LOOK at ME

Many folks who admired the beautiful images Christine Rosamond captured, believed she was a man. When they discovered she was a woman, some folks wondered if she was a Lesbian. Christine and her female handlers worked the gay thing before and after her death.

Then there is the Rosemary Rosamond archetype thing, where I had a thing for my mother, and she a thing for me, and together we oppressed CHRIST-ROSA and her art because we didn’t want anyone to LOOK at her. This is why she hated doing art shows, because there was alway some dude who wanted to get in her head and find out THE TRUTH. Were these males threatened because their natural role in the scheme of things was under attack? Men get the MONEY, the BEAUTIFUL WOMEN – and the ART!

Now, for fifty bucks one can purchase a ROSAMOND and be a PLAYER. Magazines offered the same thing. Purchasing FAN magazines, was like buying stock in your favorite Thespian, and thus they owe it all to – YOU! Then, here come FACEBOOK!

LOOK AT ME!

Christine Rosamond had someone take photos of her, and thus she became a model for her work. She took photos of me in 1974 so she could show the world she loves MEN – too! Now, why would she want to expose me, make me part of of her world fame, IF I forced her to render works of art in a closet with a flashlight – according to Julie Lynch – who is trying to sell this GIANT LIE to a movie producer and broadcast it on a GIANT SCREEN? What is Lynch’s motive? Surely she wants to see her image on the cover of a magazine with these words below;

I LOVE MY BANK. I LOVE MONEY. I LOVE MYSELF.

Marcel Duchamp’s ‘Nude Descending Staircase’ has to be included in any respectable Art Look Book. When I dropped out of high school at seventeen, I checked out many oversized art books, and read accompanying bios and words applied to works of art. Christine gave me credit for her success, because when she got home from school, I would share these books with her, and my observations.
“You showed me what constituted good and bad art.”

One artist I shared with Rosamond, was Andrew Wyeth who had a powerful influence on my work, and Christine’s. He understood the empty space, the whiteness of the canvas or paper that could illuminate the surface colors like film through a projector. N.C. Wyeth’s work gave luminous images to famous novels that gave Hollywood – THE LOOK! Andrew Wyeth could have made movies. His ‘Christine’s World’ takes a UNKNOWN out of oblivion, and makes HER FAMOUS. Wyeth’s work had an ATMOSPHERE OF INTEGRITY.

That Stanly Kubreck was a photographer for LOOK magazine, is to reveal that the PUBLIC HAS A TRAINED EYE. Ira Cohen of Ira Robert’s Gallery, understood this. We are MAGAZINE PEOPLE who want just another – PEEK! How these peeks are turned into mountains of money, is what Steve Jobs was all about. Does the Cyber Space own an atmosphere of integrity?

A fiend understands this is what I am providing – for free! However, one is not considered integral unless one MAKES MONEY AT THEIR ART. Duchamp came to this same conclusion, stopped making art, and litary made money, or checks, because he concluded this is what all artists are about. They abhor making real money, so, they make FACSIMILE MONEY. What an honest deduction!

Look at me in the photos above taken in Rosamond’s studio. Here is proof Rosamond’s biographers are – DISHONEST! That I can not convince my daughter this is the truth, has forced me to disown her. For, to me, she has no worth.

Rena said her sister appeared on the cover of a magazine in a bikini in 1970. I thought I found her one the cover of LOOK. ALL is ILLUSION! And then I TOOK mind altering drugs.

Jon Presco

Copyright 2011

https://rosamondpress.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/in-christine-rosamonds-studio/

Look was a bi-weekly, general-interest magazine published in Des Moines, Iowa from 1937 to 1971, with more of an emphasis on photographs than articles. A large-size magazine of 11 by 14 inches, it was generally considered the also-ran to Life magazine, which began publication months earlier and ended in 1972.

It is known for helping launch the career of film director Stanley Kubrick, who was a staff photographer.

Stanley Kubrick was a staff photographer for Look before starting his feature film career. Of the more than 300 assignments Kubrick did for Look from 1946 to 1951, more than 100 are in the Library of Congress collection. All Look jobs with which he was associated have been cataloged with descriptions focusing on the images that were printed. Other related Kubrick material is located at the Museum of the City of New York.[11]

L.H.O.O.Q. is a work of art by Marcel Duchamp first conceived in 1919. The work is one of what Duchamp referred to as readymades, or more specifically an assisted ready-made. Pioneered by him, the readymade involves taking mundane, often utilitarian objects not generally considered to be art and transforming them, by adding to them, changing them, or (as in the case of his most famous work Fountain) simply renaming them and placing them in a gallery setting. In L.H.O.O.Q. the objet trouvé (“found object”) is a cheap postcard reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa onto which Duchamp drew a moustache and beard in pencil and appended the title.

The name of the piece, L.H.O.O.Q., is a pun, since the letters when pronounced in French form the sentence “Elle a chaud au cul”, which can be translated as “She has a hot ass,”[1] or alternatively “there is fire down below.” In a late interview (Schwarz 203), Duchamp gave a loose translation of “L.H.O.O.Q.” as the latter; in fact the term avoir chaud au cul is slang used in the sense of “to be horny”.[1]
As was the case with a number of his readymades, Duchamp made multiple versions of L.H.O.O.Q. of differing sizes and in different media throughout his career, one of which, an unmodified black and white reproduction of the Mona Lisa mounted on card, is called L.H.O.O.Q. Shaved.
Primary responses to L.H.O.O.Q. interpreted its meaning as being an attack on the iconic Mona Lisa and traditional art, thus promoting the Dadaist ideals. Perhaps Duchamp decided to use his ready-mades to not only critique established art conventions, but to also force the audience to put aside what they had thought before and look at something with a completely different perspective. By making the gender of the Mona Lisa ambiguous, Duchamp claimed to present his audience with a new perspective at a classic work of art.
According to Rhonda R. Shearer, the apparent reproduction is in fact a copy partly modelled on Duchamp’s own face.[2]

duction

Click to enlarge

Figure 1
Marcel Duchamp,
Cheque Bruno, 1965
© 2000 Succession Marcel Duchamp ARS, N.Y./ADAGP, Paris.
With the “Cheque Bruno a quartet of financial readymades had been completed. Duchamp created the first of them in 1919 (figure 2)
Click to enlarge

Figure 2
Marcel Duchamp,
Tzanck Check, 1919
© 2000 Succession Marcel Duchamp ARS, N.Y./ADAGP, Paris.
for his dentist Tzanck, followed five years later by a bond issued to finance a roulette project. (figure 3) In the same year that he signed Philippe Bruno’s check (1965), Duchamp had also converted a Czech membership card into a readymade by wittily naming it “Czech Check.”

Duchamp’s four financial readymades have hardly received attention.(2)
Click to enlarge

Figure 3
Marcel Duchamp,
Monte Carlo Bond, 1924
© 2000 Succession Marcel Duchamp ARS, N.Y./ADAGP, Paris.
The status of the Czech Check and the Cheque Bruno is particularly ambiguous, as if Duchamp’s
interpreters have understood his lesson all too well (or not at all). The checks have never been institutionalized as proper works by Duchamp.(3) At the same time, they have been noticed too often to live in oblivion altogether.
Duchamp’s financial documents both specify and generalize his overall artistic enterprise. Rather than addressing all institutions of the art world, they nail art down at one specific institution: the art market. Rather than questioning artistic worth, they address the general question of how value comes into being. As epitomes of the readymade, Duchamp’s financial documents defy general interpretations. They may be fingerprints of a charlatan, but it is impossible to deny their critical potential as readymades. Conversely their refined critique of the art market’s perversity can only be seen by ignoring Duchamp’s biography; it recounts how Duchamp was highly implicated in the market mechanisms the financial documents allegedly critique.
Four financial documents
Drawn on “The Teeth’s Loan and Trust Company, Consolidated, 2 Wall Street” in the amount of $115, Duchamp created the Tzanck Check in 1919 to pay for the services of a Parisian dentist, Daniel Tzanck. Apart from its larger size, the check resembles the design of standard checks accurately. Duchamp minutely drew the whole check by hand and had a stamp manufactured for the background print which reads “theteeth’sloanandtrustcompanyconsolidated,” repeated over and over.(4) Whereas his other readymades questioned the value of artistic craftsmanship in a capitalist society, the Tzanck Check traveled the opposite direction by importing this value in the world of finance.
The Monte Carlo Bonds (Obligations pour la Roulette Monte Carlo) were issued five years later to raise funds for a gambling project. In an interview Duchamp recalled that he created the bonds “to make capital to break the Monte Carlo bank” (Lebel 1959, p. 137): roulette would be converted into a game of chess by removing luck from the table and relying on mathematical calculations instead. Like the Tzanck Check, the Monte Carlo Bond is a look-a-like of the actual financial document.(5) On top of the bond is a photograph by Man Ray of Duchamp’s face covered in shaving foam, while the background reads “moustiques domestiques demistock” (“domestic mosquitoes half-stock”). The document is signed by Rrose Sélavy, president, and Marcel Duchamp, one of Sélavy’s administrators.(6) Of the thirty bonds that were created, about twelve would eventually be sold for 500 francs each. All owners of the bonds were entitled to an annual dividend of 20%.(7)
After the Monte Carlo Bonds, it would take a long time before Duchamp resumed making art.(8) Indeed, the other two checks came into being towards the end of Duchamp’s life. With the Czech Check (figure 4)
Click to enlarge

Figure 4
Marcel Duchamp,
Czech Check, 1965
© 2000 Succession Marcel Duchamp ARS, N.Y./ADAGP, Paris.
, Duchamp supported his friend John Cage who was organizing a fund-raising action for the Foundation for Contemporary Performance Arts. Instead of a real check, the document is Cage’s membership card at the Czech Mycological Society which Duchamp merely signed. The check was sold for $500 at the fund-raising event. Finally the Cheque Bruno came into being when Duchamp complied with Philippe Bruno’s request to sign the check he had included in his catalogue from the Cordier & Ekstrom show. Duchamp wrote the check in an unlimited amount to the “Banque Mona Lisa.”
Expositions of value
When Jane Heap, editor of the American Little Review, received a copy of the Monte Carlo Bond from Duchamp she advertised it as follows: “If anyone is in the business of buying art curiosities as an investment, here is a chance to invest in a perfect masterpiece. Marcel’s signature alone is worth much more than the 500 francs asked for the share. Marcel has given up painting entirely and has devoted most of his time to chess in the last few years. He will go to Monte Carlo early in January to begin the operation of his new company.” (Lebel 1959, p. 185.) It is unclear if Heap intended to be ironic or if she was simply unable to read underneath the economic surface of the bonds, but just like the other readymades Duchamp’s financial documents obviously criticize an art world where the signature certifies both artistic and economic value, where the authority of the artist and the authenticity of the work are seemingly all that counts. And if Duchamp had to face the fact that people ended up ascribing aesthetic value to his readymades whereas his choices were informed by aesthetic indifference, the financial documents were an effective remedy.(9) Thus Duchamp’s readymades express the intent “to eliminate art as an institution,” as avant-garde’s advocate Peter Bürger puts it:
When Duchamp signs mass-produced objects…and sends them to art exhibits, he negates the category of individual creation. The signature, whose very purpose it is to mark what is individual in the work, that it owes its existence to this particular artist, is inscribed on an arbitrarily chosen mass product, because all claims to individual creativity are to be mocked. Duchamp’s provocation not only unmasks the art market where the signature means more than the quality of the work; it radically questions the very principle of art in bourgeois society according to which the individual is considered the creator of the work of art. (Bürger 1974, p. 51-52.)
The financial documents take Duchamp’s general critique of value one step further by not only questioning the distinction between art and non-art, but also exposing the congruency between the art world and the economy. The financial documents made artworks equivalent to monetary tokens, conflating the categories of culture and finance in one object. To be sure, Duchamp was highly critical of art’s marriage to commerce in the modern art world. When asked why he had stopped painting, Duchamp answered, “I don’t want to copy myself, like all the others. Do you think they enjoy painting the same thing fifty or a hundred times? Not at all, they no longer make pictures; they make checks.” (Naumann 1984, p. 192.) And to one of his American patrons, Katherine Dreier, he complained that economic success corrupted artists, while art lovers would only be able to value a work once it had a high price.(10) (Tomkins 1996, p. 285.)

About Royal Rosamond Press

I am an artist, a writer, and a theologian.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.