| NO!art + ABOUT + FRONT + MANIPULATION + MAIL | EN | DE |
 |
ARTISTS |
 |
 |
ABOUT
ARTWORKS
NO!art
occupies
the strategic
juncture where
artistic production
and socio-cultural
action meet.
RONALDO BRUNET, born in 1932, in Valparaiso, Chile. Studied film and photography in Santiago. Moved to New York in 1960. Developed special film effects. Contributions to different shows: Color film of painters, Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1990; Photography of Mexico Yucatan, Hirsch Photo Gallery, New York, 1990. One Man show at Kenneth Wilson Gallery, New York, 1998, and Franelli Show at O.K. Harris Gallery, New York, 1998. Lives in New York.
2003 NO!art IN BUCHENWALD | Boris Lurie: Geschriebigtes ..., Stuttgart
Contribution to the catalog book: ►Obliteration
1988 NO!art ANTHOLOGY | Edition Hundertmark, Berlin/ Cologne (Cover design)
1978 NO!art-ANTHOLOGIE | Cover design and NO!art logo, New York
NO!art involved Artists: ARMENTO + BAJ + BARATELLA + BECHER + BROWN + BRUNET + BRUS + CHORBADZHIEV + D'ARCANGELO + DAYEN + DE RUVO + EHM-MARKS + ERRO + FABRICIUS + FISHER + GATEWOOD + GEORGES + GERZ + GILLESPIE + GILMAN + GOLDMAN + GOLUB + GOODMAN + HALLMANN + HASS + HJULER + KAPROW + KIRVES + KUSAMA + KUZMINSKY + LEBEL + LEVITT + LONG + LST + LURIE + MASTRANGELO + MEAD + MESECK + PATTERSON + PICARD + PINCHEVSKY + RAMSAUER + RANCILLAC + ROUSSEL + SALLES + SALMON + SCHEIBNER + SCHLEINSTEIN + STAHLBERG + STUART + TAMBELLINI + TOBOCMAN + TOCHE + TSUCHIYA + VOSTELL + WALL + WOLF + WOYTASIK + ZOWNIR
NO!art has continued way beyond 1964 and also prior to 1958. The "cutting-off" date 1964, as espoused by the art historian is entirely artificial. Such cutting-off dates are common to art historians, done for cataloguing purposes, and what is more, for accreditation of monetary value in the art market. The cutting-off dates also have a devastating effect on the production of artists, who are, by those means, being convinced that what they produce after a cutting-off date is secondary in importance, and do not belong any longer to the "new times". Yet the art market hated it, for practical reasons of creating confusion about monetary value. That is the main and real reason for art historians and critics insisting on this untrue measure. - Boris Lurie, 2003.
