As this seems open to interpretation I say it is a very subtle tribute to Jupp Beuys, no stranger to having his works accidentally removed/altered/damaged.
I can understand viewers in a gallery misinterpreting their surroundings. I went to a gallery where there were manikins, covered and dressed in a light fabric, positioned around the display area, as though looking at the pictures. They were in some extremely exaggerate poses. I didn’t notice them when I entered, as there were other viewers in the gallery. A couple of times, I found myself waiting, exasperatedly, for the person next to me to move along so that I could get a clearer view of the picture they were looking at; only for me to realize they were actually one of these quite obviously artificial figures. I found that, looking at the artwork, I got tunnel vision, and only perceived other people on the periphery of my vision.
That’s kind of a long way of saying that, when looking at artwork, the details of the gallery can fade in to the background.
The problem with permanently gluing parts of an artwork to the floor is you can move it.
Top art gallery tip: if it doesn’t say you can touch it you can’t touch it. It’s not yours.
Also they should take the lids off the paint and let it dry out before putting it back on display.
…well what could be more authentic than the visitors’ new additions?
I think that would make it more ambiguous, not less. If the line were placed there specifically for that piece, it would clearly indicate you shouldn’t cross it. A gallery wouldn’t be expected to remove a permanent line around the entire gallery just because they have one participatory exhibit.
I mean, if it doesn’t explicitly say you can touch it why would you think you can?
I mean… they left paint cans out. With “live” paint.
What did they expect. Have they not seen humans before?
Well that is fucked up.
And it probably would be more of a loss if JonOne’s piece was a 1000 years old too.
His art stinks, and he should be ashamed.
Also, he started off as a tagger, so writing all over other people’s stuff shouldn’t be off limits to him (unless he sold out).
I was wondering if I was the only one seeing the irony of a graffiti artist having their work defaced.
Don’t get me wrong. Some of them are incredibly talented, but if you paint something on someone else’s property, the optics aren’t good if you complain about someone else doing it to you.
I’m reminded of that old, for lack of a better word joke, where the farmer comes back from the market and boasts he has sold a cow for 10,000 [monetary unit] and then has to admit that he didn’t get cash but 2 chickens worth 5,000 [monetary unit] each.
I remember being in a modern art gallery this one time; my buddy and I were in a hallway waiting up for the rest of the group. There was a white cube there, about chair height and he says, “is this art or can I sit on it?” There wasn’t a title card near it and it was away from the other exhibits, but given everything else we’d seen that day, we weren’t 100% sure it was intended as a bench.
I have this fractal-like vision now of a once-participatory art form done spontaneously in an improvised space now roped off for contemplation. Each iteration gets more expensive.
In 2004 cleaners at the Tate threw out a bag of rubbish that was part of Metzger’s “Recreation of First Public Demonstration of Auto-Destructive Art”
Has the painting been sold? If not, it is not “a $500,000 painting”. It is worth zero at this time. Galleries and artists love to put big prices on things to create the illusion of value, but until someone actually buys it, the value is unknown at best.
Given that the art work has an assessed value, I’m guessing that the piece was commissioned by the gallery, and not some random graffiti.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.