View Full Version : Gregory Tenenbaum's "Clox in the City"

Gregory Tenenbaum
August 27th, 2007, 05:40 AM
Inspired by the huge timepieces that hang, not from our wrists, but rather from the towers of New York City, I present the first of an original series of artworks first seen exclusively here on Wired New York.

Gregory Tenenbaum's "Clox in The City I"


August 27th, 2007, 09:15 AM
Recently I saw a new "Clock" on the pier in chelsea: it is attached to the Water Wheel (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=169298&postcount=155) - somehow powered by the hudson river. I will try to get more information about it - maybe photos - to add to this tread.

p.s. It's "about time" you have paid us a visit: welcome back GT.:rolleyes:

August 27th, 2007, 02:13 PM
Couple of classics thanks to Grand Central Terminal.

August 27th, 2007, 03:09 PM
I used to live in new york city
Every thing there was dark and dirty
Outside my window was a steeple
With a clock that always said 12:30...


August 27th, 2007, 03:16 PM
Cute poem, but that last line breaks the 9-9-9....(10).

I tried reading it with some sort of meter... Maybe I am a bit off....(not Tubing here at work)...

August 27th, 2007, 03:40 PM
Cute poem

Zippy, Lofter, Ablarc... did you guys hear that?

"Cute poem"

... he called it a "cute poem".

August 27th, 2007, 07:34 PM
Jesus. Maybe we're just getting old.

Young girls are coming to the canyon,
And in the mornings I can see them walking.

So where are these young girls going?

August 27th, 2007, 07:59 PM
I know monks masturbate at night
That pet cats screw
That some girls bite
And yet
What can I do
To set things right?

--Ernest Hemingway

August 27th, 2007, 08:45 PM

They are so lip synching that ^^^ no?

I could listen to them till the Scotch runs out.

Which reminds me:


Labor Day Weekend just ain't the same no more ...

August 27th, 2007, 09:52 PM
Ah, if we had but World enough and Time.....

To His Coy Mistress

Had we but World enough, and Time,
This coyness Lady were no crime.
We would sit down, and think which way
To walk, and pass our long Loves Day.
Thou by the Indian Ganges side
Should'st Rubies find: I by the tide
Of Humber would complain. I would
Love you ten years before the Flood:
And you should if you please refuse
Till the conversion of the Jews.
My vegetable love should grow
Vaster than Empires, and more slow.
An hundred years should grow to praise
Thine Eyes, and on thy Forehead Gaze.
Two hundred to adore each Breast:
But thirty thousand to the rest.
An Age at least to every part,
And the last Age should show your Heart.
For Lady you deserve this State;
Nor would I love at lower rate.

But at my back I alwaies hear
Times winged Charriot hurrying near:
And yonder all before us lye
Desarts of vast Eternity.
Thy Beauty shall no more be found;
Nor, in thy marble Vault, shall sound
My echoing Song: then Worms shall try
That long preserv'd Virginity:
And you quaint Honour turns to dust;
And into ashes all my Lust.
The grave's a fine and private place,
But none I think do there embrace.

Now therefore, while the youthful hew
Sits on thy skin like morning [dew],
And while thy willing Soul transpires
At every pore with instant Fires,
Now let us sport us while we may;
And now, like am'rous birds of prey,
Rather at once our Time devour,
Than languish in his slow-chapt pow'r.
Let us roll all our Strength, and all
Our sweetness, up into one Ball:
And tear our Pleasures with rough strife,
Through the Iron gates of Life.
Thus, though we cannot make our Sun
Stand still, yet we will make him run.

Andrew Marvel (1621-1678)

August 28th, 2007, 08:17 AM
LOL: Those benches with the flower pots are so horrible ...and also absolutely P E R F E C T.

Very smart to choose (a simplified) 1930s popular and not 1930s avant guarde.







August 28th, 2007, 09:19 AM
Fab, I had a feeling it was a song lyric, otherwise why else would you put up to a link (that I would not click on at work) to YouTube? ;)

It still does not validate the 9-9-9-10 though. I guess I would have to read the rest to see if it follows the music line.

Also, you are saying that song lyrics are not poems?

I don't know about that. Maybe you need to confirm that with your Mamma. (Or Pappa..... ;) )

Gregory Tenenbaum
August 28th, 2007, 12:39 PM

August 28th, 2007, 01:33 PM
The Valley of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Tower

August 28th, 2007, 09:18 PM
Heres one for you to play with, GT ...


Gregory Tenenbaum
August 29th, 2007, 04:07 PM

Gregory Tenenbaum
September 1st, 2007, 03:52 AM
The latest in my original series "Clox in The City"

Gregory Tenenbaum
September 1st, 2007, 04:24 AM

Gregory Tenenbaum
September 1st, 2007, 12:01 PM
First, I am involved in the ultra pretentious and utterly absurd world - its called Modern Art. Van Gogh was part of that world too. So I dont answer questions about my art, and I am allowed to cut my own ears off and call that cool. But today, I shall comment briefly on my latest work and also I will refrain from cutting off my ear to get attention Van Gogh Style.

The alternative title for this work is

"Kangol and Movado > Van Gogh"

Yes, greater than Van Gogh. Because you can name just about any painter and let me tell you they are better than VG.

Tiziano Vecellio > Van Gogh

Modigliani > Van Gogh

Chagall > Van Gogh

Most artists > Van Gogh

If the guy wasnt moody and cut his ear off then frankly he wouldn't be so famous. What utter hype. Van Gogh couldnt really paint like many of his contemporaries, or those in the past. Yes he did something marginally more original than the impressionists had years earlier but he was not a great draftsman like some of the others. The best thing I ever saw in a recent Van Gogh exhibition was from one of his influences. It was a small 4 x 6 inch drawing by Rembrandt and it was > the largest Van Gogh painting in the exhibition.

I know that the Van Gogh fanboys wont like this, but frankly a lot of artists agree that: Van Gogh Sux Herry Ballz at 10:10 PM and just about any time of day.

Hence the title.

No more questions about the art please. Just enjoy it and if you will, rate it out of 10. Be honest.

Gregory Tenenbaum
September 1st, 2007, 12:24 PM
And if you think thats an outrageous statement to make, then look at someone like Odd Nerdrum's work and tell me that Van Gogh can paint after that...

Odd Nerdrum > Van Gogh.

September 4th, 2007, 07:31 AM
One of these days Greg T. will say something sensible...but I'm not holding my breath.

How do you rate artists relative to each other in such rigid hierarchy, anyhow?

Van Gogh:

Subject(s): middling, mostly
Composition: v. good, v. original
Color: outta this world
Rendition: idiosyncratic, to be sure, but effective = average

Overall: an imperfect genius, but a genius.

Question to Tenenbaum: your pieces give out a VERY early 80s feel. Is that intentional?

Gregory Tenenbaum
September 4th, 2007, 04:00 PM
One of these days Greg T. will say something sensible...but I'm not holding my breath.

Yes one of these days I might say something sensible like Pollock was as great a painter as Rembrandt, Tiziano, Hals etc. But I wont, because it isnt sensible. But SHHH dont tell any art critic that - they will have you drawn and quartered.

Yes, sadly, for many it is impossible to tell the difference. They think that Pollock, Van Gogh and Rembrandt are all draftsmen of equal stature. Well they are not. I was painting Van Gogh and Matisse copies as a child. Was I attempting to paint a Hals or Rembrandt? No, and there is a good reason for that.

If you think that Pollock or even Van Gogh is a better painter than Rembrandt, as a technician, draftsman, however you see it then let us all know. I guess that makes someone who presses a button on a camera as great an artist too. Its like saying that McCartney is a better musician than Mozart or Rachmaninoff - it simply is not true despite how popular, packaged, and relevant McCartneys music might be to a modern audience most of whom were/are fed on a diet of television and suffer from the consequent looped 15 minute attention span. Yes, I agree, it is much easier to understand and listen to McCartney, or view a Van Gogh than a Mozart or Rembrandt.

The whole point of the name of the last piece was to show just how ridiculous the modern art world has become. If I say that Movado and Kangol are Greater than Van Gogh - then if I am an art critic I might just get some latte drinking tycoons who wouldnt know the sharp end of a pencil from the blunt end to believe it. That is the only reason why Pollock and others are remotely seen to be great.

I hope that is sensible enough for you Luca. Please send your suggestions about how to think sensibly to tenenbaum@doesntgiveatoss becauseheactuallyisproducingartunlikeyou.com. (gt@idontgiveatossbecauseimactuallyproducingartunl ikeyou.com) All correspondence will be read, dont worry. In the meantime, I might actually do something, like paint.

Don't take my word on any of this. Be sure to read about Odd Nerdrum. He has a lot of similar things to say, and unlike some of the so called great artists, well, he can actually paint.

Read about Nerdrum's heresy here:


September 4th, 2007, 04:03 PM
I, for one, kind of like VG, and am not too keen on most of the pics that GT is putting up.

I am keeping my peace though.

Gregory Tenenbaum
September 4th, 2007, 04:13 PM
Great to hear. I like Van Gogh too.

Dont keep your peace Ninja, lets hear something about why you "kind of" like Van Gogh.

September 4th, 2007, 05:34 PM
The play of colors to contras the different pieces that were his subjects.

The use of motion, in things such as Starry Night, which used things like trees to bridge the gap between the orderly city and the tumultuous heavens above.

Some of the softer minimalist means he used to draw a picture that still conveyed the subject without getting into too much detail. Most of his paintings had a "warm" feel to them, but at the same time had this feeling of instability.

Most of his stuff can be easily copied, but it is hard to get on your own. To take a boring and drab scene, portrait or subject and turn it into something that does catch your eye.

Best painter, technically? Not by a long shot. But he did have an eye, if not an ear for these things.

September 6th, 2007, 05:01 AM
Post removed.

September 6th, 2007, 09:32 AM
Touchy, Touchy, Mr Tenenbaum. No offense meant.

You also won't find my defending Pollock. I would classify his efforts as quasi-art.

Back to VG. I would not argue that Van Gogh was a gret draftsman. But I also take exception with that being the sum total of what makes a painter great. How about use of color, for instance? I agree that "draftsmanship" is not Vincent's strong suit. But there are other elements, ne c'est pas?

For instance, why do you think Modigliani is ">" VG?

Most critics (indeed anyone with eyes in their head) note a dullnes, sameness of execution and ultimately misanthropic/simplistic depersonification in his portraiture. His stuff is interesting, to be sure, but after 4 paintings it all kinda blurs together. As someone who professes an interest in the crafsmanship aspect of figurative art*, you must admit that if one can imitate a VG, one can knock out a Modigliani that would fool anyone familair with teh work but not the oeure in about 15 minutes.

(* = vis-a-vis the current art theory consensus this places you somewhere between heresy, philistinism and petit-burgeouis despicability :)...but I tend to agree that painters should be able to...paint ;)).

September 6th, 2007, 11:34 AM

How unpleasent to the eye.

Maybe if you wish to (seemingly) plagiarize artwork, instead of Van Gogh, try something a little more attractive. Might i suggest something like this, by John Constable; Salisbury catherdral (circa 1835). Much nicer.


September 6th, 2007, 02:29 PM
They remind me of sort of a beginners doodle. Something to keep him busy, and allow him to possibly sneak in a few social commentaries into a picture.

Problem is, without the proper context, most will not know where that figure came from and will just see an impressionistic (if I got the era correct) doodle wearing a Kangol hat.

Oh, and that you used a lot of pink. ;)

I am not discouraging you Cap, just letting you know that you may need a bit more work to get to where you want to be with this.

I would suggest the feeling of motion or the depiction of shadow to be something you may want to practice on to give your broad-stroke works a bit of depth (physical depth, that is).

If you want actual critiques, let us know, and let us know what you were trying for. I am sure you will get some comments here that you might be able to use that would resonate with your own feelings on the work, and the subjects.

September 6th, 2007, 05:52 PM
^ Well, first thing is to learn the distinction between graphics and art.

September 7th, 2007, 08:52 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/John_Constable_017.jpg/770px-John_Constable_017.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/John_Constable_017.jpg)

It seems this picture did not appear on my previous post, so here it is again - Salisbury Cathedral, by John Constable, 1835.

And is that a schoolboy cap the figure in your painting is wearing Gregory?

September 7th, 2007, 10:02 AM
Total subconcoius revalation.

"Happy Trees".

I know it bears no resemblance, but it just popped into my head... ;)

September 8th, 2007, 11:52 AM
Total subconcoius revalation.

"Happy Trees".

I know it bears no resemblance, but it just popped into my head... ;)