posted by art blogs are fun at 1:49 PM
I enjoyed comparing this to Beaver's piece, portraits as such.
isn't this another one of Jef's alter egos?
speaking of which, who's this ex-stripper painter Stella VIne that MoNA is suupposed to be showing in July? Another alter ego as well? Cause this one seems really over the top bio-wise. Including a connection to Charles Saatchi and all.
if it is jeff's i think it should be removed by ann.
stella vine is real and is a "big deal" in britain right now. she is apparently showing at mona in july - apparently for real.this is a big score for jef and pretty damn cool for detroit. if only mona hadn't already ruined its reputation by crying wolf 95% of the time ...
I googled Stella Vine and I think she's real. Stripper. And all. She just spoke at the Tate supposedly for their re-hang. A friend said he ran into her booth at the Chicago Fair. She seemed nice and very the new Tracy Eminesque. Even found a website. stellavine.com
MoNA never had a reputation to ruin. Word-of-mouth should never be equated with success. It's measured in numbers. MoNA never had them. It's always been grass roots or a guerilla effort, and as such could only remain on the edge of the art scene. I'm including the Detroit years too. It always had too many enemies to amount to much.
the mona show is listed on her - authentic - page on the saatchi site:http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/yourgallery/artist/details.php?id=2066look at the bottom under "future shows"too bad this is legit but few will come out to mona because few will believe it. but maybe that will change for this show because of the detectives on this blog. as for the other "jim"'s comments - who cares if the photo this comment thread is for is jef's alter ego's work? does that invalidate it as art? why remove it?
First of all, MONA has showcased over a thousand artists in its lifetime. From 75 countries. And from that a good half of those from Michigan. MONA makes no apologies.MONA has had a life of its own. It's been organic, and I've let it decide its own way. Ten years ago it began as an artist's project in a walk-in closet. (At that time, I cut ties with my NYC, Chicago, Detroit and California galleries.) Tearing photos out of art mags and books, and pinning them to the walls -- to make for some sort of contemporary museum, however rudimentary and ridiculous.Within four years, it found itself transforming into a "real" museum with board and 501(c)(3) museum status. And moving to the city. That was a big decision, since I would have to stop doing my own art. Something about ethics and conflict of interests. Another four years and the Superbowl loomed and everyone got greedy downtown, so we lost our lease. And along with the 12,000 sq foot space, we lost our board and any base support. As if an idea couldn't exist without a space to shape it.It was until a year later that the building in Pontiac was offered. By then, I'd started doing my own art again. Arranging a percentage deal with the landlord meant there would have to be some sort of sales. Since MONA had and will never take a cut of any exhibited art, I set aside one gallery in the building to allow such an exchange to pay for the building and expenses (don't forget, I'd walked away from my galleries ten years before and had no means of income for this).In many ways, everything has returned to that initial artist's project. Having been black-listed in the art community as an artist, unable to have any gallery here even agree to simply look at my new work ("I'd lose my job."), it only made sense to "complete" the museum art project with invented artists -- since it had begun with an invented staff and directors. That part of the museum project has come complete circle and now feels satisfying, glad that circumstances forced me to complete this "art as a museum".At the same time, MONA has been able to continue to present local and international artists. No more torn magazines, it's become a hybrid of both the project and the very real thing. Of that, I am always amazed -- especially since there is no budget, no funding whatsoever. If you believe in anything strongly enough, it can sustain itself.Since the start of the "third" MONA, I've never hidden the fact that these "alter egos" were imaginary, trendy composites lifted from the current art world. And in many ways that has made this work unsalable as well. Associated with me and somehow not "real" either.I don't think in terms of reputation. Obviously. Or I wouldn't have offended as many as I have, albeit unitentionally. Part of the gambit.MONA has been an extraordinary experience all around. One that has cracked the boundaries of installation, painting, photography, theater and the happening. It even did the Pygmalion thing.And if it has indeed asked questions or challenged beliefs... eh.
i still say if this is jeff's alter ego then it isn't real and should be removed for others who are more serious about their careers.
i dont care who it is she's a hotty.
I would hope that jeff would email a real image of his art an not a "pen name" image. I have no real way of knowing but it would obviously be much more beneficial to jeff to use his real name.
it would obviously be much more beneficial to jeff to use his real name....I just read Jef's statement and I don't see how anything can help or be beneficial to Jeff, real name or not. And why should it matter either way? And why isn't this a real image, no matter what you think of it or the guy?
I googled (actually ask.com) Meg Reardon and eventually came up with this Wall Street Journal article. So maybe Jef is just going incognito to become cognito. Maybe it's all a ploy for attention:In the art world, the use of pseudonyms has been mostly limited to a fairly avant-garde contingent of lesser-known artists. A pseudonymous work by Jeff Koons or Jasper Johns is unlikely to appear on the market. Still, Andrea Zittel, an established installation artist whose work is now showing in a large solo retrospective at the Contemporary Art in Houston, works under a variety of corporate-sounding names such as “A-Z Administrative Services.”Some artists have come under fire for using pseudonyms. When Norwegian photographer Stig Eklund was revealed to be Jef Bourgeau, director of the Museum of New Art (MONA) in Detroit, dealers complained in the local paper about his misleading multiple identities. Mr. Bourgeau, also works as a Japanese abstractionist, Taki Murakishi, as well as under seven other pseudonyms.Interest in creating art under assumed or collective identities stems in part from the currently strong influence of the 1960s, says Ann Temkin, a curator of painting and sculpture at MoMA. But assumed identities have an even older history: Marcel Duchamp signed his famous 1917 urinal with the name “R. Mutt,” and French artists in the 19th Century commonly worked under pseudonyms.
so this guy's ulterior motive was to go ten years under an alter ego/s so that in the tenth year he might get a mention in the wall street journal? now, that's planning ahead.
I think this is Jef's real image. And you can't separate what he does from Meg Rearden or whoever.
Just to confirm:yes, it is jef - I just heard from the source.
ann's a stoolie.
i think the last name is bourgeau.
right on the name, john. but what's with the low turn-out at saatchi's gallery: why more artists here aren't uploading their (8) images and info at his site?!davin brainard and hartmut austen have. and you at least get a letter of thanks from saatchi himself.when i uploaded a few weeks ago there were less than 400 artists at the site. now they're tipping at 3,000. so do it: www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/yourgallery
i uploaded mine...or sent them images via email. I haven't checked to see if they got put up.
wait...now they're on. thanks for the info jef.
john, checked it out. looks great.saw ann's page too. i talked to stella, and she says it's cool if mona has a local artist at the same time as her work is up. i'm thinking of splitting the time (july 8-sept 16) with 2 such artists. so, am looking forward to seeing your work in person.
Awhile back i was spending time with artist Sondra Freckleton ( another detroit native ) and she let it slip that she was jealous of my freedom to do "whatever" i wanted. The restrictions brought about by success and expectations.. It stuck in my mind that I never wanted to be in that fixed place if possible.Life is too short.I believe she was 23 or so in the late 50's early 60's when MOMA bought two of her then amazing sculptural installations. Then she threw that away and took to watercolor painting that in the end related very much to the sculpture though others do not make that connection. Her "career" never had the same intensity of interest as with the early work and her husband painter Jack Beal gained forefront of interest during that time. Also, To hell with self-righteous black-listing!
i appreciate what you do/have done jeff... what little i know of it.I had my first show ever at the MoNA Annex space - it was huge for me. since then picking up on, and piecing together what it is you have been doing has been a challenge - thanks, and continue...can i get on a email@example.com
Matt commented that the girl is a "hottie", but I'd like to add that as a whole this is a very beautiful, haunting image. It is daringly cropped and composed on the diagonal, and the stripe pattern of the shirt is subtley echoed back into space via the frame and then the architectural features of the room. Very masterful. Now if only it were a painting!
"Now if only it were a painting!" I don't know, Curly, I think you might be wrong on this one. It would be impressive as a painting, but for completely different reasons. A lot of people can copy a good photo but may not be able to take one in the first place.
If you'd gone to the WHitney Bienial you would've seen that painting ain't happening so much anymore. Not my call, so don't get pissed. I jst wanted to say that anywhere else photography has come in to it's own. And no longer has to dream of being painting.
photography has been important for many many decades, and is equal to painting.painting will never die. this photo by jef is very intriguing.the whitney biennial isnt what it used to be. maybe it never was.
i just want to say i like the statement on another thread: "my father had the softest hands." sounds like a good start to a short story.i also like the softness in this piece. all the grays layered over each other. but why is everyone so sure it's a painting. it looks like a mix of graphite and charcoal to me.
Marty: You mean, other than Mark Bradford, Peter Doig, Mark Grotjahn, Todd Norsten, Spencer Sweeny, Jutta Koether, Steven Parrino, Ed Paschke, Jennie Smith, Kelly Walker, Chris Vasell, and Rudolf Stingel? (I wonder if I'm forgetting anyone?)
nolan: You mean, other than Mark Bradford, Peter Doig, Mark Grotjahn, Todd Norsten, Spencer Sweeny, Jutta Koether, Steven Parrino, Ed Paschke, Jennie Smith, Kelly Walker, Chris Vasell, and Rudolf Stingel? (I wonder if I'm forgetting anyone?) marty: and how were they treated is my point, so relax. i love painting as much as the next guy. they were treated like photography used to be... not well hung or positioned. and there were 120 artists in the show. i'm complaining for painting dammit not against. everyone's so quick to fight here.
Post a Comment
View my complete profile