On Tins and Drug Addicts
Okay, I was actually going to post this with the M*A*S*H commentary, however it seemed that it was an article that was going to be long... A seperate post seems better than the mini-rant stupidity of the M*A*S*H post. So, let's start with a couple of links first, and then have some commentary:
Giant Tin Takes Sculpture Prize
Bad boy of Danish art scene at it again
Okay, so these two are about as different as you can get. So, why would I have something about them in the same journal entry? Well, to find out, you will have to click the little cut tag below:
Looking at these two articles, and the pieces proposed / executed, one could say that there was almost no relationship between the two of them. However, I would disagree. I would say that they are making very similar comments from extremely different perspectives.
Evaristti is an enigmatic challenge himself. The work he presents is a perspective-twisting take on the extremeties of society, and how little difference there is between one extreme (the art viewing society) and the other (the drug junkie on the street). In fact, in just executing the work, and having this article written about it, part of the point has been made to a much larger audience.
Krebber's "Tin" on the other hand, presents a very simple aesthetic of an ob-long, curved object that is easy to look at fits the ideals of form was we are accustomed to seeing. However, the statement comes in having the left corner of the piece slight ajar, or askew. With this variation, the piece seems to be saying that even the simplest geometric shapes tend to be slightly irregular.
Taken as a metaphor, this would imply that while we can percieve things as simplistic wholes from one side, we often find there is another side that is not as perfect. This is much like society, where the majority fits within a single perspective, there are portions that don't fit within that perspective.
While Evaristti's and Krebber's works present a challenge of perspectives, I find they also challenge us on a different perspective.
Krebber's work is nearly as simple as one can get. The metaphor proposed above is merely a perspective reached from viewing the article about the piece along with the article about Evaristti's work. The metaphor itself feels somewhat phony, and I suspect that any other metaphors or analysis of the work would feel about as phony. So, I find myself in question as to the value of the piece as an artistic work. Yes, it's a simple form that is aesthetically pleasing, with a curious aspect to it. And, the curiosity of the piece can be examined as a possible metaphor. However, does it actually evoke an emotion from the viewer? Are all viewers likely to arrive at a metaphor or curiosity about it's curious form?
Evaristti's piece brings about a more concrete metaphor that is nonetheless flawed by the execution of the piece. In a respect, I find that the method in which the piece was produced could be seen as a form of usury, which may be more of a statement about the person behind the piece than about the works produced themselves.
Evaristti's work brings into question what the artist is willing to do in order to please one portion of society as a whole. Is it worth the exploitation of people that are suffering nightly just to put a new set of images into an elitist portion of society? While certainly, there is something to be gained from bringing two portions of society together in a different way, does this mean that the artist as the conduit for this intersection is free to use any method that he or she deems worthwhile?
In looking at these questions, I find that Evaristti's work has more value: art is always questioning itself, as it has to be a viable part of society and culture in the world. The fact that Evaristti's work is questionable on many levels, while presenting a set of compelling and interesting images. However, I find myself questioning Krebber's work on possibly the only question that speaks negatively to a piece of art: is it worth the time and effort to question it?
Giant Tin Takes Sculpture Prize
Bad boy of Danish art scene at it again
Okay, so these two are about as different as you can get. So, why would I have something about them in the same journal entry? Well, to find out, you will have to click the little cut tag below:
Looking at these two articles, and the pieces proposed / executed, one could say that there was almost no relationship between the two of them. However, I would disagree. I would say that they are making very similar comments from extremely different perspectives.
Evaristti is an enigmatic challenge himself. The work he presents is a perspective-twisting take on the extremeties of society, and how little difference there is between one extreme (the art viewing society) and the other (the drug junkie on the street). In fact, in just executing the work, and having this article written about it, part of the point has been made to a much larger audience.
Krebber's "Tin" on the other hand, presents a very simple aesthetic of an ob-long, curved object that is easy to look at fits the ideals of form was we are accustomed to seeing. However, the statement comes in having the left corner of the piece slight ajar, or askew. With this variation, the piece seems to be saying that even the simplest geometric shapes tend to be slightly irregular.
Taken as a metaphor, this would imply that while we can percieve things as simplistic wholes from one side, we often find there is another side that is not as perfect. This is much like society, where the majority fits within a single perspective, there are portions that don't fit within that perspective.
While Evaristti's and Krebber's works present a challenge of perspectives, I find they also challenge us on a different perspective.
Krebber's work is nearly as simple as one can get. The metaphor proposed above is merely a perspective reached from viewing the article about the piece along with the article about Evaristti's work. The metaphor itself feels somewhat phony, and I suspect that any other metaphors or analysis of the work would feel about as phony. So, I find myself in question as to the value of the piece as an artistic work. Yes, it's a simple form that is aesthetically pleasing, with a curious aspect to it. And, the curiosity of the piece can be examined as a possible metaphor. However, does it actually evoke an emotion from the viewer? Are all viewers likely to arrive at a metaphor or curiosity about it's curious form?
Evaristti's piece brings about a more concrete metaphor that is nonetheless flawed by the execution of the piece. In a respect, I find that the method in which the piece was produced could be seen as a form of usury, which may be more of a statement about the person behind the piece than about the works produced themselves.
Evaristti's work brings into question what the artist is willing to do in order to please one portion of society as a whole. Is it worth the exploitation of people that are suffering nightly just to put a new set of images into an elitist portion of society? While certainly, there is something to be gained from bringing two portions of society together in a different way, does this mean that the artist as the conduit for this intersection is free to use any method that he or she deems worthwhile?
In looking at these questions, I find that Evaristti's work has more value: art is always questioning itself, as it has to be a viable part of society and culture in the world. The fact that Evaristti's work is questionable on many levels, while presenting a set of compelling and interesting images. However, I find myself questioning Krebber's work on possibly the only question that speaks negatively to a piece of art: is it worth the time and effort to question it?