Right so it’s lunch time and I was sitting here eating my bento and browsing the net when I stumbled upon 2 exhibits that kinda ruffled my fur as it were.
The first one is called “Head On” by Cai Guo-Qiang.
It is quite literally wolves in sheep’s clothing.
I quote: “ The wolves were produced in Quanzhou, China, from January to June of 2006. The commissioned local workshop in Cai’s hometown specializes in manufacturing remarkable, life-sized replicas of animals. First, small clay models were created as movement studies, out of which Cai subsequently developed Head On’s artist editions of cast resin wolves. However, the realistic and lifelike 99 wolves that grew out of these models and drawings possess no literal remnants of wolves: they are fabricated from painted sheepskins and stuffed with hay and metal wires, with plastic lending contour to their faces and marbles for eyes. ” (source)
Ok aesthetically speaking it’s a cool exhibit. I’m even down with the artist’s intended meaning. AND I get that they’re all happy that no wolves were harmed in the producing of this piece. But that I don’t get is how they justify the sheep?
What? Because they’re edible it’s ok to slaughter 99 sheep in the name of Art?
Yippee, free mutton for the assembly crew!?
The second one, Apples as pixels
(I couldn’t find the original source for this one so if anyone knows of it, let me know.)
Ok sure, it’s beautiful, probably fairly original and all, but what the hell were they thinking. I mean first off, what an absolutely senseless waste of food. I dunno who thought it was a good idea to strip the fields of its produce and slap em on walls for decoration instead, of oh I dunno, maybe feeding the homeless or selling them and then feeding the homeless with the profit money.
I mean if that fact alone doesn’t bother you, think for moment…what happens when those things start rotting off buildings?
Hmm? Not a pretty picture anymore now is it?
I dunno, in the infamous words of William Shatner I just “can’t get behind that”
9 thoughts on “WTF is Art Issue #1: The debate on good or bad art”
The wolves are just odd. I agree with you on the idea that it’s cool but you’re right. That much mutton isn’t worth the effort.
As for the fruit. The mind just boggles…
I agree that there are some intensely stupid choices made for these two projects, though I like to think that the sheepskins used for the wolf project weren’t acquired specifically for the art. Natural causes or whatever may have been the source, in which case I would have less against it.
The second one? That’s just completely idiotic and those people should be strung up by their toes.
Also, awesome song off one of my favorite albums ever.
yeah, I’m really wondering what this apple art stands for- I mean you’re right that it’s pretty, but…. I’m gonna start counting the apples to see how many starving children could of had some… it’s sad. But still wondering what the concept of this was. I agree with Jon that perhaps the sheep skins were not aquired only for the art. But you never know. However if they were, you’d think that someone somewhere would have revolted against this, and would have reported it. animal slaughter(for pleasure)= not good. It;s a simple formula that only a few would disagree with (again,I would hope so)
I used to live in an orchard. We harvested tons of apples in the fall. Apples can be used for compost as long as there are no apple maggot infestation issues.
They can be pressed into cider, even after a day or two in a project like this. These probably did rot on the nails, but I noticed the boxes they used are the kind used to ship wholesale.
I am certain they purchased these apples, in which case these people are free to do as they please with them. The farmer has been paid for the product.
Otherwise there would be a moral imperative that all food purchased must be eaten by someone or not purchased at all.
I’m sure someone did purchase the apples from someone but in all likelihood it was probably an already well off wholesale business rather than some poor farmer.
And with your logic of “if I paid for it I can do as I please” is not well founded. If paying for something justified it’s use this would be an even sadder world than it already is. With that mind set if I had the capital to back me I could pay for whatever I wanted and would be free to do as I please. Ie: Whether it be food or animals or people. I paid for them I can treat them as I like…see the problem in that logic?
But my biggest issue with this piece was its sheer level of wastefulness. Where does the money come from to invest in such a project? Someone, somewhere had to fund it and that in itself seems a waste of resources. I mean did someone somewhere say “I know, lets forget about the worlds problems for a minute and let’s invest in soon to be rotting apples because they’ll make the block pretty!” I dunno
And that aside I dunno what you do with food but generally speaking I tend to purchase it with the intend of eating it. So I’d say, that “moral imperative” already exists.
Saw the apples here:
Artist is Helge Lundstrom.
For the record, I like temporary art. It enriches while it is here, it’s perhaps of more value because its time is limited and if it’s rotten..it goes!
Nice blog. 🙂
Thanks and thanks for the artist fyi 🙂
Nice pixels. 🙂