Join 3,555 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Cleaner dumps £5k art
October 19, 2001 9:41 AM   Subscribe

Cleaner dumps £5k art -- Mistook rubbish for... well, rubbish.
posted by frednorman (11 comments total)

 
“I didn’t think for a second that it was a work of art — it didn’t look much like art to me.

I went to this place last night, and can agree with the guy who threw it away - that yes it didnt look much like art to me either.

if your wondering y i was there and not rubbing my chin with an arty farty look in my eys, it was becasue there was free booze, which was rank, and i had free entry
posted by monkeyJuice at 10:54 AM on October 19, 2001


the janitor's response was perfectly appropriate, as the "artist" recognized

"Janitor Earns Demotion: Now a Critic!"
posted by yesster at 11:25 AM on October 19, 2001


me post bad link www.eyestorm.com
posted by monkeyJuice at 11:47 AM on October 19, 2001


The Damien Hirst Website is almost as strange as the "art" Hirst produces.
posted by Carol Anne at 12:15 PM on October 19, 2001


Best part of it all is that someone can "shoot to fame" after pickling a sheep in formaldehyde.
posted by Hildago at 3:50 PM on October 19, 2001


Hirst's art was nicked for that memorable dream sequence in "The Cell" apparently.
posted by Benway at 3:52 PM on October 19, 2001


Id throw it away myself. Theres nothing I hate worse then crap art attempting to make a statement or as cartoonist Dan Clowes likes to illustrates forms of the proverbial tampon in a tea cup trick. Check out "Art School" in one of his earliest comics.

Reading this reminded me of my rejection from the college art show as a senior. I entered a painting I sold 4 years later for $900.00, it was of my own Impressionistic but special style and most people who have seen this painting have used the word "beautiful" to describe it. Anyhow I went to said art show, and noticed some of the entries that had made the muster above my own. It was a disappointment but heck mostly MFA graduate students ruled in that show--I was just a BS art education major.

One project stood out. A young artist had collected 200 mason jars and had different people fill them with urine. It was a shelf of these hundreds of jars of different colored piss from dark brown to amber to clear. She then put these jars on a wooden shelf that looked like it had been built by a drunk carpenter and called it art. I remember standing as a young art student in front of this work and thinking What the hell? I think it may have won a ribbon. This was truly disconcerning to me. -----by the way this exhibit did indeed smell.

I look at some art and think its just stupid. I dont call this guys collection of trash ----art, I call it laziness.
posted by Budge at 8:28 PM on October 19, 2001


Did the "art" get a distinct reaction out of you? —Mission accomplished.

Budge: It's called satire.
posted by Down10 at 9:00 PM on October 19, 2001


Did the "art" get a distinct reaction out of you? —Mission accomplished.

That is so much bullshit. It's also a rather facile tautology. Were you outraged that some hack tried to fob this crap off as art? Did you like it? Did you dislike it? Were you indifferent? -- In short, (under that unqualified definition) any reaction validates it as "art". I don't buy that.

Indeed, if the point is simply to evoke a reaction (ANY reaction -- or better yet, any STRONG reaction), we could easily slap together a "Modern Art Generator" in the tradition of the Mr. T Name Generator, the Alanis Morissette Lyric Generator, the Slashdot Story Generator, or even the Modern MetaFilter Front Page Post Generator. We could (for example), plug in:

--An icon of Americana (eg. Barbie doll, apple pie, flag, a baseball, etc.)
--A verb phrase ("dipped in", "floating in", "smeared with", "soaking in", etc.)
--A disgusting substance. (eg: urine, feces, bacon grease, gazelle blood, etc.)

And get: "an apple pie floating in gazelle blood", or "a Barbie doll soaking in bacon grease".

Mission accomplished (as you say). Presto you're a nartist! (as Gilbert Shelton used to say).
posted by RavinDave at 1:48 AM on October 20, 2001


Whether Hirst's work is "art" or not is not as weird a picture as the gallery "drones" retrieving it and treating it with the awe and respect, well, that the art world usually bestows upon itself.

I've been an artist for a while and have always been struck by the difference between artists (and their intent) and the rest of the art world. I especially am amused by art marketeers.
posted by Taken Outtacontext at 5:56 AM on October 20, 2001


I just saw this today in the NYTimes -- can't believe I missed the thread on MeFi. Thing is, this makes the cleaner as much of an artist as Hirst. In fact, even more so -- his art is much more pure, much more natural. Hirst is just manipulating garbage for an effect....
posted by mattpfeff at 4:47 PM on October 22, 2001


« Older The truth is out there... but is it The Real Thing...  |  Luckyluncher.com Launches With... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments