German Artists Say They Put White Flags on Brooklyn Bridge(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
German Artists Say They Put White Flags on Brooklyn Bridge
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/arts/design/german-artists-say-they-put-white-flags-on-brooklyn-bridge.html
16 comments
This quote from the artists summed up the parallel nicely:
> “We saw the bridge, which was designed by a German, trained in Berlin, who came to America because it was the place to fulfill his dreams, as the most beautiful expression of a great public space,” Mr. Leinkauf said. “That beauty was what we were trying to capture.”
Then by effect they captured the beauty of the modern paranoid state where acts of vandalism spark mass-fear among the administrators - fear that they somehow aren't maintaining total control.
This is the new nature of public spaces in New York. They are now primarily security zones, not avenues for creativity.
> “We saw the bridge, which was designed by a German, trained in Berlin, who came to America because it was the place to fulfill his dreams, as the most beautiful expression of a great public space,” Mr. Leinkauf said. “That beauty was what we were trying to capture.”
Then by effect they captured the beauty of the modern paranoid state where acts of vandalism spark mass-fear among the administrators - fear that they somehow aren't maintaining total control.
This is the new nature of public spaces in New York. They are now primarily security zones, not avenues for creativity.
> "Then by effect they captured the beauty of the modern paranoid state where acts of vandalism spark mass-fear among the administrators - fear that they somehow aren't maintaining total control."
IMO this only goes to show that the real terrorists have actually won. They knew they could never achieve victory in a direct confrontation, but they managed to make a country destroy itself by sacrificing its own values over paranoia. I do wonder if that was their real plan all along or if they themselves were surprised by how well it worked.
IMO this only goes to show that the real terrorists have actually won. They knew they could never achieve victory in a direct confrontation, but they managed to make a country destroy itself by sacrificing its own values over paranoia. I do wonder if that was their real plan all along or if they themselves were surprised by how well it worked.
One of Bin Laden's stated goals[0] was to bankrupt the United States. All the money we've spent on foreign wars and 'homeland security' since 2001 has certainly come close.
[0]http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/
[0]http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/
That's mostly just a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy via defense contracting.
Millions of people enjoy unfettered access to public spaces in NYC a year. You can often walk the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges anytime, 24 hours a day and never see a cop. You are completely free to drive both of them, checkpoint-free, even.
There are protocols for art installations in the parks and there are innumerable private art spaces in NYC. But, barring, you know, scaling the Brooklyn Bridge towers and removing city property, there is plenty of room to make your case in the parks if it doesn't encroach on others.
There are protocols for art installations in the parks and there are innumerable private art spaces in NYC. But, barring, you know, scaling the Brooklyn Bridge towers and removing city property, there is plenty of room to make your case in the parks if it doesn't encroach on others.
> You can often walk the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges anytime, 24 hours a day and never see a cop.
This is how it should be, but that is hardly the reaction of the media and security agencies.
The suitable reaction should be that it was an anomaly, a harmless prank. Not something society condones - since it was not done in a sanctioned park - but not something that should cause a hysteria because every public space doesn't have 100% security.
Paranoia feeds into paranoia. These security systems are never minimizing in size, only expanding due to reactionary policy.
This is the type of thing that squeezes both freedom and creativity from society, two things that are heavily intertwined and interdependent.
This is how it should be, but that is hardly the reaction of the media and security agencies.
The suitable reaction should be that it was an anomaly, a harmless prank. Not something society condones - since it was not done in a sanctioned park - but not something that should cause a hysteria because every public space doesn't have 100% security.
Paranoia feeds into paranoia. These security systems are never minimizing in size, only expanding due to reactionary policy.
This is the type of thing that squeezes both freedom and creativity from society, two things that are heavily intertwined and interdependent.
I agree with your general sentiment, but I think this specific case is simply a tragedy of politics, specifically of someone higher up not wanting to appear "soft on crime" and therefore ordering their army of underlings to perform a full-blown investigation that lasted for what... days? weeks?
I really, really doubt that the individual police officers and investigators actually wanted to deal with this nonsense.
I really, really doubt that the individual police officers and investigators actually wanted to deal with this nonsense.
What I find astonishing though is how the artists did not intend or even anticipate any of what you describe (if they're telling the truth). And that, I think, is not a sign of any transatlantic cultural gap. It's an intellectual failure on the part of the artists.
Artists are supposed to be experts in symbolism and perception. In my view, what makes some art interesting is the tension between expectations and perception. To play with that, you have to be aware of the way in which your art will be perceived by others.
I'm not saying that artists should never be surprised. But how can anyone be surprised about a white flag being interpreted as a sign of surrender? How can anyone be surprised that any modification of a nation's flag will be seen by some as malevolent defacement and an attack on that nation?
I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I'm just saying that "oops, we never thought this could be seen as anti-american" is an embarrassing statement to make if it comes from artists whose art is meant to be seen by the general public as opposed to some small circle of insiders visiting a gallery.
Artists are supposed to be experts in symbolism and perception. In my view, what makes some art interesting is the tension between expectations and perception. To play with that, you have to be aware of the way in which your art will be perceived by others.
I'm not saying that artists should never be surprised. But how can anyone be surprised about a white flag being interpreted as a sign of surrender? How can anyone be surprised that any modification of a nation's flag will be seen by some as malevolent defacement and an attack on that nation?
I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I'm just saying that "oops, we never thought this could be seen as anti-american" is an embarrassing statement to make if it comes from artists whose art is meant to be seen by the general public as opposed to some small circle of insiders visiting a gallery.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted](3)
The only thing embarrassing about this to the authorities is their reaction.
It ought to be apparent to anyone that providing perfect security is impossible, and that pretending we can is akin to a child sticking fingers in their ears and shouting "la-la-la". I think it's already clear that if we catch you doing terrorism you'll never see the light of day again, so "trying to send a strong message" about pranks like this just makes us look weak and vulnerable.
It ought to be apparent to anyone that providing perfect security is impossible, and that pretending we can is akin to a child sticking fingers in their ears and shouting "la-la-la". I think it's already clear that if we catch you doing terrorism you'll never see the light of day again, so "trying to send a strong message" about pranks like this just makes us look weak and vulnerable.
Can you elaborate on the police reaction? Here are some quotes by the NYPD:
""" “It appears to have no particular connections to terrorism or even to politics,” Miller said. “This may be somebody’s art project or even a statement.”
But police Commissioner Bill Bratton said the matter was serious nonetheless. “Needless to say, no matter what the motive was, that is a matter of concern,” Bratton said. “I am not particularly happy about the event, and have charged Commissioner Miller to conduct a full and thorough investigation into the circumstances.”
Miller emphasized that the white flag placement was not funny, and was not acceptable. “We don’t take these things lightly, or as a joke, or as art, or within the realm of speech,” Miller said. “These are issues of trespass. They put themselves in danger. They put others in danger.” """
These don't seem like unreasonable statements. It may seem interesting in the abstract, but I personally don't care for any random persons crawling all over the Brooklyn Bridge consequence-free.
""" “It appears to have no particular connections to terrorism or even to politics,” Miller said. “This may be somebody’s art project or even a statement.”
But police Commissioner Bill Bratton said the matter was serious nonetheless. “Needless to say, no matter what the motive was, that is a matter of concern,” Bratton said. “I am not particularly happy about the event, and have charged Commissioner Miller to conduct a full and thorough investigation into the circumstances.”
Miller emphasized that the white flag placement was not funny, and was not acceptable. “We don’t take these things lightly, or as a joke, or as art, or within the realm of speech,” Miller said. “These are issues of trespass. They put themselves in danger. They put others in danger.” """
These don't seem like unreasonable statements. It may seem interesting in the abstract, but I personally don't care for any random persons crawling all over the Brooklyn Bridge consequence-free.
The cover on the New York Daily News on Wednesday July 23, 2014 read, "This time was a flag, next time it could be a BOMB"[1] for example
[1] http://wac.9ebf.edgecastcdn.net/809EBF/ec-origin.nyc.barstoo...
[1] http://wac.9ebf.edgecastcdn.net/809EBF/ec-origin.nyc.barstoo...
That's not a police reaction, that's a press reaction.
The New York Daily News is where I go to get important news, like how Bat Boy fared in his fight against the Vampires on Saturn. Just sayin'
How is this not propaganda or FUD? Is the press allowed to do this?
They're essentially a tabloid. What they said is technically can not be proven false. Plus there's noone to sue them for libel if it was.
The New York Post is owned by News Corporation. And like all their other publications their modus operandi is propaganda and FUD. That is how they became hugely successful so there is no reason for them to change.
As for whether the press is allowed to do it well that's more tied to the US constitution and it's belief in free speech. Most countries have a more sensible version of this.
As for whether the press is allowed to do it well that's more tied to the US constitution and it's belief in free speech. Most countries have a more sensible version of this.
[deleted]
I always see the argument of "free speech in the US" but there are plenty of speeches forbidden in the US. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United...
First, you shouldn't be getting downvoted. This is a legitimate question in my opinion.
In America, there's generally an attitude of caveat emptor for non-essential things, news publications included.* I live in New York City, and I think most people understand NYDN falls more on the entertainment side of the spectrum, and read it for entertainment rather than to be informed.
*Meaning we generally are happy to have things like food and drinking water and transportation regulated, but not so much things like movies or video games or books.
In America, there's generally an attitude of caveat emptor for non-essential things, news publications included.* I live in New York City, and I think most people understand NYDN falls more on the entertainment side of the spectrum, and read it for entertainment rather than to be informed.
*Meaning we generally are happy to have things like food and drinking water and transportation regulated, but not so much things like movies or video games or books.
News is not like movies, video games or books which enter the creative domain. News should be objective and factual since it presents real thing.
Also regulation already exist where it's relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United...
Also regulation already exist where it's relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United...
Think about this for a second. You can literally go "crawling all over the Brooklyn Bridge consequence free" anytime you like. It's a bridge you can walk on. You can even drive your car on it. In both cases you're far more likely to be a threat there than on the top of the bridge.
The immediate reaction was that this might be terror related - "NYPD bomb technicians spent several hours checking the bridge for explosives but found none."
They even subpoenaed a parody Twitter account for claiming it "signal[ed] our complete surrender of the Brooklyn Bridge bicycle path to pedestrians"
Not our proudest moment.
The immediate reaction was that this might be terror related - "NYPD bomb technicians spent several hours checking the bridge for explosives but found none."
They even subpoenaed a parody Twitter account for claiming it "signal[ed] our complete surrender of the Brooklyn Bridge bicycle path to pedestrians"
Not our proudest moment.
Didn't NYPD do a tower dump in this investigation? I thought that was part of the reason for the perception that NYPD was overreacting.
The reflex of treating this intervention as some kind of security threat is embarrassing. I read an article at the time musing that the white flags meant something about surrender. Like a child in a cave scaring himself by whispering "boo".
The installation, by the way, reminded me of Richard Ankrom's guerrilla modification of a well-known freeway sign near downtown LA (http://www.ankrom.org/freeway_signs.html).
The artist had a sign fabricated to Caltrans specs, got a haircut and a hard hat, and did the install in broad daylight (on a weekend). It was up for over 8 years -- Caltrans noticed it after a couple of months.
Eventually it was replaced by a similar design by actual Caltrans workers.
The installation, by the way, reminded me of Richard Ankrom's guerrilla modification of a well-known freeway sign near downtown LA (http://www.ankrom.org/freeway_signs.html).
The artist had a sign fabricated to Caltrans specs, got a haircut and a hard hat, and did the install in broad daylight (on a weekend). It was up for over 8 years -- Caltrans noticed it after a couple of months.
Eventually it was replaced by a similar design by actual Caltrans workers.
I was going to say the same thing, and this quote from one of them made me laugh: "We really didn’t intend to embarrass the police."
The police did it to themselves. If they had blown it off as a waste of time and resources to investigate some prank, then they could've saved face and preserved the myth of the current "security theatre".
The police did it to themselves. If they had blown it off as a waste of time and resources to investigate some prank, then they could've saved face and preserved the myth of the current "security theatre".
But the question that will come from the chicken hawks is "If these guys could do it, why couldn't somebody bent on causing real harm?"
Screw the chicken hawks. They only have power because we agree to pretend that they do.
Once they get elected, cops have to answer to them and behave in ways to placate them.
[deleted]
What makes you so sure they didn't provide perfect security? Officially, management might feel embarrassed, while unofficially enjoying the exhibit.
[deleted](4)
Im building a service that helps keep track of public art and their artists. This was a piece I followed, because Im based in NYC.
Flag incident page: http://www.publicartfound.com/graffitis/bb-white-flag
Updated artists page: http://www.publicartfound.com/artists/mischa-leinkauf-matthi...
Flag incident page: http://www.publicartfound.com/graffitis/bb-white-flag
Updated artists page: http://www.publicartfound.com/artists/mischa-leinkauf-matthi...
Awesome project!
What an overblown event which I suppose makes it a success. The fact that the police force and DA went nuts about it is ridiculous. I hope there are no legal consequences.
[deleted]
>The artists stressed that when they removed those flags, they ceremonially folded them, “following the United States flag code,” Mr. Leinkauf said
That's really respectful and a nice part of this story. It turns it from an act of vandalism into a true work of art in my opinion.
That's really respectful and a nice part of this story. It turns it from an act of vandalism into a true work of art in my opinion.
It's ridiculous that the police are threatening severe consequences. It's a harmless prank.
It's their job and maybe even their nature to threaten. Would you feel okay if they responded with a meme?
I'd feel much safer if they could laugh it off.
Responding they way they did is illogical and just reenforces the idea that many in the American government now see the America people as the enemy.
Responding they way they did is illogical and just reenforces the idea that many in the American government now see the America people as the enemy.
At least they didn't put up a light bright. That would have been terrifying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare
They are quite brave, they must never want to come back to US again. It takes very little these days to get banned, denied visa or put on the no fly list.
What is the significance of this? I read the article and found it interesting, I just don't understand why it's on the top of HN. Stupid pranks like this happen every day in every city.
I'm a little suprised that Mooninites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare) didn't get a mention in the article.
Interestingly, especially given that any resulting court case will likely hinge on free speech, when I search for Matthias Wermke on Google from the UK, alongside the results I get this message -
"Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe. Learn more"
With the "Learn More" linking to a page on the recent EU right to be forgotten ruling.
This message does not appear for the other artist, Mischa Leinkauf.
"Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe. Learn more"
With the "Learn More" linking to a page on the recent EU right to be forgotten ruling.
This message does not appear for the other artist, Mischa Leinkauf.
That text should appear for all names whether there are removed searches or not.
In this case Google isn't recognising Mischa Leinkauf as a name.
In this case Google isn't recognising Mischa Leinkauf as a name.
The results I am getting from google.co.uk do not support that theory at all.
Bob Smith - message saying results removed
John Smith - no message
Sally Smith - no message
James Smith - message saying results removed
Claire Smith - no message
Deborah Smith - no message
Colin Smith - no message
Alison Smith - no message
Bob Smith - message saying results removed
John Smith - no message
Sally Smith - no message
James Smith - message saying results removed
Claire Smith - no message
Deborah Smith - no message
Colin Smith - no message
Alison Smith - no message
That could just mean Google's algorithm isn't perfect. And Google only needs to ensure that the disclaimer appears often enough so that people won't assume its presence means results were removed.
I definite recall it being stated that the disclaimers would be shown for name searches in Europe, not just name searches with results removed.
I definite recall it being stated that the disclaimers would be shown for name searches in Europe, not just name searches with results removed.
Saying it just tries to flag all names, but just doesn't spot "John Smith" or "Alison Smith" as names, while managing ones such as "James Smith" and "Bob Smith", isn't very plausible.
I get this (from Germany) for almost any common name combination. And also for my name even though I never requested a removal - nor am I famous enough to be mentioned in other publications.
I guess Google just adds this footer whenever someone searches for a name.
I guess Google just adds this footer whenever someone searches for a name.
"I guess Google just adds this footer whenever someone searches for a name."
As I said, this does not happen for Mischa Leinkauf (it also doesn't happen for the combinations of Matthias Leinkauf, or Mischa Wermke).
It also does not happen for John Smith, or Bob Dobbs.
As I said, this does not happen for Mischa Leinkauf (it also doesn't happen for the combinations of Matthias Leinkauf, or Mischa Wermke).
It also does not happen for John Smith, or Bob Dobbs.
There are at least two other Matthias Wermkes that I ran into while searching around.
Without tracing which pages are filtered it's hard to say who requested it. I get the message no matter which keywords I add to try to isolate one of them.
Without tracing which pages are filtered it's hard to say who requested it. I get the message no matter which keywords I add to try to isolate one of them.
True. I wonder if anyone has made a google results diffing tool yet. There must be one out there somewhere already, though whether it would show up on google results is another matter.
I diffed for my name (because I really was curious why I was on the list). Local German IP vs US VPN. The results were the same. In a different order but all items were the same for the first 10 pages.
So I guess it's just a "let's slap that footer onto all name related searches so we save a few DB queries".
So I guess it's just a "let's slap that footer onto all name related searches so we save a few DB queries".
Sure, anything can be art these days, even the 4chan post.
Extradition in 3, 2, 1...
Germany doesn't extradict it's citizen, it just turns a blind eye if they are kidnapped by the CIA.
I had no idea about this, and was writing off pantalaimon as engaging in hyperbole, so if anyone made the same mistake I did:
It turns out that Germany does not in fact extradite its own nationals, except to other EU states. Source: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.ht...
It turns out that Germany does not in fact extradite its own nationals, except to other EU states. Source: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.ht...
The artists say that they will stand up to the charges. Also I don't think in this case Germany would extradite. Not so much on principle but rather because of the triviality...
I don't know, they kiss a lot of American ass in the article and it is essentially just trespassing. Sounds like they want to make sure they can come back to NYC with no hassle.
> Sounds like they want to make sure they can come back to NYC with no hassle.
Unfortunately, I don't think this will happen. I would not be surprised if these individuals will never be allowed entry to the US again. People have been turned at the border for less. And similar breach of security events in the past have been prosecuted using terrorism laws.
I do hope that I am wrong, though.
Unfortunately, I don't think this will happen. I would not be surprised if these individuals will never be allowed entry to the US again. People have been turned at the border for less. And similar breach of security events in the past have been prosecuted using terrorism laws.
I do hope that I am wrong, though.
They're terrorists, because someone in authority thought so, and that's all it takes nowadays. No way will they be allowed in the U.S. except delivered in handcuffs to a long solitary confinement.
Did people actually brand them as terrorists? My knowledge of this story is an inital nytimes article when it happened and someone making a rather dramatic status about it on facebook. I am honestly baffled at how serious this seems to be for the police.
"...hoisting two big all-white American flags".
That's a funny slip of the pen.
You did not see the flags closely. They have all of the same 'design' as the regular flag, alternating horizontal stripes, a square in the corner with 50 stars, but the artists used two slightly different colors of while to construct the flag. It made them appear to be bleached white or something.
I can understand that it doesn't seem to be a reasonable description (they are all-white stand-ins for what are usually American flags), but it doesn't seem to be a typo / slip of the pen—or were you making some joke or more subtle commentary that I missed?
They did actually resemble American flags, with the stars and stripes faintly visible.
Edit: See this image: http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article9622820.ece/bin...
Edit: See this image: http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article9622820.ece/bin...
Read on. They used two shades of "white" clothes to sew in the patterns.
Maybe I'm old, but I don't understand why this is art and why pulling a stupid juvenile prank makes the people who did it "artists".
Is art really this dead?
Is art really this dead?
You're not old, just intolerant of different forms of art; this would have been art 50 years ago, too. It's actually a bit quaint and old fashioned.
I suspect it's just not something you find particularly interesting. Personally, I think other people's reaction will be the fascinating part. I could easily see a segment of the population being incensed at the notion of someone flying a US flag resembling a flag of surrender. (Note: I'm in Dallas, Texas at the moment, so I expect slightly stronger responses.)
Art's always legit to somebody, but even if this is just a goofy prank, it could take on a life of its own after, sorta post-factor legitimizing it. At the least, it could be a neat catalyst for a few flame wars.
Art's always legit to somebody, but even if this is just a goofy prank, it could take on a life of its own after, sorta post-factor legitimizing it. At the least, it could be a neat catalyst for a few flame wars.
You're not old, it's just that nowdays "art" is defined as "anything that you can convince few people to call art", the more shocking and disgusting the better.
On the other hand, I think we should have much more "stupid juvenile pranks". Society is grumpy and boring nowdays.
On the other hand, I think we should have much more "stupid juvenile pranks". Society is grumpy and boring nowdays.
That’s a stupid and overly dismissive definition.
Personally I’m all in favor of defining art extremely liberally and to then have a meaningful discussion about how worthwhile or interesting something is, without arguing about something as stupid as what is art and what is not.
In the end this is what it is and can stand for itself, whether anyone considers it art or not. Of course, this classification is potentially useful for putting it in a historical context (Did anyone else do something similar in the past? How does this fit in the historical context? What, if anything, is this alluding to?), but not much beyond that – and art is such a broad term, so that classification isn’t even specific enough.
Sadly “art” is commonly used as a seal of approval. By calling something “art” it is implied that it is worthwhile and interesting only by virtue of being “art”. So this word does double duty as endorsement and classification – and since obviously no one can agree on what art is worthwhile and interesting and what not it’s all terribly confusing and inconsistent. It’s a mess. The discussion about art then clouds and confuses the actually interesting discussion about what is worthwhile and interesting art.
It should be obvious that finding a definition of art that includes only worthwhile and interesting things (even if not universally but only for one personally) is a hopeless task and should better not be attempted. So why not look at individual pieces of art and have that discussion?
Personally I’m all in favor of defining art extremely liberally and to then have a meaningful discussion about how worthwhile or interesting something is, without arguing about something as stupid as what is art and what is not.
In the end this is what it is and can stand for itself, whether anyone considers it art or not. Of course, this classification is potentially useful for putting it in a historical context (Did anyone else do something similar in the past? How does this fit in the historical context? What, if anything, is this alluding to?), but not much beyond that – and art is such a broad term, so that classification isn’t even specific enough.
Sadly “art” is commonly used as a seal of approval. By calling something “art” it is implied that it is worthwhile and interesting only by virtue of being “art”. So this word does double duty as endorsement and classification – and since obviously no one can agree on what art is worthwhile and interesting and what not it’s all terribly confusing and inconsistent. It’s a mess. The discussion about art then clouds and confuses the actually interesting discussion about what is worthwhile and interesting art.
It should be obvious that finding a definition of art that includes only worthwhile and interesting things (even if not universally but only for one personally) is a hopeless task and should better not be attempted. So why not look at individual pieces of art and have that discussion?
It's amazing to me to see the evolution of art and how so much of it has morphed into self-mockery.
I've seen enough things both wonderful and banal that I've adopted the rule that if something's only virtue is that it's "art," it's not worth my time.
I've seen enough things both wonderful and banal that I've adopted the rule that if something's only virtue is that it's "art," it's not worth my time.
[deleted]
If these guys were called "professional pranksters" I'd be fine with it. Good on them, great prank. Lots of laughs. White flags, just like surrendering, haha.
There's plenty of good modern art. I don't really think art should necessarily return to classic form. I'm writing this as I listen to some Steve Reich music and I have a Ryan McGinness print right over my computer.
But I'm afraid the art world these days is basically optimized around trying to produce output that's purely intended to confuse, shock or outrage. It's like the art world has lost the ability to recognize and evoke any other emotion. It's become so insular and incestuous that so much that's produced in the art world these days has any relevance or meaning at all -- it's almost psychopathic.
Except instead it's boring, pretentious and trite. Evoking negative emotions is easy.
In the last year I've visited a number of very well known modern art collections. Looking at the unbelievably epic size of the works...just huge canvases filled with random stuff the artists felt like throwing at it, or big squares or lines or whatever, and massive multi-ton sculptures that were basically the result of a masonry 101 class or intro to welding two pieces of scrap iron together class.
My only thought the entire time was that I was walking around a building composed of desperate cries for attention, "look at me! look at me!" each piece of screaming at me, but each showed me nothing of any particular note or interest.
I stopped and just started laughing when I got to the pile of flame retardant foam that had just been sprayed into a pile and delivered to the museum. Carefully noted and called out as a special work by the curator so I wouldn't confuse it with an actual pile of leftover flame retardant foam from a previous fire or something.
Half of the works were indistinguishable from a pile of garbage or a bad renovation project.
And then I saw this http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/4926/nampaikbuddha.jpg
and I stopped regretting the time I was wasting instantly. It was beautiful, elegant, evocative, it worked on many many levels. There's not a lot to it. Somebody could probably set it up in 10 or 20 minutes. But it means something -- setting it up in the way it was provided all the context and meaning the work needed. It's interpretive. It's commentary. But it's doing something other than trying to say "look at me look at me! I'm art! I'm art!" It works in and out of the context of an art museum...which is more than a 20'x40' canvas filled with string and cat feces can claim.
At another museum, I had the same feelings till I got to a special installation by Ryan McGuinness. It's easy to dismiss McGuinness's work as just a bunch of random clipart printed out on a large format printer. But what was expertly done with the installation was an overview of the process behind his work. And it was really breathtaking.
A single piece is the culmination of hundreds or thousands of hours of behind the scenes work, and a real attempt to connect his art with the context it's placed in. And you realize as you walk through the process that there's no other way that he could have really arrived at his pieces except through this excruciatingly detailed and exacting process. Once you see the process, you learn to "see" his work and it's glorious and wonderful and exciting.
This sat in stark contrast to the many many other pieces of modern art I've tried to spend time understanding -- even going to entire classes of art appreciation. Where the more I learn about the artist and their process and the work, the less and less impressed I am with it.
During another visit, I met a local artist -- Matt Lively. And his thing is to paint bees on unicycles. That's it. They're usually done on small cuts of wood a few inches by a few inches, but sometimes on canvas. He's not trying to produce the next great world changing art movement. He's just making his little bees. And he could care less about what people thought about them.
"I don’t have a lot of control over other people’s feelings," Matt describes. "So, I rarely think about [how my art will affect viewers] when creating a show."
http://rockettsvillage.com/blog/07/2012/cedar-works-gallery-...
He's doing what he likes to do. It's not high art, but it's whimsical and does evoke an emotional feeling. And it's I think it's awesome. There's room in my view of art for low to high-brow stuff.
What I don't have room for in my view is stupid nonsense posing as art. I know 90% of everything is crap. And there's lots of crap art out there. But I'd rather not be exposed to most of that 90% as if it was fantastic stuff I just didn't get. I get it, people desperately want attention and to feel important. Well if you want that, do something worth my attention, do something actually important.
So when I say this flag stunt is a stupid juvenile prank, I'm saying it with lots of meaning and understanding of art behind the statement.
There's plenty of good modern art. I don't really think art should necessarily return to classic form. I'm writing this as I listen to some Steve Reich music and I have a Ryan McGinness print right over my computer.
But I'm afraid the art world these days is basically optimized around trying to produce output that's purely intended to confuse, shock or outrage. It's like the art world has lost the ability to recognize and evoke any other emotion. It's become so insular and incestuous that so much that's produced in the art world these days has any relevance or meaning at all -- it's almost psychopathic.
Except instead it's boring, pretentious and trite. Evoking negative emotions is easy.
In the last year I've visited a number of very well known modern art collections. Looking at the unbelievably epic size of the works...just huge canvases filled with random stuff the artists felt like throwing at it, or big squares or lines or whatever, and massive multi-ton sculptures that were basically the result of a masonry 101 class or intro to welding two pieces of scrap iron together class.
My only thought the entire time was that I was walking around a building composed of desperate cries for attention, "look at me! look at me!" each piece of screaming at me, but each showed me nothing of any particular note or interest.
I stopped and just started laughing when I got to the pile of flame retardant foam that had just been sprayed into a pile and delivered to the museum. Carefully noted and called out as a special work by the curator so I wouldn't confuse it with an actual pile of leftover flame retardant foam from a previous fire or something.
Half of the works were indistinguishable from a pile of garbage or a bad renovation project.
And then I saw this http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/4926/nampaikbuddha.jpg
and I stopped regretting the time I was wasting instantly. It was beautiful, elegant, evocative, it worked on many many levels. There's not a lot to it. Somebody could probably set it up in 10 or 20 minutes. But it means something -- setting it up in the way it was provided all the context and meaning the work needed. It's interpretive. It's commentary. But it's doing something other than trying to say "look at me look at me! I'm art! I'm art!" It works in and out of the context of an art museum...which is more than a 20'x40' canvas filled with string and cat feces can claim.
At another museum, I had the same feelings till I got to a special installation by Ryan McGuinness. It's easy to dismiss McGuinness's work as just a bunch of random clipart printed out on a large format printer. But what was expertly done with the installation was an overview of the process behind his work. And it was really breathtaking.
A single piece is the culmination of hundreds or thousands of hours of behind the scenes work, and a real attempt to connect his art with the context it's placed in. And you realize as you walk through the process that there's no other way that he could have really arrived at his pieces except through this excruciatingly detailed and exacting process. Once you see the process, you learn to "see" his work and it's glorious and wonderful and exciting.
This sat in stark contrast to the many many other pieces of modern art I've tried to spend time understanding -- even going to entire classes of art appreciation. Where the more I learn about the artist and their process and the work, the less and less impressed I am with it.
During another visit, I met a local artist -- Matt Lively. And his thing is to paint bees on unicycles. That's it. They're usually done on small cuts of wood a few inches by a few inches, but sometimes on canvas. He's not trying to produce the next great world changing art movement. He's just making his little bees. And he could care less about what people thought about them.
"I don’t have a lot of control over other people’s feelings," Matt describes. "So, I rarely think about [how my art will affect viewers] when creating a show."
http://rockettsvillage.com/blog/07/2012/cedar-works-gallery-...
He's doing what he likes to do. It's not high art, but it's whimsical and does evoke an emotional feeling. And it's I think it's awesome. There's room in my view of art for low to high-brow stuff.
What I don't have room for in my view is stupid nonsense posing as art. I know 90% of everything is crap. And there's lots of crap art out there. But I'd rather not be exposed to most of that 90% as if it was fantastic stuff I just didn't get. I get it, people desperately want attention and to feel important. Well if you want that, do something worth my attention, do something actually important.
So when I say this flag stunt is a stupid juvenile prank, I'm saying it with lots of meaning and understanding of art behind the statement.
I agree, but only because you need a certain number of kids doing stupid juvenile pranks to raise the chances that some of them grow up to pull awesome adult pranks.
New Yorker's sensitivities aside, this beautifully demonstrated how bat-shit crazy the govt. & the media has become over terrorism fears. The NYPD did initially consider this to be an art-project [1]...and had they let it go at that, things would have been much less embarrassing now.
So an unlikely pair of Germans (allegedly) deserve kudos for exposing the American scardey-cat responses & massive waste of resources and time that can be brought about by simple (but unusual) things.
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/22/us/new-york-brooklyn-bridge-fl...