Friday

"1,000 Hours of Staring" by Tom Friedman



Tom Friedman
1,000 Hours of Staring
1992-97
stare on paper
32 1/2 x 32 1/2 in.

"One work in this show consists of a large blank piece of paper that the artist has purposefully stared at during the last five years." New York Times


14 comments:

  1. alan,

    holy fuck! this is one of my favorite pieces of art. i mentioned it an essay i wrote over a year ago which i posted to my blog, how to lose shin. and, it's been there with me ever since. he had to pull like 17 hours a month. which is only 2+ hours a week, but still... this work really speaks to me. and, i simply love tom friedman's work. anyway... wanted to comment.

    February 20, 2009 4:44 AM

    ReplyDelete
  2. ban this sick filth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. nothing is so special in this

    ReplyDelete
  4. I read about this piece in time magazine....It is very unusual, to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The fact that "art has no definition" allows people to get obscene amounts of money and fame for staring at paper. Shameful.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What a joke. I know that people can find art in anything but this is sad

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of. Im sure most people have some object in their life that they have looked and thought about for more than a 1000 hours. Does this mean we just figure out what that item is in our own lives, start clocking the time and bingo art/$. This is how stupid our country has become. Every single one of us is capable of amazing things, art included. Just because someone is labeled an artist dosnt mean whatever the fuck they do is art. People get away with this insanity becaus morons eat it up paying thousands in an attempt advance their own social standing. I'm sure this man is talented but shouldn't this peice of "art" show it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have less than no idea what you're talking about, so why comment? Tired of all the narcissistic know-it-all's that know nothing. The age of the internet, where everyone has their doctorate in everything. Piss off with your clueless drivel, thank you.

      Delete
    2. Wow, what a counterargument.

      Hold on, you haven't written one.

      Reddit user: 0, Random guy from a year ago: 1.

      Delete
    3. Lol i can see a couple people here don't understand art. The hatred you felt looking at this is exactly what it was meant to do.

      Delete
  8. Fucking brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I just do not get this. It is possible that I am simple not looking at it right, but how is this art? I would like to point out that I do have a rather massive bias against it, as I generally hate modern art, but I can usually kind of get what people could see in it. But this? No. It is a piece of paper. I have hundreds like it in my house. There are many things I have stared at for one thousand hours, and they do not cost ludicrous sums of money due to my looking at it. I am not looking for an argument, but I would like someone to explain why this is so very interesting, (other than the artists rather brilliant ploy to get people to pay serious money for a blank sheet of paper.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There are many kinds of art- some are based on technical proficiency (i.e.; photorealism) and others on ideas. Friedman produces many works which are technically difficult. But in this case, he has distilled a work down to it's absolute essence and "produced" a work that represents only the idea. Art is supposed to cause you to look at the world differently, and based on people's reaction to it, it is successful on that count. In addition, good art also invites dialogue and debate- this certainly has done that. I am always amused by the "I could do that" comment- yes, perhaps you could, but Friedman actually came up with the idea and followed it through with the commitment to actually stare at the paper with only the purpose of putting it out into the world (and I do believe that he is earnest enough to actually do the staring- or maybe hire a studio assistant do it for him!). And did so in the context of a significantly broad body of work.

    ReplyDelete