'McCarthy's Rents' art installation

[John Bennett]

Originally Posted by Ally

Because this is "art" you see. ART. And art is all about the effect it has on the viewer and what it makes you think and this piece did make me think.

Good point.

This has been called an 'installation' and it is easy to assume that 'installations' are meant to be 'art'. Perhaps that was not the intention. That is for the creator himself to clarify. Personally, I can't understand the reasoning behind it until the intention is explained. Even then it won't necessarily make it valid (for me at least).

"I think the difference is that no poster on the boards has every spent hours kneeling between a facsimile of a spread eagled Mary Kelly lavishly recreating her ripped and torn viscera, carefully crafting her mangled and torn breasts and painstakingly carving out every bit of her tormented flesh and face. "

I know what you mean!

[Ally]

The "artist" calls himself an artist and says it's an art installation on the one cloying post he's made about it so far. But he'd have to call it art because calling it "art" gives it a nice remove from any criticism. One can do a lot of absolute BS puke-tastic and completely meaningless things that people won't dare to criticize if you tag the label "art" to it.

[John Bennett]

I wonder how he feels about being described as a potential "creepy little geek with necrophiliac tendencies"?

Unless he is one, of course.

[Ally]

Well if you read his post where he attempts to ward off any such speculation by assuring us what a nice normal guy he is, you know the thought's already crossed his mind about what might be coming from this unveiling. So he's considered it, and decided it's worth the price.

[anna]

I'm with Suzi on this...it's a very fine art study,indeed.Well done Dave.

I like them,because Dave has had the foresight to remove Kelly entirely from the crap that was Room 13,and give her back her individuality by placing her in a sterile room,so she is what you concentrate on,with no distractions.

[John Bennett]

Originally Posted by Ally

Well if you read his post where he attempts to ward off any such speculation by assuring us what a nice normal guy he is, you know the thought's already crossed his mind about what might be coming from this unveiling. So he's considered it, and decided it's worth the price.

A case of "sticks and stones may break my bones.." perhaps?

[Ally]

Probably more along the lines of: sure I'll be known as a creepy geek with necrophiliac tendencies but the key part of that sentence is "I'll be known".

[Celesta]

I agree with the notion of focusing on her, but my first reaction was 'My god, he put her in a doctor's office.' It gave me the creeps because it's about two steps down from a gyno's office. I doubt this was the intention, but that was my reaction.

[Archaic]

Hi, Cel, I agree with what you and Robert said about the strangely "antiseptic" setting, which does make it look rather clinical.

My own first reaction to the setting was "Oh, look, Mary Kelly has been slaughtered on a display bed at IKEA".


Having read back over our diverse reactions to Dave's art installation, I now have a somewhat different idea.

I wonder if Dave is possibly a Graduate Student in either Art or Psychology at the nearby University of Austin, and he created a disturbing piece of 'Modern Art' in order to observe our reactions and then write a paper on it?

In which case we can assume that all the powerful emotional effects, jarring dichotomies, and deliberate ambiguities of this piece were consciously designed in order to elicit the maximum response from the test subjects?

Just an idea...

Gosh, if Dave is watching us, I hope the notorious "Goodall Effect" doesn't skew his results! lol

Cheers, Archaic

[babybird67]

Originally Posted by Ally

Jen,

Except your explanation of how a 3-D image makes it more real is balls because you are STILL looking a 2-D image.

True and not true. True which is why i said if i was near enough i would want to go and see the 3-d image for myself. Not true as in the development of photography the contrast between the one of the real Mary and the various representations of the art work in question is pretty stark...i knew what it was about, what to expect, and yet it still left me stunned in its power.

I don't think you should demean yourself or who i consider 'the artist' with personal insults, though. You're better than that as our conversation on the theories behind it in chat the other night demonstrated.

You don't like it being called art because it doesn't touch you in any way, but it has touched me, and some others...it's ok to disagree. I find it difficult to accept Damian Hirst's animal carcases as art, but they do something to some people!

And as for your point about there being something creepy about the detail in this...i categorically disagree. It is only one step removed from there to accusing all of us here of being creepy in my opinion...many many people here have spent hours of painstaking research, both in trying to track down facts such as through the census, or down to Steve's brilliant mathematical replotting of the angles in Mary's room to pinpoint exactly where the photographs of her were taken, and yes, they do care about getting every detail correct. Dave has done exactly the same with his work and deserves respect for that, even if you cannot honestly give him appreciation for it.