Artist chided for wrapping street art in black cloth
An artist in Wilmington, NC covered up another artist's public sculptures with black cloth and rope as a "prank," and the overseer of the Pedestrian Art program is hopping mad about it.
Link(Wilmington Star-News photo by Amy Hotz)
"It was basically a good-hearted prank," said [Dixon] Stetler, a local artist who has had work on display at the Cameron Art Museum and is known for, among other things, paddling a raft made out of flip-flops across the Cape Fear River.
"We didn't damage anything. It's not an angry thing, it's a funny thing."
"I find it incredibly disrespectful, not only to the artist, but to the Pedestrian Art program and the city," said [Matt] Dols, who has been helping to install sculpture downtown under the Pedestrian Art banner for about two years.
the latest
latest episodes
maybe as a way to say he is sorry, he could send him a pack or two of "silly straws"...?
Matt Dols needs to basically just STFU. Dols does not own public spaces, and does not get to dictate how other people show respect for public spaces, of even _if_ they want to show respect.
"I find it incredibly disrespectful, not only to the artist, but to the Pedestrian Art program and the city," said [Matt] Dols,
Maybe, just maybe, Matt Dols and the Pedestrian Art program, are not blessed sacred objects handed down to us and requiring our respect.
Clearly they should be killed for mocking the Kaaba.
A world without pranks - especially good natured ones like this that cause no harm - is not worth saving
How is this a prank? Also, when are all overly-encouraged degenerate losers 'artists'?
Surely I'm missing something, but this just seems incredibly stupid to me, and I can see why Dols and the artists (artists in the sense of people who have worked hard to make something for public benefit) would be annoyed.
Now if you'll pardon me, I have to draw a huge picture of my genitals on a public building because nobody should control public spaces.
The artist Christo might argue that wrapping in itself can be an artistic statement and/or expression. Since no harm was done, the Secondary artist might simply explain his actions as a statement against permanence. Or even a statement regarding how tied up our minds can be with regard to many issues, including art.
Don't you mean "for"?
Wait, does anyone else see the irony in "Pedestrian Art"? If this Dols characters statement is anything to go by, I doubt that was intended; if it was intended: brilliant.
But I don't see why people are worked up over a very temporary change. Didn't the fellow who used Duchamp's fountain get off with a warning [the first time]? Considering how anonymous public sculpture tends to be, and its correlation with rising property values, I would think the town council or whatever would privately cheer someone drawing attention to their art. For instance, at some point the sculpture wasn't there, then it was, then it was hidden; it keeps the piece alive by challenging its meaning. Anyway, rafting down some river with sea thongs doesn't sound very cool for me; but as someone who rues the lack of public discourse about art [beyond "I'm offended"], I appreciate someones attempt to bring public art into discussion.
Outwardly—and without insider knowledge—it’s a very negative statement to cover up someone else’s work with black cloth.
It simply seems lazy and reactionary rather than insightful and critical.
Am I the only one who feels good about public parks? Is there a more benign expression of civic power than pleasant places where you can take your dog or eat a sandwich? We don't need people making 'statements' there.
Completely disrespectful to the artists and even more so to the people whose job it is to beautify public spaces.
So a prankish little art mod is reason to get offended, now? How ridiculous.
Dols should be glad the guy didn't glue penis straws
on them :p
It's a shame that we ran out of free space so quickly, so that artists could display their work for all to see without defacing something else, but I guess these are crowded times we live in and they just have to put it where they can. You know, on the sides of buildings, on the sidewalk, in the dirt and now, on top of other people's art. A shame, really. If only there was some place where artists could display art without causing so much trouble. Like, I dunno, a "gallery" or something. I know, me and my crazy ideas.
I don't understand this disrespectful to the artist business. That artist was paid; [s]he hasn't anything to complain over. 'Disrespectful to the artist' here means disrespectful to the bureaucrat who decided on that artist.
I understand its a slippery slope, but this particular act is on a par with using chalk on the pavement, which i believe is a protected act.
So where do we apply for a grant to get Matty there a sense of humor?
Besides, looks like everyone involved really just got some free publicity...
Here's one of the sculptures. The cloth and rope is an improvement.
The initial installations are art. The wrappings are art. The complaints and debate are art. But the only good art is this thread.
Tak-kun,
Where have you been? It's been dreary.
On a mission of mercy. With semi-reliable email.
takuan...i've been concerned.
Have you returned from your mission of mercy? Did it involve Hu Jintao and ground glass?
never worry about me
I think that is itself the definition of most "art".
still on it, I like your idea though.
Keep me posted. It freaks me out when you disappear. Plus I get bored. And when I get bored, I get cranky.
I think there is a fundamental lack of and/or complete mis - understanding of how many artists interact via their work(s) for many involved in this story and commenting upon it.
Most of my fondest memories of my time in art school are of exactly this sort of behaviour. I had an installation completely worked over (some might even say vandalized) by some of my colleagues and it was an absolute privilege and far better than any of the positive reviews and compliments it had been receiving.
Then use your power of crankiness for good, and fight evil!
I bet you DO have a costume - go on, admit it. In any case, you've earned your spandex.
I am no stranger to tights and capes, but I'm more of a tunic and hip boot type.
A tabard with a sequined "C" for the power of cranky? It's fair to kill them because they have been warned.
They don't need much warning. I produce a freaky amount of static electricity and shoot sparks whenever I touch anything. It's always bad here with 2% humidity, but I seem to spark more than anyone else.
ashita
Just some dummy looking to steal someones thunder.
That's it, I'm now a Stuckist.
wrap this, you fart sucking black cloth art wrapper bastard artist
thank you
Dols is clearly missing the point of everything he does. Typical of art enthusiasts, and all too often with art administrators. The very fact that this discussion is here alone makes the prank successful. Duh.
prank or art, i say "yawn"
Jack, in principle I agree with you. I do not want to give people free license to go around covering up public art. But in theory something like this "wrapped art" may be a valid expression. And I say that knowing that nothing was harmed. Just look this action has stimulated a little conversation here. Perhaps this Wrap Artist can do something bigger. How about wrapping the Statue of Liberty in black. Or is that too obvious a statement?
This Doles guy is operating under a pretty narrow definition of what public art and public spaces are for. Sad.
Also, "Pedestrian Art"?
hahaha...
@#9. Thanks, Zuzu for the link to the Slought series! Lots of good reading/thinking.
Songe
"Is there a more benign expression of civic power than pleasant places where you can take your dog or eat a sandwich? We don't need people making 'statements' there."
Taking your dog to a park is also making a statement. It is an expression of bourgeois privilege that claims sole ownership of a public space. Your reaction is fundamentally arrogant and excludes those who might wish to make different statements.
I like your idea Jeff and I think even the bone stupid American public would get the point.
"Baobab", a piece of pedestrian art near my house has been covered in plastic wrap for the past three (or is it 4?) years because it has leaked from the day it was installed and the tiles on it are in danger of falling off! (Many already have.)
At one point there was a plywood box around the base which my neighbor wrote slogans on (this isn't art it's an eyesore) after he got sick of the plastic wrap flapping in the wind. The RACC eventually painted the box and then removed it when they upgraded their plastic wrap from generic to Saran (tm).
I'd be happy if Stetler came to Portland and wrapped this thing in Black cloth!
Tcha. Noen, being in the park with your dog doesn't claim sole ownership. It claims the right to be there, part of the public life of the polis.
Takuan, how good to see you. Antinous, doesn't that kill your wristwatches?
...
Wrapping the statue in fabric is a Christo riff, a known trope.
(Story: the first time I went to the Museum of Modern Art, came around a corner and found a wheelbarrow that had a squarish cloth-wrapped parcel in it. I swear, I honestly thought it was equipment some workmen had temporarily left sitting there. As a joke, I said "Look! It's a baby Christo!" AND IT WAS. There was a little plaque (as I belatedly realized) identifying it as an early Christo. It made me feel sorry for Christo's mom if she ever tried to get him to help dry the dishes.)
Dixon Stetler didn't damage the art, and she and her friends did a beautiful job of wrapping it. I love the way she turned "Christo" into a verb: "I would be so honored if someone Christoed my work."
I don't know if she intended it this way, but veiling and unveiling statues is also an Easter-related observance. If Stetler did intend to make that reference, she got the timing right: the statue was unveiled on Good Friday. There's a buried pun on "Christo" somewhere in there.
Time and the world and human activity always interact with art. If you want an example, click through on Vespabelle's link.
Now, if I'd been determined to hack Prism Arc II, I'd have put giant french fries in it. If IKEA were in the burger-and-fries business, their takeout french-fry container would look just like that statue.
...
P.S.: HibiscusRoto (36), "yawn" right back at you.
Wrapping the statue in fabric is a Christo riff, a known trope.
Moderator, if it's a Christo riff, does that mean it's good, and that it's a little over the top at the same time? I need you to explain that sentence, because it's unclear to me.
I think this urban guerrilla artistic expression may be more effective than Christo, since this new artist didn't seek permission, but acted as a true rougue, making his statement in definance of the accepted Dogma of the hive mind. Going against the grain and challanging conformaty are well established attributes of many a celebrated artist. I'd like this guy to do an installation of 4,000 black-wrapped and ropped forms, about the size of the average adult male. Just pile them up in front of the White House. I think that would be fine bit of art. Especially if it offends people.
BTDT
search "who art the art police" on You Tube.
I think it's pretty stupid but harmless. Plus the art ended up getting more exposure because of the prank. Honestly, would anyone care about pedestrian art in Wilmington, NC with out something like this happening? Dols should be thanking him for some major publicity.
The idea of art in public space being static is what is lame. If you want your art to remain the same and forever, lock it away in a museum or gallery where it becomes incredibly challenging to properly appreciate it. If you want it to be real, set it free upon the world and accept the consequences. Art should be a dialog, not a statement, especially when in the publics realm.
Artministration my artss.
Teresa
Tcha. Noen, being in the park with your dog doesn't claim sole ownership. It claims the right to be there, part of the public life of the polis.
Yes, if that were as far as it went I would agree, but it doesn't stop there. The sentiment, and I don't want to single out songe, only the attitude, often goes on to make a claim to exclusive use of public places. It says "Only we get to define how a park should be used." Not artists, not the poor, nor any other group currently out of favor.
It is part and parcel with the general colonization of the commons by corporate interests. It's why political speech is banned from semi-public spaces like malls and why I believe that in due time political speech will also be banned from fully public space. This goal will be accomplished by exploiting this desire to not be confronted.
Wrapping a statue in public space isn't just an artistic statement, it's highly political as well. It says "I have a right to express myself artistically in public. Your rights do not trump mine." There was no damage, this was not an act of vandalism. Matt and the people he represents demand everyone respect the artist. Would they then respect an independent artist who placed his/her works in public? No, they would not.
The reaction by Matt and others says "I have a higher authority and a privileged status re: public works of art. Only I posses the right to make a public artistic expression and to expect that no one disturb it. Your only right is the right to consume." I reject that claim.
Will sculptors now have to release their works with a creative commons style license: "It's ok to take pictures for your personal use, it's ok non-destructively interact with my works"?
Am I the only one who keeps thinking, "His name is Robert Paulson."
It would be different if the art were damaged in any way. Not exactly anger-worthy to pull black cloth of your precious artwork. Artists, get over yourselves.
The moment artists get over themselves, Rick., advanced culture will cease to exist. But hey, there are all sorts of ways for you to experiment with this in your own life, if you're genuinely serious about it. You can start by chucking your music collection.
By the way, I was posting on behalf of artists, being one myself. Pull all the pranks you like. Just don't damage my shit.
Starcadia, get over yourself.
If it was my sculpture, I would be offended. Simple as that. It was rude to cover it. However, I do understand "reclaiming" the public space by covering it. If you're not afraid to be rude to the artists to make your statement then do so, but don't forget that a real person made that sculpture and is probably very proud that someone (the city) is displaying it.
I had an installation completely worked over (some might even say vandalized) by some of my colleagues and it was an absolute privilege and far better than any of the positive reviews and compliments it had been receiving.
-----------
Sorry, not believable. Try having it worked over by someone who is jealous of your work and "pretends" to respect it when in fact, they are vandalizing it. I saw MUCH more of that and the people defending their vandalism are the ones who always have to trot out that B***sh** argument about "who can say what art really is?" Look, people who make good quality art never have to explain themselves to people who know art. People who are phony artists who are just bad at what they do are always asked to defend their pretend art. That's how criticism works.
Look at the pop artists. The public would joke about them, but the art world always supported them. I knew people making really crappy representational paintings who would criticize them, but the best painters I knew always supported other great painters, regardless of how amateurish they are.
only a very bad artist or narcissistic "look at me" person would wrap someone else's art this way and I say that with 25 years experience around good and awful artists. Every artist that I knew who "made it" was always super nice to me about my writing. The artists who went nowhere would always try to use my writing to gain an advantage to themselves and friends reported them talking behind my back.
Wrapping a sculpture doesn't contain enough of a theme to be "real art," unlike Christo.
don't forget that a real person made that sculpture and is probably very proud that someone (the city) is displaying it.
Maybe. For starters, these things are for sale, so public money is subsidizing an outdoor gallery show, whatever you think of that. Second, there's an industry that generates civic/corporate art, huge sculptures that only exist to go in parks, plazas and corporate atria. In that context, it's hard for me to get too worked up about damaging the artist's soul. Third, the sculptures are eyesores. The artist has better work, but that ain't it.
Overall I agree with DCer, but I also agree with Antinous on a couple of points. One, the wrapped sculpture is crap and was improved by the wrapping. And two, this is what I meant by the colonization of public space by private interests. It's a publicly funded gallery show that chips away at the notion that "we" own and control our public spaces.
Here is another eyesore that I'd like to have wrapped full time.
360 pano of Mary Tyler Moore
Caution, VR pano resizes your browser.
I'll see your Mary Tyler Moore and raise you a Sonny Bono.
antinous, rather than a black wrapped cloth that one would be improved with a well placed aspen pine or so.
if someone encased takuan in black cloth and tied up the bundle in rope... i wouldn't mind. nobody should establish such a domineering presence. takuan needs to be more frequently absent from bb. it is so rare a comments thread can be read without having to deal with his in-jokes and the clique herd falling in line with fellatio.
Yeah but he'd enjoy it.
Damn you Antinous, that's hideous.
Such animus, Hippocritical! Being cleverer and more amusing than you is indeed a heinous crime. Although perhaps not a very uncommon one.
Damn you Antinous, that's hideous.
I see it in real life at least three times a week. The crotch is all shiny from little tourist children squiggling their butts on it while their parents take photos.
I missed you too, Hippo.
I really have a herd??? Oh goody, can I start branding them now? As for "in-jokes"; they're not "in" so much as "educated". That's why my clique of sycophants gets them. Why don't you?
If this offended artist had any gravy he'd be riffing the riff. Getting all snotty and appealing to the cops smacks of someone who thinks art can be dictated by authority or seniority. Well,frequently it is. But it shouldn't be. (holds up "APPLAUSE" card, crowd goes wild on cue)
holds up "APPLAUSE" card, crowd goes wild on cue
I'm glad that you didn't go with (unzips). The obvious gambit would pander to the LCD.
Noen was right you know.
Duh.
FELLATIO???...I have never had sexual relations with takuan.
Neither have I, Sonny; neither have I.
I got an alert on Hippocritical's comment, but I see it's already being handled.
...
Antinous, you can't scare me; I've already seen that in person.
The Mary Tyler Moore statue is on Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis. It's there because that part of the city is to fans of the The Mary Tyler Moore Show as Oxford is if you're into Dorothy Sayers. (That's "there" as in "as opposed to being anywhere else," rather than "as opposed to not existing.")
The statue's across the street from the IDS Center. The opening sequence of the TV show where she throws her hat in the air was filmed in the IDS Center's lobby, so people would go there and get their picture taken throwing their hat in the air on the same spot. It's like getting your picture taken walking barefoot across Abbey Road in the Beatles' zebra crossing.
Why anyone would want a statue of Sonny Bono is beyond me.
...
Jeff (43): good, a little over the top, and more effective than Christo. I like your idea for that impossible project.
DCer (54), you may not find Lizardman's story believable, but I do. Editing is like that sometimes: you and the author thrash the work to pieces, rebuild it, and afterward feel like you ought to be offering each other a cigarette. Steve Brust and I had a session like that just a few months ago with the latest Vlad Taltos novel, and I have fond memories of the time Keith Giffen and I took apart an entire comic book continuity and put it back together again two and a half times in a single morning.
Hippocritical (59), those aren't clique in-jokes. I'll just leave it at that.
Moderator, thanks for the clarification.
I vote for more Takuan. His comments are some of the best!
I'm just thinking about how public art is approached here in Chicago. We have a lot of sculptures in public spaces, but we get to have some fun with them. When the White Sox went to the world series, all of the horses and lions downtown were sporting official white socks for the duration. Kids jump and play on the Picasso sculpture in Daley Plaza. I think if anyone tried to modify, cover, or speak harshly to "The Bean," they'd be run off by a mob, because it's so beloved...but nobody calls it by it's proper name ("Cloud Gate") because nobody cares what the artist wants.
The trick, maybe, is to have at least some sculptures that people really love, and to encourage people to have fun with them and enjoy them. That way people respect your city's public sculpture program and don't mess with the less popular sculptures you deploy.
Unless, of course, they have a semi-private space inside them, like Monument with Standing Beast (AKA "Big white thing at the Thompson center"). Those always become public urinals, no matter what.
I don't really mind the MTM sculpture so much. Thank god it isn't as bad as the Sonny Bono. I just think it was executed poorly, it's mediocre. The fans, and I'm certainly one, deserved better. There is Granlud's Birth of Freedom just up the street in front of the Westminister Church that I really love. At the other end is Botero's The Dancers, that is equally great.
I think a project where all the public sculptures in Minneapolis were wrapped in black cloth, or maybe plastic, would be interesting even if a bit derivative. Maybe seed the cloth with grass seed and let it sprout. That might even be kind of cool.
you know, once upon a time "public art" meant art done by the public. Are we that far away from mandatory Artist's Licenses? Will the beret be a fining offense for forgetting?
OK, I think I get it: Encrusted pigeon excrement all over someone's art is just fine, but a temporary piece of fabric is simply going too far. Perhaps it was a misunderstood attempt to protect the sculpture from pigeon poop?
Or perhaps there were hideous and obscene parts of human anatomy exposed that needed covering in order to protect common decency, like when Ashcroft spent around $8,000 of taxpayer's money to cover the hideously offensive breasts of the "Spirit of Justice?" (he denied ordering it, but c'mon..) I think the artist who did this prank could teach the Justice Department a lot about budgeting, if nothing else.
Personally I think it'd be a more effective statement to cover publicly displayed statues of people with just a little bit of black cloth, as in just enough to cover their heads like those pictures of hooded 'detainees' from Guantanamo we've all seen. Covering abstract public sculptures instead of statues of people risks improving them and that might encourage artists to keep making more abstract public sculptures (an unintended consequence we must avoid).
What Would Banksy Do?
DCr (54), y my nt fnd Lzrdmn's stry blvbl, bt d.
---------
Thrs, frnkly, y hv sch hstry f bd psts vn s mdrtr, tht vn rdng yr stry dn't blv y. Srry, y'v cght hll fr yr psts nd knw t.
Lighten up, Dols.