as part of a legacy that comes out of Andy Warhol. Of course, your work—and the way you work—has a relationship to Warhol and his notion of business art. But I think it also has this whole other side that has no roots in Warhol.

MURAKAMI: I’m very sad to be compared with Warhol and The Factory, because I have no drugs, you know. [Gingeras laughs] We have no drug culture in Japan! Maybe it’s because our attitude toward labor is totally different.

GINGERAS: Well, this whole comparison between your studio, Kaikai Kiki, and The Factory is a good myth that I’d like to blow out of the water. I’m really glad you brought up the whole subject of drug culture and the subculture that isn’t part of your studio. Yet, as a frequent visitor to your studio, it seems to me like you have a different kind of subcultural situation there. There is a frisson of something underneath what’s happening there—it’s not all just business. It’s not just pure capitalist productivity. Of course, you run your studio very well, but there’s this other thing happening that’s interesting to me.

MURAKAMI: I don’t know . . . Maybe it’s interesting from the outside, but on the inside . . .

GINGERAS: It’s not?

MURAKAMI: Maybe it was the same at Warhol’s Factory.

GINGERAS: Well, maybe when he had Andy Warhol Enterprises in the ’70s and ’80s, when he was producing Interview and Andy Warhol’s TV and the commissioned portraits, there wasn’t an open drug culture . . . I suppose there was always one around Studio 54.

MURAKAMI: Well, Warhol’s studio transformation was very dramatic. But our studio has no drama. It’s very quiet. [laughs]

GINGERAS: But aren’t a lot of the people who work with you part of the whole otaku subcultural scene?

MURAKAMI: [laughs] This is an overimagination, I think. There are only a few of this type of otaku people in my studio.

GINGERAS: I have these fantasies about these quiet, hardworking girls in the studio who then transform into gothic-lolita French maids—the whole cosplay thing.

MURAKAMI: Yeah, exactly. This morning I was talking with my assistant who came with me to New York from Japan. He was pointing out this guy, SHISHO [Murakami’s painting studio director], who came from Japan at the time to work at the New York studio, he is always working very hard. But he’s a total otaku. He’s what we call geek people. These otakus are so intense. They can be focused for a very long time—like, eight hours! I told the studio director in New York, “We need more geek people in the studio just like SHISHO!” [laughs]

GINGERAS: Well, the whole thing about otaku is their obsessiveness, right?

MURAKAMI: Yes. I asked SHISHO to recruit more of them—especially for the Japan studio.

GINGERAS: Your founding in 2008 of the School Festival Executive Committee—this community of obsessed and freaky young kids in the otaku world—actually did seem like the 21st-century version of Warhol to me.

MURAKAMI: Yeah, they were a bunch of otakus—totally geek people.

GINGERAS: When I experienced that School Festival at Geisai a couple of years ago, I was thinking that this community is as crazy as the whole Velvet Underground scene must have been in the ’60s. I thought, This is the most far-out, crazy, alternative culture I’ve ever experienced firsthand.

MURAKAMI: Yes, yes. But that version of Geisai in 2008 has become like a memorial date. You remember? The next day . . . Crash! [laughs]

GINGERAS: That’s right. It was right before the whole economic crash.

MURAKAMI: I spent $8 million to organize that year’s Geisai and School Festival Executive Committee. It was a bubble—and the bubble burst the following day.

GINGERAS: Well, you had a premonition to throw the biggest party, anticipating the bubble burst.

MURAKAMI: I so enjoyed it.

GINGERAS: You have no regrets?

MURAKAMI: Well, I could share it with so many people like you. It was and still is a very happy moment. I don’t regret it. It was a really nice experience for me. But now I’m still doing Geisai but with a much smaller budget.

GINGERAS: What’s going on with your Los Angeles studio? I heard that you have a space there? I’m very curious.

MURAKAMI: Shut up! [both laugh] Nothing is happening! I’m just renting a huge studio office in Hollywood .

GINGERAS: So it’s just empty? Marika’s [Shishido, Murakami’s media relations coordinator] just there doing e-mail?

MURAKAMI: I just pay rent. [laughs]

GINGERAS: But do you plan to establish your animation studio there?

MURAKAMI: It’s very possible—it’s an idea, yes. But now I’m making a bar [Editor’s note: The planned location of the bar is Los Angeles, but plans are tentative and still in very preliminary stages of preparation].

GINGERAS: A bar?

MURAKAMI: Yeah. It’s something . . . I don’t know. It’s supposed to be like a Japanese-style social thing—like sake and sh¯och¯u [an alcoholic drink distilled from barley, sweet potatoes, or rice].

GINGERAS: I was first introduced to sh¯och¯u thanks to you. Now I love it. But you don’t like to drink, so why are you going to open a bar? Is there a concept behind it?

MURAKAMI: Basically it’s that I’m a foreigner, but I really love American culture. That’s why I come here—I’m always looking for ways to connect myself with American people and that American feeling. I’m trying to pick up on the feeling of places, like the Los Angeles feeling or the New York feeling . . . Los Angeles is much better for me that way.

GINGERAS: Why is that?

MURAKAMI: The weather is warm.

GINGERAS: [laughs] That’s it?

MURAKAMI: Also, the people are fun. They laugh a lot.

GINGERAS: Better quality of life out there?

MURAKAMI: Yeah. But New York City is still the art capital—every time I’m in New York, I’m thinking about competition.

GINGERAS: So you are going to keep the Kaikai Kiki painting and sculpture studio in New York?

MURAKAMI: Yeah, because New York is the place you make meetings. But in Los Angeles, it’s about relaxing—just going to lunches and dinners. Everywhere the food tastes very good.

GINGERAS: Tell me more about the bar then.

MURAKAMI: I don’t know. It’s just my dream. Another of my dreams is to have a water business.

GINGERAS: A water business? Like Murakami bottled water?

MURAKAMI: Exactly. It’s a natural concept because I realized the U.S. is really big, so maybe I’ll be able to find a good spring. [laughs] It will be my original type of Evian or something like that. So this is my dream. It’s like having a garden for the lotus plants. I am super-focused on the lotuses all the time.

GINGERAS: So it relates back to your breeding.

MURAKAMI: Yes. I’m thinking about water and then maybe some sh¯och¯u stuff.

GINGERAS: Would you make your own sh¯och¯u?

MURAKAMI: I’m already experimenting on making the sh¯och¯u in my studio—and also preparing the schedule by which we will make it. [laughs]

GINGERAS: There’s a chart for the sh¯och¯u?

MURAKAMI: Yeah.

GINGERAS: What are you making it with? Barley? Potato? Because there are different types . . .

MURAKAMI: Potato.

GINGERAS: So you’ll have to plant some potato fields in L.A.?

MURAKAMI: I don’t know that yet, but it could be possible . . . Maybe.

GINGERAS: You can hire me! I would love to be your director of sh¯och¯u.

MURAKAMI: But that’s why I want to start the bar. It’s all linked with my dream. Every time I start a new business, I’m looking for the niche market. The sake market is already fixed, but nobody knows sh¯och¯u in America . . . Almost nobody.

GINGERAS: Are you going to continue making your Kaikai Kiki animation film? Doesn’t it have three chapters so far?

MURAKAMI: Yes, but now it’s going to be feature-length, so I’ll throw out the first three parts. I’m remaking it—now it looks like Star Wars [1977]. You know, it’s a saga, like a space battle.

GINGERAS: Do you have a projected release date for it?

MURAKAMI: Not yet.

GINGERAS: When I saw the first chapter of the Kaikai and Kiki animated film—you gave me the DVD when we arrived in Tokyo—I was sitting in the hotel watching it with my 2-year-old daughter. It’s in Japanese, with subtitles, and yet she was completely mesmerized—more than I’ve seen her while watching any Disney movie.

MURAKAMI: Oh, yeah? Thank you.

GINGERAS: If you really start producing animation, you will be—or maybe you already are—the Walt Disney of the 21st century. But I marvel at how incredibly culturally specific the animation is in terms of its Japanese-ness. It just has such a seductive appeal. It’s so accessible.

MURAKAMI: But my dream is to be in the water business! [laughs]

GINGERAS: Okay, so the water business is number one. What’s the hierarchy of your dreams then? One is the water business.

MURAKAMI: Yes.

GINGERAS: Number two?

MURAKAMI: Number two is animation.

GINGERAS: Number three?

MURAKAMI: Number three is the breeding.

GINGERAS: Dogs, lotuses, and cactuses. Okay, and number four?

MURAKAMI: Number four is worrying about how I will make my death. I’d like to make a scenario about how and when I will die. Suicide or . . . I don’t know . . . cancer. [laughs]

GINGERAS: You want to plan your own death?

MURAKAMI: Yeah. I want to make it a surprise—like a crime or something like that. You know, I’m an artist—I’m joking. [laughs] But this joke is very . . .

GINGERAS: But so many artists are obsessed with death.

MURAKAMI: It’s kind of a running joke. At the opening party for my show at Gagosian, Jeff [Poe, art dealer, co-owner of Blum & Poe] was saying, “What, Takashi? Don’t tell me about death! Don’t tell me suicide. Fuck you, Takashi.” [laughs] He was so serious. The next morning I went to meet with my assistant, Marika, and Jeff was super seriously talking with her. He was saying, “Marika, why is Takashi talking to me about suicide? Has he been down? Maybe he’s tired.” But this death thing is maybe an artist thing. It’s something most artists think about. Inventing a death scenario . . . I still don’t know yet.

GINGERAS: Do you feel your dark side?

MURAKAMI: I don’t think so. I think we are thinking about making history—history related to birth and death. That is history.

GINGERAS: Art is kind of about beating your own death, right?

MURAKAMI: I would be very sad if I got Alzheimer’s . . . I would not be able to make good things anymore. Marcel Duchamp was playing chess when he died, which is okay, you know . . . But it is very sad to make a very bad painting or something. I don’t want to do that.

GINGERAS: That’s your worst nightmare?

MURAKAMI: Yeah. That’s why I’m thinking about suicide or something. Inventing a scenario . . . Which brings us to number five. Number five is taking care of our company, Kaikai Kiki, and making paintings.

GINGERAS: And included in number five, would that also include taking care of the artists that are in your circle—the ones you’ve managed and helped foster?

MURAKAMI: Yes.

GINGERAS: Are you still very involved in helping the careers of all these artists?

MURAKAMI: Yes. Now I am focusing on their education, because the art market is in a little bit of a twisted state. So we have to change and figure out what is the future way, because the art world also has changed.

GINGERAS: Is that why you’re doing Geisai University?

MURAKAMI: Oh, yeah. Well, it came from many ideas.

GINGERAS: Can you explain maybe just a little bit about Geisai University?

MURAKAMI: It’s just a lecture series. It’s a lot like in New York City where you have readings in bookstores. It’s like when a philosopher comes and talks for 90 minutes and then there’s a question-and-answer period. Something like that. It’s very funny.

GINGERAS: Anytime I’ve worked with you on a show—most recently both in London and Venice—we’ve done this Shinto ceremony and offering to bless your installation when we finished. Maybe it’s surprising to hear about this respect for ritual and tradition for people who don’t know you. But behind the scenes, there’s also this kind of spirituality that’s part of your work.

MURAKAMI: Yeah, but, you know, Asian people just do that. [laughs] Like even Jackie Chan makes some ceremony before he starts to shoot a movie.

GINGERAS: Beyond the ceremonies, would you say that you give import to these Shinto and Buddhist calendars? Do different aspects of religious or spiritual thought become more important for you as time goes on?

MURAKAMI: I don’t know. I met this master recently from Taiwan. He is taking care of me constantly, but I totally didn’t believe in supernatural powers before I met him. Now I believe a little bit . . . Or not . . . I don’t know. Because I have a pain here . . . [gestures to leg]

GINGERAS: In your knee?

MURAKAMI: Yes. And this guy just goes [waves hand] like that and, oops, there’s no more pain. I asked him how. He said, “I take care of it. The god came from nowhere. It’s in my hand!” [laughs] Okay! I said, “Your hand? Really?” He said, “Yes.” Something like that. So funny. But he will not accept any money from me.

GINGERAS: How did you meet this guy?

MURAKAMI: Through a Taiwanese friend. She is now the producer in Taiwan of Geisai. She introduced me. He is a very famous guy.

GINGERAS: Is he like a monk? What does he do?

MURAKAMI: No. I don’t know. Maybe he’s a psychic.

GINGERAS: Like a psychic?

MURAKAMI: Yeah, but everything is free. It’s really strange and very scary. For example, he took care of me a lot and, finally, I gave him a red envelope. Inside there’s like $3,000 for him and I thanked him very much. He says, “Oh, thank you,” and then he took out these dollars and gave them back to me. I asked: “What is this ceremony? I don’t understand.” Next time I gave him $9,000 and the same thing happened—he gave it back. I totally did not understand. When I went to his house in Taiwan, I saw that he is not at all rich—in fact he’s really poor. When I asked him about this whole situation, he said, “Because this is what god said.”

GINGERAS: God said he should be poor?

MURAKAMI: I don’t know. It’s a really strange family.

GINGERAS: Have you spent a lot of time in Taipei recently?

MURAKAMI: Yes, because we’re making a gallery there.

GINGERAS: A gallery to host exhibitions?

MURAKAMI: Yes.

GINGERAS: Why Taipei?

MURAKAMI: Because of this friend who is a producer. We developed a really strong friendship.

GINGERAS: But is there an interesting art scene there?

MURAKAMI: I don’t know. He just asked me to make an advertising campaign and I said I wasn’t interested, but I told him that if he had a gallery, he could collect all the paintings and sculptures we show there. So we just thought it was a good idea.

GINGERAS: What are you going to show there?

MURAKAMI: I don’t know yet. I’m making it up a little bit at a time, step by step.

GINGERAS: Do you think that it will be mostly Japanese artists, or are you going to mix everything?

MURAKAMI: Mix everything, I hope.

GINGERAS: Aren’t you also collecting contemporary art?

MURAKAMI: Yes! Right now is a very good time to buy at auction—especially in the Asian local markets. It’s very cheap.

GINGERAS: Are you mostly buying Asian artists?

MURAKAMI: Yeah.

GINGERAS: How do you feel about the most recent generation of Chinese artists—the so-called cynical-realism guys?

MURAKAMI: I don’t buy Chinese artists.

GINGERAS: What about Western artists?

MURAKAMI: I collect them a little bit. But it has been quiet with Western artists. I’m not sure what’s going on with the market. But the Asian market is really active.

GINGERAS: Well, there is a lot of commentary now about how there are serious art collectors who are coming from places in Asia and the Middle East that were not really part of the traditional demographic.

MURAKAMI: This is why Taipei and my activities in Taiwan are not a joke. It seems like a real art market will take hold there and that is why my friend wants to open a gallery. I still don’t know yet what is the reality of the Chinese market. But it’s not just about China—there’s also Singapore and Malaysia.

GINGERAS: Is it political for you to have a gallery in Taipei—to choose Taipei over a Chinese city?

MURAKAMI: Well, I could have opened a gallery in Hong Kong. It’s much better to link with the mainland Chinese market. Taiwan is very complicated for mainlanders. But so far, there is no real reaction to this choice.

GINGERAS: Are you interested more generally in politics?

MURAKAMI: I don’t think so.

GINGERAS: No?

MURAKAMI: Maybe a little bit because I’m getting old. You know, I can read the newspaper now—that’s why.

Alison Gingeras is chief curator of the François Pinault collection at the Palazzo Grassi and Punta della Dogana in Venice, Italy.

via: interview magazine.


Thursday, August 19, 2010

Dazed & Confused on your iphone and ipad


Dazed & Confused just released their iPhone and iPad app. The app is free, searchable, and can be downloaded for offline reading. It contains the full issue, however it’s a little hard to navigate on the phone.

Download it here

"SOCIAL MEDIA ART" IN THE EXPANDED FIELD

by Ben Davis

"Art and social media" -- this topic is all anyone wants to talk about these days. The discussion extends from the staid -- the National Endowment for the Arts released a report titled "Audience 2.0: How Technology Influences Arts Participation" -- to more spicy ruminations on what "social media art" offers as a new category, as in the artist An Xiao’s recent three-part series for Hyperallergic.

On the one hand, this faddish obsession with "social media" is understandable. The Facebook Corp. has begun to wrap its fingers around every other aspect of life, so it is clearly logical to ask what effects social media might have on art-making. But at the same time, I find the chatter somehow sad, as if visual art’s power to inspire passion among a larger audience is so attenuated that it has to throw itself on whatever trendy thing is out there, to win some reflected glory for itself.

So, the question for me is this: Is there any more interesting way to think about the topic than the loose and impressionistic manner that it is currently framed? Maybe it’s worth noting that, of all the buzzwords of the present-day lexicon, "social media" is perhaps the only one that is more vaguely defined than "art." Let’s begin, then, by clarifying terms to see if we can get to a more interesting place.

ART VS. SOCIAL MEDIA
By "art," let’s say we mean the products of the traditional, professionalized art world, a privileged class of esthetic objects set apart from ordinary communicative acts, authored by a special person called an artist.

For "social media," let’s say we mean all these new-fangled media platforms which are highly accessible, and based around enabling open-ended conversations between networks of participants.

The utility of this operation is that it lets us see that the question of "art and social media" actually involves an opposition between two different fields, with different logics: a relatively exclusive, closed-in type of expression vs. a relatively open, relation-based mode of operation.

This means that there can be no harmonious merger of the two terms, just various ways of navigating the tension between them. (The only thing that would be "social media art" in the full and genuine sense would be a social networking service actually designed as an art project, which would raise all sorts of questions.)

Once we have this clear, we can move on to a second move, which is to rethink the question via a handy "Greimasian Semiotic Square."

THE SEMIOTIC SQUARE
Invented by French semiotician A.J. Greimas, the Semiotic Square is one of the favorite intellectual toys of theory-minded art critics. In a legendary essay, "Sculpture in the Expanded Field," Rosalind Krauss used it to chart the different manifestations of postmodern sculpture as reactions to the opposition "landscape" and "architecture," though she uses a quirky version of the device; a much more satisfying and orthodox example is the way Hal Foster used the Square to illustrate the different positions within Russian Constructivism, as outgrowths of the opposition between "Art" and "Production."

Basically, the Semiotic Square is a way of visually representing a matrix of possible relationships generated by a given opposition. The idea is relatively simple: Any principal opposition between contrary terms -- between "a" and "b" -- can be expanded to include a secondary pair of "contradictory" terms, "non-a" and "non-b." These contradictory terms have a natural relation of affinity with the respective contrary terms of the original binary, thus allowing you to form a kind of map of potential relationships within a given presupposed opposition. (You get, in Krauss words, "a quaternary field which both mirrors the original opposition and at the same time opens it.")

A useful example for me is the opposition between "law" and "crime." It’s not too difficult to see how this simple binary implies two additional terms that relate to the original terms, but are actually their internal negations. What you might call "non-law" -- people who act in the name of the law, but act unjustly (your corrupt cops, your dictators, and so on) -- is both a negation of what "law" stands for, but also has a clear relationship with the concept of "crime." And similarly, "non-crime" -- those who break the law in order to act in the name of justice (your Robin Hoods, your Rosa Parks) -- both contradicts the normal idea of criminality, and has an affinity with the sense of "law," as justice.

NON-ART/NON-SOCIAL MEDIA
We have our primary opposition, "art" vs. "social media." What, then, would be our contradictory terms, given this cardinal opposition?

Since we are talking about "art" in the traditional sense, as a designation reserved for a privileged class of object, I think "non-art" here is best thought of as amateur art production -- it may follow all the same rules as traditional work, and look a lot like it, but falls outside of its logic of exclusivity and privileged authorship.

On the other side, what would "non-social media" be? Since "social media" is a designation to distinguish a class of new phenomena from a more traditional kind of technology, "non-social media" will here be the variety of new media that could be confused with "social media," but aren’t truly participatory in any meaningful sense, even when they present a modicum of apparent openness. A classic videogame, for instance, is interactive, and involves the user making choices -- but only within pre-defined set of parameters. Its logic is ultimately top-down in the "old," closed, non-social (asocial?) way.

We thus achieve a graph that would look something like this:

1

"ART THAT USES SOCIAL NETWORKS"
With these basic definitions dealt with, we can now go on to imagine how the different axes on our Semiotic Square might suggest different ways of exploring the potential field opened up by "art and social media."

The top axis (Greimas called it the "complex axis") which relates "traditional art" to "social media," is the most obvious and basic way of relating the two logics: "art that uses social networks." Just as there is nothing that says that a traditional magazine can’t make use of a Facebook page, and online New York Times articles -- which still speak in the voice of authority of the traditional, professional reporter -- include readers’ comments sections, artists can use new-fangled "social" applications in a variety of ways, without substantially altering how we understand their creations as artworks.

Take a project by Man Bartlett, an artist known for his explorations of Twitter. His recent 24-hour performance at PPOW Gallery had him recite whatever people sent to him over Twitter, performing them for a camera feed. On the one hand, using Twitter as a channel to the public is integral to the meaning of the piece. On the other, the "work" is Bartlett’s performance, plus the camera feed of him -- the Tweets are just a component that adds a new shade to a tried-and-true type of artwork.

An interesting note about work of this type: The opposition between "art" and "social media," as we have constructed it, closely mirrors (in rhetoric, at least) the opposition between a traditional, object-based paradigm of art and the more recent, process-based idea of artworks as "relational" -- that is, as incorporating or even being reducible to social interaction. Consequently, the paradigm of "social media art" that has begun to crystallize often takes its cues from the "relational esthetics" tradition.

Take Nic Rad’s performance at Rare gallery, for which he gave away caricatures of media figures to people who "bid" for them by soliciting his attention via various social networks, posting their solicitations with the image online. People Matter, as the piece is called, might be read as a jokey, info-age update of the themes of Group Material’s classic meditation on community esthetic values, The People’s Choice (Arroz con Mango) (1981) -- though Group Material, of course, was more engaged with the values of an actual community. (In fact, if you wanted to be sinister about it, you could say that such "social media art" represents the idealistic, quasi-utopian component of "relational esthetics" being farmed out to large, standardized corporate media platforms).

"NEW MEDIA ART"
Next, we move to the left-hand vertical of our Square (the "positive deixis"), the relationship between "traditional art" and "non-social media."

Given how we have defined our terms, this has a fairly straight-forward identity we can assign to it: A great many artworks that are simply "new media works" are falsely classified as "social media art," because they involve technology and take social media as subject matter.

A perfect example of this is Guthrie Lonergan’s video-art project, shown at the New Museum’s "Younger than Jesus" show, which involved a curated selection of "found" MySpace videos (remember MySpace?), as a reflection of how identity is constructed on the web. The work is "about" social media; it couldn’t exist without MySpace; but it is not itself "social" in the least, anymore than Debo Eilers’ combine painting, Twitterrific, presented in the current "Greater New York" show at PS1, is "social media art" just because it centers on an image of Twitter’s happy little blue bird symbol.

It’s also worth noting that there are art projects that actually involve social media but lack any meaningful "social" dimension. I personally was a big fan of Texas web artist Brian Piana’s project Ellsworth Kelly Hacked My Twitter, a project that uses input from Twitter, transforming Tweets by people the author follows into blocks of color, to form an evolving, abstract grid pattern. Yet if you think of the two key characteristics of "social media" -- the ability for anyone to participate, and the facilitation of interactions between networks of people -- neither is part of the design of Ellsworth Kelly Hacked My Twitter. The work makes art out of social media, so to speak, by using it in a "non-social" way.

(In the wider world, Facebook Ads might provide a good corollary: Though they respond to their audience, they are still ads in a very conventional sense, just hopped up with Facebook’s data-mining capabilities. They are a "non-social" aspect of social media.)

"SOCIAL ART COLLABORATION"
Things become more interesting when we consider what the relationship of the terms on the right-hand side of our Square might imply: the relationship of affinity between "social media" with "non-art."

This, I would say, is much rarer form of production -- but the internet does offer one monster example: Wikipedia. The crowd-sourced online encyclopedia is thoroughly "social," in the sense that its entire project revolves around the open exchange of ideas between a potentially unlimited number of people, and no single author takes sole credit for the final product. Formally, however, it is an amateur-written encyclopedia (quite literally the "contradictory" term to traditional encyclopedias -- it is putting them out of business!)

The paradigm of collaborative, "social" art projects seems to me to be a rich territory to explore. However, mass authorship and amateur participation both go against art-world norms (for reasons that are constitutive of the field of the visual arts as a sphere trading in luxury goods and based on intellectual prestige). Perhaps for this reason, the esthetic project that I can think of that comes closest to this paradigm is not a fine art work at all, but "The Johnny Cash Project," an online, collaboratively built music video for Cash’s posthumously released Ain’t No Grave. The website allows users to draw and contribute a frame for the film, tracing over an original, but also adding their own personal spin or departing from the original altogether. Then it sequences the results randomly together, to form a kind of flickering, crowd-sourced stop-motion animation for the single.

Users can rate frames from other participants, and have options to view the video according to "Highest Rated Frames," "Most Brushstrokes per Frame," "Random Frames," and so on (the project lacks only the ability for visitors to "curate" their own versions). It’s actually quite amazing.

"ART MODS"
Which brings us, finally, to the lower rung of our Square (what Greimas called the "neutral axis," because it relates the two contradictory terms of our original pair: It is "neither S1 nor S2").

What would that be? There is indeed a kind of creative project that explores the tension between these two terms, "non-social art" -- new technology, minus the "social" aspect -- and "non-art," that is, amateur creativity, outside the art world proper. I’d call this the paradigm of the "art mod" (Philippa Stalker uses the term "non-interactive art mod" to describe certain "art video games"). This term doesn’t encompass every single phenomenon I have in mind, but does capture the essence of a certain subculture of tech-savvy bricolage.

When someone builds their "Mii" character for the Nintendo Wii, she or he is creating something using a virtual vocabulary that they don’t get to determine. Some of the resulting creations are clearly more creative than others -- there was even a brief rage for people styling themselves "Mii Artisans" -- and the criteria by which one instinctively judges which of these creations are particularly interesting stems from how the user works within the given constraints to eke out something unexpected.

A better example comes from the hokey online role-playing world of Second Life: The case of StarAx Statosky, the avatar name of a particularly legendary Second Life artiste. In addition to a variety of cartoonish in-world sculptures, Statosky invented a "magic wand" which exploited a flaw in the game’s graphic-rendering system, allowing users to transform their character dialogue into whimsical, living illustrations. He actually sold copies of the virtual item to other players, and StarAx’s Wand was called "possibly the coolest single thing you can own in SL" by the CEO of Linden Labs, the company behind the game. (Alas, an update to Second Life eliminated the flaw, and the wand is no more.)

The canonical example of the "art mod" paradigm, however, is "machinima," fan films made by appropriating bits of video-games, a phenomena that has its own robust subculture (it got an outing at the "World of Warcraft" show at the Laguna Beach Museum last year). Back in 2005, Friedrich Kirschner, for instance, took clips from the game Unreal Tournament and reworked them into a kind of abstract, melancholy noir film, person2184 (watchable either as a film or inside the game itself). On a more light-hearted note, a minor classic of the genre is Chris Brandt’s Dance, Voldo, Dance, a "machinima dance video" created by recording a synchronized routine between characters in the fighting game SoulCaliber.

In such works, the fact that the medium is closed ("non-social") is part of the point, since the whole fun is in doing something by manipulating the world’s pre-given signifiers. But it’s also important that this form of creativity represents a subculture of amateur production ("non-art") -- it’s a fan-oriented phenomenon, existing at a reflected second remove from mass culture.

SYMBOLIC CLOSURE
With this, we have arrived at a basic state of symbolic completeness, at least with respect to our original pair of "art and social media." But what does it mean to consider "art mods" as the counterpoint to "social media art"? In fact, the existence of the former does offer something like the unconscious truth of the whole "social media art" discussion, helping to explain the exaggerated art-world investment in it.

"Contemporary art" defines itself as a special sphere, not just different but better -- more sophisticated and smarter -- than other media phenomena. The problem with this self-image is that the contemporary world is ruled by technologies that are vastly more technically sophisticated than anything within reach of the conventional art world -- a gulf separates what is taught at the most sophisticated art school from what is taught in the most basic computer engineering class.

Generally, the art world either responds to this conundrum by retreating to art-historical tradition and ceding the field, or engaging with technology in an ironic, deliberately primitive or critical way, in order to carve out its own intellectual space in relation to it, and project a purpose. The sincerity -- the nerdiness, really -- of "art mods," as manifestations of a subculture truly invested in inhabiting the language of tech phenomena from within, as a fan, stands for everything typically arch art-world explorations of technology are not.

What is the promise of "social media art"? It allows contemporary artists to tap easily into a vein of technological excitement, puts them on the same plane as everyone else, and offers a space hospitable to gestures already familiar from "relational esthetics" art. In this sense, our complex term, "art that uses social networks," offers an imaginary resolution for the contradiction of the visual arts in a world ruled by technology whose sophistication and complexity transcends them.

OUTSIDE THE BOX
The Semiotic Square has served us here a way of carving out some initial boundaries, distinctions and points of reference, and of pointing out tensions and affinities between a variety of phenomena. Let’s not take it too seriously though. For the purposes of real analysis, such a structure does not by any means exhaust the meaning of a given creative gesture, which may well draw on all kinds of other material. (Greimas: "nothing permits us to assert that a semiotic manifestation is dependent on only one system at a time.")

Indeed, the fact that the device is as clarifying as it is with regard to present-day "social media art" is probably the result of the formative state of the field. Present discourse is primitive enough that the opposition between the two terms is still itself the primary content of many of the artworks produced under the banner of "social media art" -- the thrill of the trendy new association is the primary interest.

In this sense, our Square is not a map of absolute possibilities. It is a chart of different possibilities to be explored and exhausted. It’s not a frame to think within. It’s a box that needs to be escaped.

via: artnet.

Angry Woebots – Shadow Friends Mono Edition Panda King



Available now and probably not for long are the first 2 of 4 Mono Editions of the Panda King, known as the Shadow Friends. These are rocking a black crown and come with a canvas sketch.The last two will be released later, but one is available now for $500. You can find these very rad pieces on Angry Woebots blog HERE.

via: vinylpulse.

Amos Toys King Ken Series 2


Amos Toys previews an upcoming series 2 for arguably its most iconic character, King Ken. The James Jarvis-created character will come in the following colors schemes. Check your local Amos Toy purveyor for availability as they should hit accounts sometime this Fall.

mastermind JAPAN × NOIR EYES Frames


Mastermind JAPAN teamed up with NOIR EYES on a pair of glasses for their Fall/Winter 2010 Collection. These frames have a clean black frame with several logo appointments in silver on the front as well as the arms of the glasses. The most interesting detail is the genius logo placement is on the glass itself that is revealed once the glass is fogged up.

Source: Milk

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Lace-Up in Luxury



Zelley Bespoke creates custom shoe laces with precious metal tips or “agelets.” You might be thinking, ‘Why would I need these?” We’re thinking, why wouldn’t you need these playboy? (Those are the 9ct Rose Gold joints above)

Off the coast of Malibu





The Philippe Starck designed, 394 foot motor yacht “A” owned by Russian billionaire Andrey Melnichenko. The yacht has bomb-proof glass, and bomb-tight style. More photos of the interior at WSJ.

via, Vicious Skylicious

The Stone House



Located in Portugal.

Via LikeCOOL

Buff Monster Plush x 10


So you probably know Buff Monster recently released a new plush line and you’ve probably seen announcements of a few exclusives. Maybe you’ve wondered about other editions and where they can be purchased. In total there are ten editions (pictured above), eight of which are now available for purchase –- info on the remaining two releases (Orange and Brown) will come at a later date!

via: vinylpulse.

AMBUSH “SKULL ‘AMB’ BONES” Collection – A Closer Look




Previewed back in June, and now presented in a white case with velvet bedding, the entire “SKULL ‘AMB’ BONES” collection by AMBUSH is put on display in a neatly arranged manner. As mentioned before, with the exception of the “EYE GOT BALLZ” rings, the remainder of the pieces including the SKULL AMB BONES pendants are available in 5 different colorways – gold, ghost, black metal, silver and bone.

Photography: Karl Hab for Hypebeast

via: hypebeast.

A Bathing Ape 2010 Fall/Winter Shark Collection


Arguably one of A Bathing Ape’s designs that draw the most interest amongst fans and critiques alike, the Shark motif will enjoy a relatively comprehensive drop for this month. Set over four different colors and three different products, the Shark will be seen over the BAPESTA, t-shirts and hoodies. A release is set for August 21st, 2010 at BAPE STORES.

Source: The East Fashion Collective

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Prop up your iphone or ipad anywhere


Very cool accessory from MoviePeg. This little prop lets you stand your device up just about anywhere, and it works in both portrait and landscape. They have a smaller version for the iphone as well.

buy now

Vambits


Vambits are small designer toys from Drownspire that need to be assembled and customized. There are four acrylic colors to choose from (one for the inside of the mouth and one for the outside) - translucent red, translucent black, opaque yellow and opaque white. You can also choose from three different head pieces (antlers, rabbit ears or simple ears) and two hands (curvy designer hands or excited hands). You can currently pick one up for $10.00.

via: plasticandplush.

Buff Monster’s new Destroyer figure




Here’s the first look at Buff Monster’s new Destroyer figure due in Fall/Holiday from The Loyal Subjects. Standing an impressive 14” tall (antler tips), the Destroyer features a drippy textured body, a lil’ guy oozing out of the side, and four points of articulation. Following Buff’s recent painting style, the grey + pink accents ‘Embrace the Darkness Edition’ features signature elements including the pentagrams, kanji characters, and the title message scrawled across the rear of the figure. Limited to 399 pieces,The Destroyer – Embrace the Darkness Edition is now available for pre-order for $85 from the theloyalsubjects.com

via: vinylpulse.

SILLY BAPE THING Preview








SILLY THING founder and the OBSCURA magazine editor-in-chief TK detailed a recent photoshoot which should serve as a partial foreshadowing to an upcoming collaboration with A Bathing Ape. Involving A Bathing Ape founder NIGO, the shoot was photographed by established Hong Kong-based personality Wing Shya. The shoot also brought in some of TK’s close friends and long-time fans of the BAPE brand such as Jan Lamb, Shawn Yue and Juno.

via: hypebeast.

Yoshitomo Nara: Nobody’s Fool Book


Created in partnership with Asia Society Museum in conjunction with a major retrospective, this is the first comprehensive monograph on the work of art superstar Yoshitomo Nara. It assembles 20 years worth of paintings, sculptures, photographs, and drawings that map the evolution of one of the most influential and internationally renowned artists working today. The book and exhibition will draw connections between Nara’s work and the sensibilities of youth subcultures worldwide, focusing on themes of alienation and rebellion, particularly in relation to rock and punk music, the inspiration and subject of many of Nara’s works. The publication is now available for pre-order from Abrams.

Monday, August 16, 2010

KAWS x Dos Equis Beer Bottles


KAWS latest collaborative effort takes him to an all new medium as he creates two special bottle designs for Mexican beer company, Dos Equis. Each bottle is representative of Dos Equis’ two offerings, a Lager and an Amber. KAWS signature ‘X’ is replicated throughout each bottle with a release slated for next month, September, 2010. Initial reports are that the bottles will be a Mexican exclusive.

Source: High Snobiety