Jump to content

Talk:Tom Friedman (artist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The NYArts article should not make up the body of this article. It is not NPOV; an actual article should be written in its stead. A link to the article, if one exists, is the usual protcol. I've listed it as needing attention. The bottom line is a real Wikipedia article needs to replace what currently stands. It isn't remotely encyclopedic to just dump an outside article and call it a day. Curtsurly 13:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The text of this review was originally the main portion of this article. Ganymead 04:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article by Stefano Pasquini appeared in NYArts about Tom Friedman:

“Hot Balls” could be someone’s exclamation after seeing some of Tom Friedman’s works in this traveling exhibition. Instead, it’s the title of one of his works. Lynne Warren, curator at MCA, writes about it: “The colors are bright, the forms and textures candylike; a nicely arranged stack of various sizes of bouncy balls, the inexpensive, common children’s toys. The piece seems inviting, and you move away, thinking pleasant thoughts, but pause to read the label. The title seems apt, for the balls are “hot” colors. But there is a bit more information on the label: “About 200 balls stolen from stores by the artist over a six-month period.” The innocuous children’s toys suddenly take on a different tenor. Are the balls really stolen? If they are stolen, how did Friedman manage to take the big red one? Did the artist himself steal the balls, or did he enlist aid? Is it ok to steal in the name of making an art piece?”

It is ok to steal for art, Ms Warren, at least in Western societies. Tom Friedman has finally made it big out of amazingly obsessive works that Michele Rowe-Shields defined “absurdly brilliant”. And brilliant they are, especially the works that don’t entail obsessive rolling and cutting but an ingenious idea worth of Duchamp himself. “Conceptual Art”, continues Lynne Warren, “is another key influence for Friedman. For 1000 Hours of Staring (1992-97), the artist stared at a blank piece of paper over a five-year period. The blank sheet of paper is the ultimate “dematerialization” of the art object, yet it results from an immense amount of time and effort. Everything (1992-95), in which Friedman wrote all the words in the English language on a large sheet of paper, and Untitled (1993-94), a self-portrait carved into an aspirin, further demonstrate Friedman’s working method. Yet this method is less obsessive than it is an extension of the American work ethic, which values intense dedication and pride in one’s work.”

And a lot of laborious method Friedman put in his Untitled incredible self-portrait. The description of the piece by Jerry Saltz in the Village Voice couldn’t have said it better: “In the alarming construction-paper rendition of the artist exploded and collapsed, Friedman looks at space in ways he never has before. Like the aftermath of a horrible accident, a mangled figure lies ripped to shreds, one leg bent back, the other separated and lying close by. (...) Mortality haunts this fragile piece; fascination guides the eye. I was transfixed by it. Echoing Vesalius's extraordinary 16th-century anatomical drawings, arts-and-crafts paper projects, World War II and police evidence photographs, the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, a piñata, a medical model, and Duane Hanson's 1967 motorcycle crash, this sensational sculpture is a tour de force. Friedman is now thinking about life in the elaborate ways he thinks about materials, and considering the human body in much more emotional terms. Moving away from lightness or one-liners, he's taking his art to a more human place. For longtime observers, this is akin to watching a prodigy grow up without losing his particular precocious genius”.

Ron Platt, curator of the traveling show, in the catalogue has more to say: “Friedman follows ideas - and/or materials - to their logical extremes, and by doing so creates more and more complicated creations. (This can produce humorous results, as exaggeration often does.) The ideas at play in Friedman’s work are as complexly organized as his material forms sometimes are. Just as our mind makes a structure of the random, unrelated information that bubbles up from our subconscious during dreams, Friedman attempts to knit ideas into his complex material creations. In some ways, he is endeavoring to test the soundness of his basic system - to see how complicated it can get and still keep the viewer engaged, and the art interesting to look at.” And Friedman’s art is not only interesting to look at, but it engages you, the viewer, to entangle your brain in physical and philosophical ponderings you didn’t expect to have to perform inside an art gallery. Ron Platt continues: “His own quest for deeper meaning through art leaves those of us who encounter his work more attuned to the world around us and sensitive to the grand patterns of our lives.”

The concluding point is that Tom Friedman is a weirdo who right now could be busy stuffing a thousand garbage bags into each other, or playing dough with his own shit, yet his works are often incredibly hilarious, whilst other times they hit you in that side of the brain that never gets touched, and that’s his genius. In this realm of philosophical endeavourings, unexpected manipulated realities and shockingly moving discoveries, one is left with one last, fundamental question: “How the hell did he manage to steal the big red ball?”

Article has been removed. Ganymead 20:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Friedman has many interesting and increasingly relevant things to say on his m space theory, which seems to be coming close to fruition. Briefly, it is about a virtual world that becomes an extension of, competes with and ultimately defeats what we consider the physical (and economic) world. I do not believe it is alarmist; rather, I believe it is a reasonable extension of the pattern that our current directions in technology are taking us. But perhaps this belongs in another article all together.
Maxeem 00:23, 29 Aug 2005 (CT)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.207.126 (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 February 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– No need for the two-man Tom Friedman disambiguation page. The artist is the only one who uses the name "Tom Friedman", with no indication that his name is "Thomas", thus the parenthetical qualifier "(artist)" is unnecessary. A hatnote atop the artist's article can direct: For the journalist, see Thomas Friedman. The journalist's byline is "Thomas L. Friedman", but he has been informally referenced as "Tom Friedman". His entry can also carry the hatnote: For the artist, see Tom Friedman. As an alternative option, I would support retaining "Tom Friedman (artist)" as the main title header, but deleting the dab page and redirecting "Tom Friedman" to Thomas Friedman (with hatnote for the artist). As still another option, I would support moving the journalist's header to "Thomas L. Friedman" and redirecting both "Tom Friedman" and "Thomas Friedman" to him (with hatnote for the artist). Finally, depending upon consensus, I would support retaining the dab page under the header "Thomas Friedman", moving the journalist's entry to "Thomas L. Friedman" (without any hatnote) and moving the artist's entry to "Tom Friedman" (with a hatnote for Thomas L. Friedman). — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Chicago has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Google only appears to return the journalist and the journalist has 18,460 views compared with only 283[[1]] for the artist. Perhaps the 2nd proposal of having the journalist as primary would be better. Maybe the 3rd option could partly be done as it looks like some sources do use "L." though most appear not to but I'd say based on views and Google than in any case the journalist would still be primary for Thomas. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The political commentator is also often known as Tom Friedman. Not sure there is a primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Friedman_(artist)&oldid=1207311504"