In keeping with the theme of the previous post (that is, how shock 'art' is fucking stupid and not art at all, merely an idiotic plea for attention), here is an excerpt from an article by Christopher Hume from the Toronto Star.
"When the 24-year-old Ontario College of Art and Design student[, Thorarinn Ingi Jonsson,] placed a fake explosive device – he called it a "sculpture" – inside the main entrance of the Royal Ontario Museum last week, he confirmed something that everyone outside the art world has known for awhile [sic], namely that art has lost its power to shock. [...] Jonsson's fake bomb didn't bring down the museum, but it marked the final passing of an artistic era. What author Robert Hughes called the shock of the new has become the refrain of familiarity."
2 comments:
ya shock's a pretty cheap thrill. something's only really shocking the first time around. but GG did it for years. GG's antics were more humourous than artistic for sure. but he kept at it, throwing shit at people. which to me is pretty hilarious anyways. don't know nothing about fake bombs tho. i like art that involves violence alot tho. maybe i'll check out this sculpture. is it still there?
that's really interesting. altho tacky. i like the idea tho, of subversion thru suspicion thru art. i think i did hear about this. brought alot of negative press to ocad. did you see that nick cage 9-11 movie? that was sortof similar in spirit. tacky in spirit but interesting ideas. more bombs should be sculptures. like mushroom clouds are sad & also actually pretty. black eyes & broken hearts & mass graves too. i like the idea of "there is not a bomb in the building" too, without saying that there'd be no suspicion, & even in saying that he's telling the truth & yet, still paid for it. do you think it's important to preserve horrific images from public exposure to retain their impact? you see a picture of a dead body so many times & you do become desensitized to it. but is that maybe a good thing. i think it is.
Post a Comment