So I saw this today
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/france/parisandaround/11169917/Paris-sex-toy-sculpture-causes-a-stir.html
And was reminded yet again why I get so frustrated with the Modern/Abstract art community.
First off the next person that gasps and calls my art riské is getting a list of MUCH more evocative pieces than mine and told to suck it up, because I am positively conservative in comparison…you know who you are!
Secondly, artists like McCarthy frustrate me. Didn’t you study Art History? Duchamp made his point with his “Fountain” now move on, learn from it and stop peddling crap (in some cases literally).
Just because it worked for Margritte does not mean you can pull it off especially when the piece you are trying to re-create is giant, bright green and clearly resembles a sex toy. “Ceci N’est pas une…” Um yes, yes it is.
I’m sure the Slap Happy Parisian was just trying help Mr McCarthy snap back to reality.
As good old Shakespeare said
“What’s in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet;”….
Hmm wait, You say “Tree”, I say “Sex toy”…it’s still a Potato.
The other trouble with pieces like “Tree” and many, many others like it is that they cause the non Art community to question the value of Art as a discipline, especially a government funded one that will cause lil Timmy to have grand thoughts of someday creating giant inflatable sex toys and sticking them in the middle of a major city and also tends to add fodder to the grand debate to cut Arts from schools altogether.
So just a thought, for future reference (and to keep the non-Art community off our backs,) the next time you want to evoke the whole identity switcheroo you aim for subtly.
For example
How about a giant inflatable Green Lego Tree called “Sex Toy” 😉
If nothing else, Bob Ross might rest better knowing that “in our world there lives a happy little tree”.
Amanda Milke 