Okay, no big deal on either of those fronts. But what got us was how lame this exhibit was. Maybe we just aren't artsy or smart enough to get it. Then again, I think we kind of did get it. And what we got was unimpressive. I wasn't even as annoyed by the whole thing as much as SHR was so I'll let her chime in in the comments section.
But what really sealed the deal for me was when I walked into the room pictured below.
I didn't look down since I was looking at what was on the walls. A security guard quickly came up to me to scold me to not stand on the art. Say what now? I looked down and saw that I was stepping on a splotch of pink paint. Hmmmm.... okay. You want to call that art, that is fine with me. Honestly. I'm smart enough to know that art is in the eye of the beholder and that I don't really know all that much about art in general to get too opinionated about it.But come on! If you don't want me to step on your art, then block it off. Or let people stand on it and then as it gets dirty that becomes part of the art as the color of the paint changes.
It wasn't even that crowded on the day we were there. How do they police the spot on a crowded weekend day? Utterly silly.
I did very much enjoy the Ingo Maurer exhibit at the Cooper Hewitt though.
.JPG)
14 comments:
Hello there,
I think that you are a pretty tolerant sort of bloke. We all know the story about the emperor and his invisible clothes. Modern 'art' is often with out clothes nowadays and there should be more little boys in the crowd saying "but he's not wearing any clothes!" I don't agree with you about art being in the eyes of the beholder though, I say art, like music is based on absolutes, and not open to a vote. A note is in tune or it isn't and if you can't tell, well that's not the fault of the note.
Whether you like something or not is a different question.
We all have our preferences when it comes to music but we can never the less recognise if something is music or not. After all nobody attempts to play music on an untuned instrument.
All this type of modern art with its deep meaning and individual originality is actually very unoriginal, decadent and condescending. The only real comment it has is how gullible most people are, paying money to look at pompous installations constructed by talentless wankers. Real art starts where concept finishes.
I could go and waste more time but I guess you get my point. Good on you for your trouble in writing your piece. Piers
I too was completely unimpressed with this exhibit. Not sure if the text applied to the wall was supposed to be meaningful, but even as a sort of poetry or group of cryptic statements, the words were fairly dull.
The only interesting thing about it was that, if you looked at the title plaques on the walls, some of them said, "From the collection of ..."
So basically, I'm guessing that someone "owns" what the words say; their size, positioning, and color; and the application technique used to stick them on the wall. *That* was interesting, if not the art itself.
And, yeah, I thought it was lame, too, that you couldn't walk on the splotch. I'm with you -- its destruction under foot should be part of the piece.
Just to be entirely childish... the man's name is "Weiner".
slice,
the thing you found most interesting is what annoyed shr the most!
Perfectly put Bateman!
Unless your a mom and every line and scribble handed to you by your child, in crayola, is a work of art.
i found kara walker's ideas and execution really interesting, but thought the exhibit was too prodigious. still, it ran rings around the lawrence weiner's dumbass exhibit, which was one of the lamest things i've ever seen. what annoyed me most about the little placards was discovering that people actually owned these concepts and layouts that slice mentions above. so if the font size is reduced and the color changed from navy blue to royal blue, does that mean the words no longer belong to the douchebag who bought them? don't even get me started on the pink spot.
equally annoying is learning from pat keirnan on ny1 just now that the patriots want to trademark "19-0" pat is perturbed as well, but would like the number 5 if they are being doled out.
sorry honey --
number 5 has already been copyrighted by brooks robinson back in 61.
i'll bet you #17 is still available though.
pat keirnan wanted #5, not me! but i will take #17.
p.s. a coworker and i were just discussing santana and somehow that led up to looking up the stats of the hapless 92 mets. eddie had a pretty good year! 27/100/.285
why did pat want number 5?
eddie is awesome. the only people who don't like him are the media, young hitters that he is supposed to be teaching, ken kaiser (an umpire who used to throw him out of many a game), and ezra. eddie was money.
because pat is silly and awesome.
p.s. i feel really silly having a comments IM chat with you!
LOL
Shared your blogpost with Angie. She thought it was hilarious and that the pink stain...oops I mean art piece looked like Hello Kitty threw up
just curious...if the exhibit moves how do they move that piece?
well that's the thing, many of the pieces are not tied to a canvas. just like the lettering can be moved to any new location, so can the stupid hot pink splotch i'm guessing.
what annoyed me most about the little placards was discovering that people actually owned these concepts and layouts that slice mentions above. so if the font size is reduced and the color changed from navy blue to royal blue, does that mean the words no longer belong to the douchebag who bought them?
That's what I found interesting about it. I didn't say I liked it, just that that aspect of it was the only thing that really made me think anything while viewing this work.
Post a Comment