Diskussion:Fluviana
Titel der Schwemmgut-Exponate des "Salzach-Museums"
Achtung: Die vermeintlichen "Verschreiber" bzw. Tippfehler bei den Titeln der Schwemmgut-Exponate sind mit Absicht so wiedergegeben, weil sie nur so dem Original entsprechen. Sie sind zudem reizvoll sind, wenn etwa "Tomahack", die Synthese von "Tomahawk" und "Hacke" ist. Aus diesem Grund habe ich die "Verschreiber" eigens als beschriftete Wiki-Links eingerichtet. --Popmuseum 07:42, 4. Okt. 2007 (CEST)
Englischsprachige Kritik an Lerm Hayes "Fluviana"-Zuschreibung
„Ms Hayes’s evidence for Joyce as a visual artist rests almost entirely on the ‘fact’ that Joyce ‘had published photographs of driftwood pieces’ (‘Fluviana’) in the literary magazine transition. She claims that this is evidence of Joyce placing the Fluviana into new contexts (i.e. the magazine, which also included photos of Arp’s work); that as such this is the equivalent to Duchamp’s strategy of the Readymade; and that ‘he must be viewed as the creator of the Fluviana as artworks because he clearly wished them to comment on his (other) work’.
According to this line of logic we may as well claim Joyce as the instigator of Cubism, atonality and quantum physics. For a start, the photographs were taken by Adolph Fischer. They appear ‘courtesy’ of James Joyce, which merely means that he gave permission for them to be printed. There is no evidence whatsoever that Joyce even asked for them to be published. It’s just as likely that the editors, who were visually literate, put out a call for interesting photographs, or knew that Joyce had some, and asked him for them. As the placement of the photos in relation to Arp’s work would have been a (very logical) editorial decision, it’s a bit much to ascribe any significance re ‘new contexts’ to Joyce. To then claim that this new context is equivalent to Duchamp’s Readymades is to slide into Alice In Wonderland territory. How can one claim that Joyce is a visual artist on the basis that you think that he wanted the photographs to ‘comment on his (other) work’. Since when has the possibility that one might think that photographs commented on one’s work, been a definition of a work of art?“
Defekte Weblinks
| Die folgenden Weblinks wurden von einem Bot („GiftBot“) als nicht erreichbar erkannt. |
|---|
|
- http://members.aon.at/andreas.weigel/pdfs/Adolf-Johannes-Fischer-und-Fritz-Willy-Fischer.pdf
- Vielleicht ist eine archivierte Version geeignet: archive.org
- http://irishartsreview.com/irisartsrevi2002/pdf/2004/25503098.pdf.bannered.pdf
- http://www.recirca.com/backissues/c110/p82_84.shtml
- Vielleicht ist eine archivierte Version geeignet: archive.org
- Wechsel zwischen http und https erforderlich
- http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes1/research/papers/wpdesign/wpdvol2/hayes.pdf
– GiftBot (Diskussion) 03:16, 6. Jan. 2016 (CET)
