Public "Art"

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Negative sentiment within the Native community is picking up steam: http://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/bl...ture-1.4247127

They should head over to BC so the good people of Vancouver and Victoria can educate them on Art.

They seem to know best.

"Its not Garbage...its Art! Super-swearsies!"

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

They should provide a side by side illustration showing how their culture was "stolen", because those don't really look anything like burial scaffolds. I'd say the "sick to their stomach" feeling is associated with them not cashing in on the contract as opposed to any "appropriated" culture.

Already done a while back. And the last part seems a bit much.

http://www.windspeaker.com/news/wind...econciliation/

http://globalnews.ca/news/3653569/re...ers-sculpture/

Originally Posted by chemgear

Maybe the death theme of the art will help people drive more carefully and slowly on the road.

Nahhhhh.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3653569/re...ers-sculpture/




“I don’t think they were set out to offend anybody but without truly checking in with the indigenous voices, you’re going to do something that isn’t right,” Stimson says. “As a Blackfoot man, I will have difficulty going by that piece and even as a contemporary artist, I can accept it, but I will go by thinking funeral platforms no matter what I do.”

[SebC]

The notion of "cultural theft" implies that ideas, styles etc. should be the exclusive domain of certain people by virtue of ethnicity. It is an inherently racist and regressive notion.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by SebC

The notion of "cultural theft" implies that ideas, styles etc. should be the exclusive domain of certain people by virtue of ethnicity. It is an inherently racist and regressive notion.

This.

Never understood the big brouahaha about cultural appropriation. No, having borderline racist sports emblems and names are poor, but most appropriation is simple innocent and fine. I shouldn't eat ginger beef?

[Muta]

I'm probably going to get creamed on this board for writing this, but from an artistic perspective, I am now loving this commission. I'm not a huge fan from an aesthetic perspective, but I sure as hell am one from an artistic perspective. This piece of art is invoking a response from all over. Good or bad, people are interpreting it and forming opinions, which is what art is supposed to do.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Muta

I'm probably going to get creamed on this board for writing this, but from an artistic perspective, I am now loving this commission. I'm not a huge fan from an aesthetic perspective, but I sure as hell am one from an artistic perspective. This piece of art is invoking a response from all over. Good or bad, people are interpreting it and forming opinions, which is what art is supposed to do.

Some things that are controversial can be art; however, something isn't art because it's controversial.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Muta

I'm probably going to get creamed on this board for writing this, but from an artistic perspective, I am now loving this commission. I'm not a huge fan from an aesthetic perspective, but I sure as hell am one from an artistic perspective. This piece of art is invoking a response from all over. Good or bad, people are interpreting it and forming opinions, which is what art is supposed to do.

You should head down and drive through Michigan. If burned out junk on the side of the road is your bag then Michigan is your Mecca.

That is such an ignorant opinion.

"All discussion and opinions are good! Art flourishes!! This is what great art does!!"

We paid $500K for a bunch of crap that was scrounged out of a dumpster. That doesnt make us connoisseurs, it makes us the complete opposite.

Even the Natives that they tried to defend themselves with are getting out of the way of this one.

It was a bad decision. Its terrible and we got fleeced. But its done. So either take it down and chock it up as a sunk cost or move along, but dont pat your own back about how its a legendary victory in the battle for the relevancy of art.

We got sold some rocks on sticks. And by all appearances they were our rocks and our sticks anyways.

Is the artist this guy?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by SebC

The notion of "cultural theft" implies that ideas, styles etc. should be the exclusive domain of certain people by virtue of ethnicity. It is an inherently racist and regressive notion.

I think the appropriation here is a bit different. This sculpture would have been fins as a stand alone piece with no indigenous reference at all. Instead the artist decided to throw the native card at it without doing any research or enough research. The sculpture is no different than any other sculpture he's ever done but he wanted to make it culturally significant by referencing our indigenous population in a pretty cheap way. It back fired. He's been called out for it and I think rightly so.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Muta

This piece of art is invoking a response from all over. Good or bad, people are interpreting it and forming opinions, which is what art is supposed to do.

Originally Posted by Sliver

Some things that are controversial can be art; however, something isn't art because it's controversial.

Originally Posted by Locke

We paid $500K for a bunch of crap that was scrounged out of a dumpster. That doesnt make us connoisseurs, it makes us the complete opposite.

Give me $500,000 and I can make sure a massive pile of literal crap will be dumped along (and in the middle of the road). You can be absolutely sure that people will form opinions and be controversial.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Give me $500,000 and I can make sure a massive pile of literal crap will be dumped along (and in the middle of the road). You can be absolutely sure that people will form opinions and be controversial.

Perhaps you're the greatest artist of our age?

Controversy is art and art is controversy!!!

Go chemgear! Go and release the Philistines from their tormented existence!

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Muta

...This piece of garbage is invoking a response from all over. Good or bad, people are interpreting it and forming opinions, which is what art is supposed to do.

fyp

Why wouldn't a $500,000 piece of garbage paid for with public money invoke a response from all over?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Muta

I'm probably going to get creamed on this board for writing this, but from an artistic perspective, I am now loving this commission. I'm not a huge fan from an aesthetic perspective, but I sure as hell am one from an artistic perspective. This piece of art is invoking a response from all over. Good or bad, people are interpreting it and forming opinions, which is what art is supposed to do.

Art should evoke a reaction. Sometimes, art that provokes disgust has a purpose - to effect a change in society perhaps. However, when the disgust provoked is directed towards the piece of art itself, and the public art program, I fail to see how that can be what it was supposed to do.

This is like if someone took a bunch of wedding photos that made the bride look fat and ugly, and when she says they're garbage you say, "they're really making you react, that's what arts supposed to do!"

If this piece is really doing what it's supposed to, then the committee actually intended to purchase meta-commentary on the flaws of the public art process and we've got bigger problems than we think.

Specific pieces of art need to create specific reactions to be successful based on their purpose. And my list of what reactions Calgary's public art should create excludes most of the reactions this piece is creating.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by JFK

Never understood the big brouahaha about cultural appropriation. No, having borderline racist sports emblems and names are poor, but most appropriation is simple innocent and fine. I shouldn't eat ginger beef?

Ginger beef was invented in Calgary. So we can all enjoy it guilt-free.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Some things that are controversial can be art; however, something isn't art because it's controversial.

Not what I ever said, or ever suggested. This is controversial art. Not art because it's controversial.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Locke

You should head down and drive through Michigan. If burned out junk on the side of the road is your bag then Michigan is your Mecca.

That is such an ignorant opinion.

"All discussion and opinions are good! Art flourishes!! This is what great art does!!"

We paid $500K for a bunch of crap that was scrounged out of a dumpster. That doesnt make us connoisseurs, it makes us the complete opposite.

Even the Natives that they tried to defend themselves with are getting out of the way of this one.

It was a bad decision. Its terrible and we got fleeced. But its done. So either take it down and chock it up as a sunk cost or move along, but dont pat your own back about how its a legendary victory in the battle for the relevancy of art.

We got sold some rocks on sticks. And by all appearances they were our rocks and our sticks anyways.

Is the artist this guy?

This response sums up my post very nicely. Thank you, Locke.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Muta

This response sums up my post very nicely. Thank you, Locke.

Ditto. Thanks Muta.

I always wonder about the meaning of that burnt out Pontiac on the side of the highways, it really illustrates the duality of man and the impermanence of life.

Oh...and its way cheaper than $500k.

Thanks Muta! You've clarified art!

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Muta

Not what I ever said, or ever suggested. This is controversial art. Not art because it's controversial.

Actually I disagree, this is only art because it's controversial, it has no other defining feature

[Muta]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Actually I disagree, this is only art because it's controversial, it has no other defining feature

Disagree. It is controversial art. It was an artistic commission, and executed as such. Just because it isn't popular doesn't not make it art.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Muta

Disagree. It is controversial art. It was an artistic commission, and executed as such. Just because it isn't popular doesn't not make it art.

But being controversial doesn't add value to it. You're acting like that's a positive attribute of this piece, when it isn't.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Sliver

But being controversial doesn't add value to it. You're acting like that's a positive attribute of this piece, when it isn't.

Its value is what it is - 1% of the project budget. If you think its value changes because it's controversial, that's your opinion, definitely not mine.