| NO!art + About + Navigation + Manipulation + Mail + ►Reload | ENGLISH | DEUTSCH |
 |
<<< >>> |
 |
 |
About
Assemblages
† Obituary
NO!art
occupies
the strategic
juncture where
artistic production
and socio-cultural
action meet.
ESTHER MORGENSTERN GILMAN, born 1922 in Cleveland, Ohio. 1940-44 studies at Cleveland School of Art and at universities in Michigan and Wisconsin. 1944 relocation to New York. Studies of painting at Art Students League and engagement in Modern Dance. Since 1960 book illustratiing for childs and stage design for the Open Theatre.—Died in 1989.
2003 NO!art IN BUCHENWALD/ Boris Lurie: Geschriebigtes ..., catalog book
Contribution: ►Christ in a Mousetrap
1995 NO!art | Neue Gesellschaft für Bildende Kunst, Berlin
1988 NO!art anthology | Edition Hundertmark, Cologne
1963 NO SHOW | Gallery Gertrude Stein, New York
1961 INVOLVEMENT SHOW | March Gallery, New York, April
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.
