Thoughts on Public Art and how People Screw up a great idea
There is this amazing group out of New York called Improv Everywhere. They consider themselves a comedy troupe, but I've always thought of them as performance art, the kind of thing you would see in the 60's Happening movement. Basically, a group of people get together, plan to do something to shake up the mundane of the day, and then do it out in the open, sometimes getting the regular public involved, sometimes not. It's not necessarily malicious, but it is subversive. I think the purest manifestation of this can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwMj3PJDxuo
It's the fact that there's no reason for it-they're frozen, then they're not. It makes you hyper aware of time and space, and movement.
The LA group tried to imitate that. They did not succeed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3kYm3fsCHk'
It just...doesn't have the same feel. It's like a poor imitation of what happened in New York, but with more pretension. Compare that with what happened in Belgium:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkBepgH00GM
They take the idea of turning a normal space into something special, bringing joy.
I think that's what's missing from the LA troupe-they don't bring joy.
I was at the site, and looking at the discussions, and most of them were about disruption, but in a negative way. Like, messing with the LA Marathon. Why? Why mess with something that is already a disruption of the norm, with people who are just trying to do their best? There's talk of having people do it as an egg race, or have someone dressed as the Flash...I don't know, I don't think that's particularly clever, or thought inducing. You're interrupting something that people have put time and effort into, for what? I know, art is not supposed to have a point, but this is the type of thing that, if I were a runner, and someone had a spoon with an egg on it while I was racing, would just make me angry, or frustrated.
An idea I saw that I loved, and would totally want to do: Someone suggested that a large group dress up as celebrities (like, 100 or so) and go to Graumanns' and take pictures with tourists-like, the person dressed as the celebrity asks the tourist to take a photo with them. I think that's fantastic. It's a switch up of a uniquely LA phenomena, it's positive, and it disrupts the routine in a respectful way.
It has, of course, quickly been shot down in favor of something negative: Now, they want only a few people dressed up as one celebrity to get into a territory dispute outside of Graumanns.
My problems with this:
It's negative. I don't like seeing people fight. I don't like a lot movies for this reason. Altercations make me uncomfortable, and I don't think it's a positive disruption. It's negative art, which I don't necessarily like. If I want to feel bad, I'll watch BSG, or Six Feet Under or something. I don't need to see six Elvises get into it.
It's not inclusive. One of the great aspects of the original idea is the inclusion of audience-having a Marilyn come up to a tourist with like a cell phone to take a picture. It's such a great way to get people involved, but it's not angry, it's not negative (I know I'm using that word a lot, but I'm not sure what else to say). It would a positive shock, a switch from the expected that would elicit a smile rather than an uncomfortable downcasting of eyes, which I think an argument would entail.
It's already done. There are a bunch of different celebrity impersonators outside of Graumanns' already, and they are very territorial. I've seen, like, three Captain Jack Sparrows, and they have to take turns of whose positioned where. I've heard rumors that the guy with the Elmo costume is kind of ruthless about it. So, I don't think it's bringing anything new to the discussion-it's just a re-hash of something that already happens in real life. The idea of "celebrities" taking pictures with tourists calls a lot of stuff into question: Why are the famous famous, why do we obsess over these people, what is celebrity and who is worthy of it?
I've just been very dissappointed with Guerilla LA stuff that's been done-or hasn't been done, because I haven't gotten any e-mails about potential missions ever. But I don't want to be a part of something that focuses on such negativity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwMj3PJDxuo
It's the fact that there's no reason for it-they're frozen, then they're not. It makes you hyper aware of time and space, and movement.
The LA group tried to imitate that. They did not succeed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3kYm3fsCHk'
It just...doesn't have the same feel. It's like a poor imitation of what happened in New York, but with more pretension. Compare that with what happened in Belgium:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkBepgH00GM
They take the idea of turning a normal space into something special, bringing joy.
I think that's what's missing from the LA troupe-they don't bring joy.
I was at the site, and looking at the discussions, and most of them were about disruption, but in a negative way. Like, messing with the LA Marathon. Why? Why mess with something that is already a disruption of the norm, with people who are just trying to do their best? There's talk of having people do it as an egg race, or have someone dressed as the Flash...I don't know, I don't think that's particularly clever, or thought inducing. You're interrupting something that people have put time and effort into, for what? I know, art is not supposed to have a point, but this is the type of thing that, if I were a runner, and someone had a spoon with an egg on it while I was racing, would just make me angry, or frustrated.
An idea I saw that I loved, and would totally want to do: Someone suggested that a large group dress up as celebrities (like, 100 or so) and go to Graumanns' and take pictures with tourists-like, the person dressed as the celebrity asks the tourist to take a photo with them. I think that's fantastic. It's a switch up of a uniquely LA phenomena, it's positive, and it disrupts the routine in a respectful way.
It has, of course, quickly been shot down in favor of something negative: Now, they want only a few people dressed up as one celebrity to get into a territory dispute outside of Graumanns.
My problems with this:
It's negative. I don't like seeing people fight. I don't like a lot movies for this reason. Altercations make me uncomfortable, and I don't think it's a positive disruption. It's negative art, which I don't necessarily like. If I want to feel bad, I'll watch BSG, or Six Feet Under or something. I don't need to see six Elvises get into it.
It's not inclusive. One of the great aspects of the original idea is the inclusion of audience-having a Marilyn come up to a tourist with like a cell phone to take a picture. It's such a great way to get people involved, but it's not angry, it's not negative (I know I'm using that word a lot, but I'm not sure what else to say). It would a positive shock, a switch from the expected that would elicit a smile rather than an uncomfortable downcasting of eyes, which I think an argument would entail.
It's already done. There are a bunch of different celebrity impersonators outside of Graumanns' already, and they are very territorial. I've seen, like, three Captain Jack Sparrows, and they have to take turns of whose positioned where. I've heard rumors that the guy with the Elmo costume is kind of ruthless about it. So, I don't think it's bringing anything new to the discussion-it's just a re-hash of something that already happens in real life. The idea of "celebrities" taking pictures with tourists calls a lot of stuff into question: Why are the famous famous, why do we obsess over these people, what is celebrity and who is worthy of it?
I've just been very dissappointed with Guerilla LA stuff that's been done-or hasn't been done, because I haven't gotten any e-mails about potential missions ever. But I don't want to be a part of something that focuses on such negativity.