art in public spaces
Apparently, someone tried to tear it down a few weeks ago:
two african american guys..one w/a beanie on... one w/brown leather jacket...i can't recall the other
they seemed like they were 20-30 yrs old.
granted i did not actually see them do it...it was just that the cabling was undone as they were yelling out...such as, "this shit is racist...they better take this shit down..." 'mastercard bullshit m*** f***" ...stuff like that.
Now, I won't pretend for a minute that those men read this blog and might be given the context within which to view the piece, but I hope Yerba Buena is able to take the opportunity to initiate a dialogue about Thomas' work and why this piece, in its effective mimicking of advertising, is so potent for viewers on the street who don't get the back story from a gallery label (3rd and Mission is a very busy intersection with SFMOMA and Yerba Buena on that block). Similar reponses used to (maybe still do?) happen with Carrie Mae Weems' exhibitions all the time. I think it shed light on the way in which museums and galleries speak to a particular audience and not another, even when they place art on the sidewalk.
posted by Carla at 1:26 PM
4 Comments:
I was hoping to see this today but didn't get myself in gear. Thanks for posting about it. I agree that this is a perfect opportunity for a dialogue on art and context.
This misunderstanding of the piece's context really demonstrates just how pervasively and dangerously advertising and other forms of propaganda have invaded our culture and our consciousness. The ability to recognize satire and other subtle forms of commentary is becoming lost.
This is why I've always wished for core curriculum starting in elementary school for media analysis.
Ok. So, I feel kind of silly asking, but I will anyway. What context should the piece be viewed in?
From my take on what Carla wrote, it appears that the two guys who were upset at the piece thought it was a Mastercard ad. Therefore, they made the assumption that this was insensitive and racist on Mastercard's part. Instead, it's an artist's commentary on his cousin's murder utilizing Mastercard's "Priceless" campaign. That's the context I perceive.
Obviously, Carla knows the piece and the artist better than I and I'm sure can go into more detail.
Kelly's dead on. What I'm critiquing more than anything is the failure of the institution to try to engage the audience on the street. By placing the work on the street they're inviting feedback, and they got it.
It's also the failure of our culture to have meaningful discussions about issues in public forums. We get sold a lot of information through advertising, but we don't have a public forum through which to critique it.
Post a Comment
<< Home