привет!

Michael.Bloody.Landy.

To start off, I'd like to point out that I'm not trying to be some inelegant, distasteful scientist (that's about as opposite to elegantly cultivated artist that I can muster up) - I appreciate art.



I appreciate thought behind pieces and I appreciate the thought behind THIS piece too. When I say this piece, I mean Michael Landy's 'artbin'. Patrons are invited to throw their unwanted (modern) art into his large glass bin, which is in fact a room. Perfect for cameras/coverage/exposures eh? Waste art has thus far consisted of pieces from Damien Hirst, Tracy Emin and Peter Blake. Pieces that in actual fact, have the potential to fetch thousands. I understand that this contributes to the ever running 'Is Modern Art rubbish?' argument, generally fought for by traditionalists and classicists the world over.

Argument 1/// What the aforementioned fail to realise is the most basic of artistic concepts, the fact that interpretation is everything. Ideology and politics are all well and good but, it's down to the individual how they are to interpret the piece. This reminds me of that bit at the start of The Da Vinci Code (a weak and vulgar comparison, but one that's amusing me all the same) - you know, where Tom Hanks is flashing those symbols on screen and the lecture theatre of students are crying out their own interpretations? To say 'Modern art is rubbish' to me, a mere social onlooker, seems a little juvenile if not infantile.

I.don't.like.that.that.is.rubbish.

I.don't.like.birds.they.are.rubbish. (True)

I.hate.sprouts.they.are.rubbish.

Yes?

Argument 2/// No matter what you feel about these pieces, isn't it a bit vulgar to create a 'bin' and dispose of anything that isn't to your own taste? I sometimes offer myself up to the argument that 'art is ego' but this seems to be that very ego's anti-fucking-christ.

Argument 3/// These pieces, some more than others, they're worth a lot of money. Wouldn't the whole effort of Landy's be far more meaningful and worthy if he found some way to make money from this first, before the chucking away. Then, taking said money and donating to charities, rendering this event as something worthier than a bunch of ego's getting together and licking yoghurt off each other's massive egos? I understand that this is probably a part of it. Maybe a pretty big part but charitable giving? Doesn't that counteract any negative feelings Landy may have about generating money from his exhibition? Saying this, I'm sure Landy isn't that adverse to a little cash on the side. Something's got to keep him in full stock of polo necks.

Argument 4/// "Art Bin is about failure. Either within particular art work, or more generally in artists' practice: nobody discards art which has some sort of intrinsic value, so the bin becomes a monument to creative failure". Michael Landy, 2010. Well well, I wouldn't really call anything that is representative of that Hirst skull creative failure, would you? My guess is, Hirst and Emin shoved his head down the toilet and robbed his dinner money at some snazz art do, so he's showing them. Aren't you Michael? Bloody showing them.

Argument 5/// If Michael, if this is about celebrating artistic failure, then why are you contributing to the infamity of the pieces? They not only resonate in their own right, but now, thanks to you, Landy, you crusader you, they contribute to the post modernity of collaborative, contemporary art. You seem to have shot yourself in the foot, mate.

I only actually have 5 arguments. My 6th would be something along the lines of Michael Landy chucking himself in the bin, but I won't sink. I think Jean Baudrillard has hit the nail on the head this time:

"A negative judgment gives you more satisfaction than praise, provided it smacks of jealousy."

What do you reckon, Michael?

xxxxxxx

PS. Today's greeting is Russian, this has to be my favourite.