in which the Massachusetts Museum of Modern Art goes ahead and displays this behemoth exhibit against the artist's wishes. It isn't finished and gives an inaccurate impression of the artist and his work, but the museum is way overbudget and overdeadline and has to cough up some "product."
morally reprehensible, for sure, and sure to damage both the museum and the artist since what ended up getting displayed sounds like pure crap compared to the artist's conception of it. however, he did request a fuselage...and the museum is footing some exponential bills on this guy's list....so.......
the article takes the side of the artist, and gets a little preachy with this quote: "Never underestimate the amount of resentment and hostility we harbor toward artists. It springs largely from envy. They can behave quite badly, but mainly they operate with a kind of freedom and courage that other people don't risk or enjoy. And it can lead to wondrous things." but ultimately, i agree. and i had definitely been doing some eye rolling for the "vision" of the artist in requesting these outlandish things, and having someone else have to deliver, so it is a valid point to make.
in the end, the writer opines that it is the artist who gets to say, "this is not a work of art unless i say so' .....now this is so tricky. can i put olives on toothpicks and glue them around my toilet seat, and call it art? then a gallery or museum i am trying to get into can call it 'not art', but it actually IS art because i made it and i say so? how sassy. so all it comes down to is confidence and an all-powerful creative gavel?
i have to agree with leo tolstoy, who wrote that the intention of the artist has to be properly received and felt by the observer in order for it to be art
which sounds simple and rule-ish but deals with the emotion and communication that must be present for art to be art.and unfortunately, Buchel loses all around here, as his intentions are muddled in the unfinished work and so certainly cannot be conveyed. all this is going to trial, some interesting debates should be generated by who has what rights in that realm, and who decides the laws of art...... poor Mass MoCA sounds pretty fucked......
I admit I didn't read the article I went with how you explained it. The question of what is art has been and all ways will be a debate. I think that having unfinished art on display is fine as long as something says it is in progress. I also think that since it isn't finished the artist should finish it there and work on it there and let people watch. That is one thing that I have kinda shown (mainly to my self) with some pictures I have taken at MIA is a piece of art as it is made and often you can't tell what it really is until it is finished but it can be fun (if you have the time) to watch someone make something. For something to be art I don't think that someone has to make something and the viewer gets what that is. I wish I could think of a good example. I myself don't understand abstract art, it makes no sense and looks like a 3 year old could do it. But if the artist really thought of one thing and made each line or movement represent something else and made their design then it is art. I don't get it but other might and so it is art. In any event it is a very interesting debate and could be debated a lot more but this is where I will stop.
the Mass MoCa is one of my favorite museums to visit, it is sad to hear they are having this.... odd situation.. no, fucked up situation? Ya, that is a better description.
But, to the essential question. Art is like pornography, I know it when I see it and am naked at my computer.
"Sure he requested a fuselage but?" He demanded that the gallery 1) find the fuselage for him, 2) blow it up for him, and then 3) install the damn thing. At what point does the artist stop being an artist and start being some guy making prank calls to a gallery? When the curator is more responsible for the aesthetic of the exhibit than the artist himself, does the artist really have any claim on it?
- Z