sizzle
August 19, 2006 9:06 AM   Subscribe

"Inthewrongplaceness" is a live art installation whereupon a naked woman cradles a dead pig.
posted by The Jesse Helms (49 comments total)
 
Weird! I can actually physically feel myself becoming more Republican as I read the arts reviews of this performance.
posted by jonson at 9:10 AM on August 19, 2006


On second thought, I wonder if she's available for Bar Mitzvahs...
posted by jonson at 9:11 AM on August 19, 2006


I read on another site something about "O'Reilly and a dead pig" and I immediately wanted to hear what Keith Olbermann had to say.

Boy was I disappointed.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:14 AM on August 19, 2006


bodine?
posted by adamvasco at 9:16 AM on August 19, 2006


um, ew.
posted by owhydididoit at 9:20 AM on August 19, 2006


If you double-click any word on that page it comes up with a dictionary definition. Cool trick.
posted by banished at 9:22 AM on August 19, 2006


This is nothing new. In Tijuana, they have a live art installation with a naked woman and a donkey. It's really something.
posted by fatbobsmith at 9:24 AM on August 19, 2006 [1 favorite]


Loved the double-clicking any word on the page.
posted by nickyskye at 9:26 AM on August 19, 2006


Debate the artistic merit of the actual piece all you like, but, holy porkrind, that's an awful title.

Adamvasco, nicely played.
posted by scarylarry at 9:27 AM on August 19, 2006


On second thought, I wonder if she's available for Bar Mitzvahs...

A Purim party I went to earlier this year featured a film in which a naked man ritually dismembered a cow before rubbing the entrails over himself and inserting the various parts of the cow up his bottom.
posted by flashboy at 9:33 AM on August 19, 2006


Now THATS a party.
posted by Lord_Pall at 9:35 AM on August 19, 2006


"If you double-click any word on that page it comes up with a dictionary definition. Cool trick."

That was the best part of the FPP.
posted by Eideteker at 9:39 AM on August 19, 2006


The work is explicit, sometimes uncomfortable, and seeks to question rather than provide easy answers.

I wonder what, exactly, the artist means to question with this performance. It seems a bit too easy to do something vaguely outrageous without making any kind of substantive ideological commitment, and it's been done so many times already that it's past the point of cliche. It's hard to imagine something like this as anything but parody at this point.
posted by clockzero at 9:44 AM on August 19, 2006


Hawt.
posted by Bageena at 9:55 AM on August 19, 2006


All my necroporcinopornographic dreams come true!
posted by Captaintripps at 10:07 AM on August 19, 2006


"whereupon?"
posted by j-dub at 10:12 AM on August 19, 2006


Quite disturbing. I never did understand much of "modern" art.
posted by citizenkane at 10:20 AM on August 19, 2006


Artsy opinion of this art.

And as if "Inthewrongplaceness" weren't silly enough, I then read about one of her other "current productions". View (nearer to the time) is
Intimate and personal one-on-one negotiations are made by email correspondence and phone conversations between artist and audience to negotiate the making or not making of a cut on the artist’s body. The audience then meet with the artist’s shrouded and impersonalised body in small groups to make or not make their mark.

I wonder, does Ms O'Reilly make a living of this? Or does she work a few hours a week at the local Starbuck's or MacDonalds?
posted by CodeBaloo at 10:22 AM on August 19, 2006


If you double-click any word on that page it comes up with a dictionary definition.

How did you find out? Do you routinely double-click text, just to see what happens? Damn, I'm slothful and incurious—the whole internet could be full of clickable definitions and I'd never have known until somebody told me.

On topic, I think she just has a thing for pigs. Dead pigs.
posted by languagehat at 10:26 AM on August 19, 2006


This is why we will lose the War on Terror

This is why we will win the War on Terror

Choose one.
posted by A189Nut at 10:31 AM on August 19, 2006


I prefer art with cheap, easy answers.
posted by fleetmouse at 10:35 AM on August 19, 2006


Fleetmouse, now that is art... well, except, maybe, Momii.

Polaroid prints of my own "current installation", Fat Guy In MeFi Glow Looking at Dookie Sprinkles and Dead Pigs are available for $400USD. Contact the artiste for details.
posted by CodeBaloo at 10:44 AM on August 19, 2006


...Or do I have to be naked?
posted by CodeBaloo at 10:44 AM on August 19, 2006


Intimate and personal one-on-one negotiations are made by email correspondence and phone conversations between artist and audience to negotiate the making or not making of a cut on the artist’s body. The audience then meet with the artist’s shrouded and impersonalised body in small groups to make or not make their mark.

Yoko Ono already did this, better, 30+ years ago.
posted by stammer at 10:45 AM on August 19, 2006


My guess is she's some kind of militant vegetarian.
posted by Afroblanco at 10:45 AM on August 19, 2006


well, except, maybe, Momii.

But, but, CodeBaloo! The Marlboro formula 1 car...!

That would be so sweet next to a black velvet Ayn Rand.
posted by fleetmouse at 10:52 AM on August 19, 2006


I suppose that, all things considered, I'd rather see this than a naked pig cradling a dead woman.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:01 AM on August 19, 2006


Nicely played, Faint of Butt.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:05 AM on August 19, 2006


Yoko Ono already did this, better, 30+ years ago.

Er, except that Yoko invited the audience to cut off her clothes, not cut her. Which is rather a different proposition. And an interesting one - a lot of these live art people are into cutting, leeches, needles &c. (following Franko B), but I've not heard of one putting the onus on the audience to do the cutting before. I'd be interested to know whether anyone will be able to bring themselves to slice her up.

It seems a bit too easy to do something vaguely outrageous without making any kind of substantive ideological commitment, and it's been done so many times already that it's past the point of cliche.

Have you ever been to a performance like this? They sound silly when described, but can be pretty profoundly affecting. I mean, being stuck in a small room alone with a woman crushing herself with a sow corpse is, at the very least, going to be a memorable experience. It may not be saying anything, but I think you have to look at it as more akin to contemporary dance than visual art - an aesthetic experience.

And you know who else said that art had to make a 'substantive ideological commitment'? Hitler. ;-)

That said, a friend of mine works for an organisation that arranges funding for live art practitioners, and he says it sometimes takes more than one meeting for him to work out whether the person applying for a grant is an artist or a nutter. He also gets some really, really unpleasant stuff in the post.
posted by jack_mo at 11:18 AM on August 19, 2006 [1 favorite]


Er, except that Yoko invited the audience to cut off her clothes, not cut her

Hence my "better"!
posted by stammer at 11:45 AM on August 19, 2006


Ah. So Polaroids just wouldn't qualify. Bummer. With that in mind, if anyone wants to come over and watch "experience" Fat Guy In MeFi Glow Looking at Dookie Sprinkles and Dead Pigs: A 17-Minute Interaction, the gallery accepts PayPal in advance or Samuel Adams Cream Stout at the door. You know who else didn't like Polaroids, PayPal or Sam Adams...
posted by CodeBaloo at 11:53 AM on August 19, 2006


That should be "wherein", not "whereupon". But an interestinglink anyway.
posted by jiawen at 11:57 AM on August 19, 2006


Dead pig? Bleh. I'd much rather see her cuddling a cum-eating monkey! Now that would be art!
posted by nlindstrom at 12:27 PM on August 19, 2006


a lot of these live art people are into cutting, leeches, needles &c. (following Franko B), but I've not heard of one putting the onus on the audience to do the cutting before.
posted by jack_mo at 7:18 PM


Chris Burden's "Back to You" does something that's at least very similar. He gathered a small group of art world denizens together in an elevator and presented them with his naked torso, a box of pins, and a sign that said "Push pins into me." For the record, I think that Burden's is a brilliant piece, whereas O'reilley's--not so much. Burden's piece was largely about playing on the notoreity he'd gained from "Shoot," and turning the moral burden back on the art consumers. So it was essential that he already *have* notoreity as a body artist who made himself famous for self-mutilation. That, and he thought of it first.
posted by scarylarry at 12:45 PM on August 19, 2006


Erm, that should be "notoriety." x2. Yeesh.
posted by scarylarry at 12:49 PM on August 19, 2006


Call me a philestine, but this is a great example of why most brits think the British Arts Council can't tell the difference between art and a big pit in the ground with cash set on light with gasoline.

It's rather depressing when you're just relieved the pig hasn't been pickled in a tank first.
posted by ArkhanJG at 1:07 PM on August 19, 2006


Call me a philestine, but this is a great example of why most brits think the British Arts Council can't tell the difference between art and a big pit in the ground with cash set on light with gasoline.

What IS the difference?
posted by stammer at 1:13 PM on August 19, 2006 [1 favorite]


That should be "wherein", not "whereupon". But an interestinglink anyway.
posted by jiawen at 11:57 AM PST on August 19


'Wherein' would be nonsensical. Cradling a dead pig is a function of the art installation. It is not a static entity within an art installation. The art installation, being live, like real-time, commences and as a consequence of this a naked woman reaps her sow.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 1:16 PM on August 19, 2006


Sorry, that's not art. If she was pissing on a the pig, THEN it would be art.
posted by bob sarabia at 1:41 PM on August 19, 2006


remove that 'a', plz.
posted by bob sarabia at 1:42 PM on August 19, 2006


Have you ever been to a performance like this? They sound silly when described, but can be pretty profoundly affecting. I mean, being stuck in a small room alone with a woman crushing herself with a sow corpse is, at the very least, going to be a memorable experience. It may not be saying anything, but I think you have to look at it as more akin to contemporary dance than visual art - an aesthetic experience.

I see what you're saying. I would agree with you that it's probably more meaningful to compare it to modern dance, for example, than a painting hanging in a gallery. And yes, I've been to things like these. The expressionistic form of the work itself is not what bothers me, it's this particular one. It just seems lazy and provocative in an irritatingly simplistic way. Just not my cup of tea I suppose.

And you know who else said that art had to make a 'substantive ideological commitment'? Hitler. ;-)

I've never heard of that person before in my entire life.
posted by clockzero at 2:15 PM on August 19, 2006


I think Beavis and Butthead put it best:

"This 'means' something."
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:23 PM on August 19, 2006


"Inthewrongplaceness"
My dick went there once. Guess my tax dollars beat me to it.
posted by hal9k at 4:54 PM on August 19, 2006


THE ARISTOCRATS!
posted by Krrrlson at 6:39 PM on August 19, 2006 [1 favorite]



Yoko Ono already did this, better, 30+ years ago.


Nah, I'm thinking Joseph Beuys had both of 'em beat by at least a few years.
posted by Vervain at 8:01 PM on August 19, 2006


stammer:
What IS the difference?

It was taxpayer's money, for a start. I'd have a lot more respect for them burning money they'd actually had to work hard for.

I'm the last person to claim he knows all that is good in art, and I know there's plenty of good art that has nothing to do with chocolate box paintings.
Personally, I think art is something that makes you think or feel something different, as long as it's not just 'my God, that artist is a tosser'.

That is my fundamental problem with the British Arts Council. There's plenty of interesting artistic and community projects around the country crying out for money. But they seem to spend most of their budget on performance wankery, and gallery art that cleaners mistake for rubbish that somebody left out to be disposed of.

Body Worlds - art.
Naked woman cuddling a dead pig, playing with knives? - not so much.
posted by ArkhanJG at 8:07 PM on August 19, 2006


Oops, my mistake. For some reason, I thought KLF were burning prize money from the Arts council, rather than a million quid of their touring money in protest at the British arts establishment.
That'll teach me not to wait to google till after i've posted. Sorry.
posted by ArkhanJG at 8:14 PM on August 19, 2006


This isn't all that different to cooking bacon in just your underpants for breakfast.
posted by randomination at 3:43 AM on August 20, 2006


Modern Art: For the Emo Flakes who can't play guitar.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:52 AM on August 20, 2006


« Older Encyclopaedia of the Orient   |   Power Pulling - Farm Dragsters Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments