not art writing, but funny...

http://www.thenewstribune.com/ae/story/6355769p-5671993c.html

1. FAKERS/SBC = Sears Portraits/SBC

I contend that SBC inviting other artists to play them for the press at TAM is a continuation of their SEARS PORTRAIT inquiry. Who is SBC in these portraits? No one and everyone--no one, fixed identity, and therefore, they could be any one. Quite generous as I see it. It is a serious gesture to refute or hand over one's celebrity and should not be dismissed as a mere prank. [Historical footnote: remember Cattelan selling his coveted space to the highest bidder at the Venice Biennial?]

2. SBC photographs/mugging = art/a ham sandwich

I just reviewed the SBC photographs on our website, and couldn't find a single occasion where they were 'mugging for the camera.' They were almost always in costume--always not themselves. The thought that they were selling 'Their personas' doesn't ring true when you look at the work. Like the SEARS PORTRAITS, they are constantly avoiding the use of 'self' in the work. Beyond any discussion of the 'art' of their staged, formal photographs in various guises, the other photographs in the exhibition representing past performances and installations were an attempt to contextualize previous work. We were 'selling' SBC as a group of engaged artists with a record of doing interesting and potentially historically important work. We wanted people to 'invest' in this history--to conceptually and emotionally invest in the artist's ideas and actions.

3. And from Papa D:
Arrhe: art = merdre: merde

Any discussion of SBC exploiting their own celebrity belittles their body of work and misses the point of much of it entirely. And on the other hoof, any discussion about the DISCUSSION of SBC exploiting their own celebrity is marvelous fertilizer for their body of work.

Maybe we should all come to the opening on Saturday at TAM and pose as famous/importart art critics. I'm digging out my blonde wig with the bad curls and cool geek glasses and going as "Jen".

or maybe I'll shave my head and go as "Rock".

hope the Chihuligans show up with eyepatches.

Jasper says to Ben, " Take a bite of my ice cream cone!"

Jasper says to Zac, " Sup Culler?"

Jasper says to Ben, " Take a bite of my ice cream cone!"

Jasper says to Zac, " Sup Culler?"

Take as given: The title is "Ship in a Bottle."

Posit 1: [with Freudian accent] A sailboat in a museum is not merely a sailboat in a museum. Any reduction and commentary on the 'facts' of the installation ignore the title and the act entirely.

Posit 2: A better reduction would be to explore the notion of 'ship in a bottle' as a metaphor for the 'creative act' and a commentary on how successful this piece is under that rubric.

Unfinished Posit 3: A full-size 'ship in a bottle' in a very specific museum space, with a very specific history and a very specific maritime design, with extreme limitations of access, with extreme limitations of time and funding, in a city with a very specific nautical history, by artist with a documented history of such acts, and by artists who's work has consistently explored the nature of the creative act, the performative, site-specificity, institutional critique, and spectator interactivity is ______________.

Posit 4: Leaving a fill-in ____________ on the SLOG is a very dangerous thing.

why should frowning always get all the credit for brilliance? when did a little fun and notable art become mutually exclusive?

seems to me all the negative shots on this thread are probably followed by a shallow chaser of jealousy and/or some sort of hermetically sealed view of what art can be and what it can say.

shine on sbc,

m.

i'd also like to note that the work sbc does is generally very hard work both conceptually and physically. they think in enormous terms and it takes an enormous amount of energy and dedication to follow through on their concepts.

a few laughs along the way when things go sideways (like they do) can't hurt...

and if some of the work itself also comes off as playful, i don't think that detracts from the formality or the importance of it; humor is one of the more powerful tools at our disposal for the dissemination of both content and commentary.

as for the art of play as both an historical and a contemporary subject of artistic exploration, i humbly offer the following archived article from on the visual codec site, "playtime" by lance blomgren. i think it offers fantastic insight into the importance of play both in art and in society.

good reading,

m.

but nonetheless you're sure that they and their work bore you?

who's really dishing out the 'unfair criticism' here (assuming that 'fair criticism' even exists)?

go have a look at a few of their pieces in person. show up at a couple of their openings. strike up a conversation with one or all of them at the hideout. suspend your boredom for just a few minutes while engaging in a real life experience of them and/or their art.

if you come back afterwards and tell us you're still bored for reasons a), b), and c) i might not be so inclined to throw your thoughts on the matter into my mental circular file...

but no promises on you being capable of changing my own opinion that the anti-sbc sentiments noted to date on this thread strike me as vacuous blather.

catchya on the flipside,

m.