Comments on: Yellow is the new black.

Yellow is the new black.

fatllama — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:28:59 -0800

Delete!, fettered capitalism in Vienna.

By: me3dia

me3dia — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:37:21 -0800

I like the idea, but it's kind of clumsy looking. I guess maybe the yellow highlights the sheer yardage of marketing/branding/general signage in the photos, but I think the referenced (and previously discussed) Untitled Project is more effective, giving us a peek at how the world would look without the text.

By: bugbread

bugbread — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:38:10 -0800

Sorry, random correction: The second picture isn't Ginza, it's Shibuya.

By: amber_dale

amber_dale — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:43:10 -0800

That's even uglier than the ads would be, if only because of the unfortunate choice of color.

By: cavalier

cavalier — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:46:50 -0800

I think it's great at showcasing just how much of our visual space is taken by "branding" "visual communication" or "Fuckin ads"

By: wendell

wendell — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:49:16 -0800

I disagree with the use of the color yellow too. It should be shit brown.

By: slogger

slogger — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:59:29 -0800

by "logos" do you mean "insignia" or "the Word of God?"

By: bugbread

bugbread — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:01:22 -0800

I don't think it would take so much yellow to cover up the Word of God.

By: neckro23

neckro23 — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:49:47 -0800

Using the yellow is a good way to point out how much space is being taken up by advertisement, but it's not a very good way of helping people visualize what these spaces would really be like without said advertisements. I think a better (and more subtle) approach would have been to make the covers a neutral color (like grey or black), or have them match the color of surrounding objects.

By: longsleeves

longsleeves — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:00:19 -0800

I think this "Art" is clumsy and obvious, and conceptually flaccid. That's right, conceptually flaccid.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:01:25 -0800

What they should have done is put the 'blocked out' image on another layer in photoshop, and then taken the brightness from the origional layer, thus preserving the shadows.

By: disgruntled

disgruntled — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:27:21 -0800

I prefer to look at the signs instead of that lousy architecture.

By: carmen

carmen — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:31:18 -0800

This is different from the Untitled Project because it was done in the material world: In a remarkable display of cooperation for the sake of art, every store on a popular shopping street in Vienna allowed their signage to be masked in yellow fluorescent foil. The artists also “deleted” all public signs and signals, except those necessary for road safety. The installation ran from June 6–30. The pictures are interesting, but I think to get the real impact of the installation we would have had to have been there. I think it would have been really interesting to walk around with no signs. You'd really have a chance to see how much information you normally process subconsiously.

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:47:31 -0800

Eh, De La Vega would just draw over it.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:18:27 -0800

If anything this project is making me appreciate the publicity and logos I see in public places. Seriously, this looks like shit.

By: Harry

Harry — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 02:32:31 -0800

PAINTING YELLOW OVER A PHOTO == ART

By: hal9k

hal9k — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:05:03 -0800

Mental Note: Supply cabinet is out of Post-It Notes. Staples has them on sale. Also: new Simpson DVD is out. I suddenly have to take a wiz but when I get back I'll try and figure out what all this means.

By: haqspan

haqspan — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:46:29 -0800

The man in the photo is pondering either the “smooth orderless space” or “the geometric bodies now more evident due to the monochrome uniformity of the signs”. Or he’s trying to figure out where the hell he is. That’s okay. A little befuddlement is a small price to pay for such a powerful piece of art. This is like people who suggest that spray painting your name on the sides of people's home is art.

By: carmen

carmen — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:31:49 -0800

haqspan, if the homeowners agreed, why would it not be art? (note that "art" is not synonomous with "good art." I'm just a little confused as to why people tend to say that art they don't like isn't art)

By: longsleeves

longsleeves — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:00:18 -0800

I'm just a little confused as to why people tend to say that art they don't like isn't art) Older: Cute faux confusion! My guess would be that most people desire art that intrigues, provokes thought, you know? Art that informs or transforms or reveals. By the way, all of the signs that were obscured by the color yellow in the name of art were designed by graphic artists.

By: carmen

carmen — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:13:17 -0800

My guess would be that most people desire art that intrigues, provokes thought, you know? Right, but you've just described the qualities of good art, not art. Just because an installation doesn't provoke or intrigue you doesn't mean that it isn't art. I'm kind of ambivalent about this installation: I think I might like it if I were immersed in it, but it doesn't thrill me the way somethings do. My personal ambivalence, however, does not lead me to conclude that it is not, in fact, art. If anything is art, then a creative endeavor planned and executed by an artist in order to make an artistic statement is art. You can say that the statement failed, that the art sucked, but that doesn't make it not art By the way, all of the signs that were obscured by the color yellow in the name of art were designed by graphic artists. There are so many nits to pick with this statement, but I will limit myself to the pertinent one: The fact that commercial signs are frequently designed by artists does not refute my point that art does not have to be "good art" in order to be considered art. If anything, it seems to support my point by suggesting that art is defined by the producer: i.e. if an artist makes it, it is art.

By: Snyder

Snyder — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:52:11 -0800

Where's R. Mutt when you need him?

By: longsleeves

longsleeves — Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:17:15 -0800

I did not say that the installation is not art. (little late, I know.)

By: carmen

carmen — Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:54:33 -0800

Actually you did. If that was not your intent, you should read up on the use of scare quotes. Perhaps this small miscommunication is why you interpreted my genuine confusion as "faux."