'McCarthy's Rents' art installation

[John Bennett]

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]

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]

Just An Idea

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]

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.

[Ally]

Demean myself? I give my honest opinion of what this piece of "art" makes me think about the "artist" and you consider that demeaning myself? Just because it isn't fluffy, kitten comment of "oh you touched my soul" doesn't mean it's any less valid a perspective than yours. Frankly I think anyone who looks at a fake version of a real butchered woman and says it's more meaningful to them than the real picture of a real woman is demeaning themselves. This was a real woman, butchered brutalized and displayed and he turned her into a caricature and an art project just for "effect" and to shock and titillate.

So don't demean yourself by attempting to chastise me, just because my opinion disagrees with yours.

The artists EVERY move including his carefully crafted post on this thread has been designed to forestall criticism "oh I wish I'd had a chance to tell you before it came here..." BS. If he wanted to talk about it first, why didn't he? He got exactly what he wanted. Personal contact so everyone would feel bad about saying anything negative if that's what they really believe, but no real discussion from him regarding what this is supposed to accomplish.

You may find it art and that's all you care about. It may well be art, but more importantly it's an exercise in one man's ego and perversion.

[Robert]

That's the second time I've seen IKEA mentioned. Unfortunately I can't tell IKEA from Leggo. Every time thay shove a catalogue through my door, I bin it (the catalogue, not the door).

[Altered DNA]

I am currently writing up a post to hopefully reply to everyone's questions and/or comments. It may not make everyone all warm and fuzzy inside, but at least it will be accurate. Take care all.

Peace,

Dave Allen

[Chris]

I am currently writing up a post to hopefully reply to everyone's questions and/or comments. It may not make everyone all warm and fuzzy inside, but at least it will be accurate. Take care all.

It's probably worth bearing in mind that in any unmoderated Internet forum there are going to be a few "trolls" intent on picking an argument above all else.

I shall be interested in what you have to say.

[babybird67]

Demean myself? I give my honest opinion of what this piece of "art" makes me think about the "artist" and you consider that demeaning myself?

Ally, you know very well that is misrepresenting what i said. I particularly said don't demean yourself by making personal comments about the artist. You are perfectly entitled to give your honest opinion of the art, but you do demean yourself, in my opinion, by the conclusions you have drawn about the artist because you don't like or agree with his art...you've made unfair comments about him, very judgemental comments, and that is a shame. I hated T.S .Eliot's politics but i could still appreciate his poetry, for example.

Just because it isn't fluffy, kitten comment of "oh you touched my soul" doesn't mean it's any less valid a perspective than yours.

I quite agree and would never have dreamt of suggesting that it wasn't. If you read my post carefully you will see that i said nothing of the sort.

Frankly I think anyone who looks at a fake version of a real butchered woman and says it's more meaningful to them than the real picture of a real woman is demeaning themselves.

I don't think anyone has said that either. For me, art including fiction, acts in dialogue with reality. I feel nothing for any fake woman. A representation of what happened to Mary Kelly gave me, personally, more insight into her fate, which moved me, because the only victim i felt similarly for before seeing that representation was Catherine Eddowes. I find the photograph of the actual Mary extremely difficult to make out...i've asked on here before what others could see was left of her face trying to make it out...people on here debate all the time about what is on her table...is it flesh, is it a bolster? The representation made everything factually clearer for me...i could SEE for the first time in clarity what Jack did to MARY, not to a dummy. That made it all the more real for me, because of the dialogue between reality and representation. I've tried to explain this to you in chat, but i think you just don't get it, which is fine, we are all different.

This was a real woman, butchered brutalized and displayed and he turned her into a caricature and an art project just for "effect" and to shock and titillate.

I don't agree. He made what happened to her all the more accessible and her as a person more comprehensible to me. This reminds me of the debate about whether it was pornography or not to have her photo on the cover of a book about the case...there is no titillation. I think that is a red herring and something grossly unfair to allege was the purpose of this representation.

So don't demean yourself by attempting to chastise me, just because my opinion disagrees with yours.

My post was not meant as chastisement. It was a gentle reminder about personal remarks demeaning the person who makes them more than the person they are aimed at. You don't need to use them. So why do it?

The artists EVERY move including his carefully crafted post on this thread has been designed to forestall criticism "oh I wish I'd had a chance to tell you before it came here..." BS. If he wanted to talk about it first, why didn't he? He got exactly what he wanted. Personal contact so everyone would feel bad about saying anything negative if that's what they really believe, but no real discussion from him regarding what this is supposed to accomplish.

Casebook may be the centre of some people's worlds, but there are a lot of people with busy lives out there as well! Why place base motives on the artist's communication/lack of communication with us? Casebook are not the arbiters of who should and who should not be interested in Mary kelly's murder and indeed it was one of my hopes that such an exhibit might bring more people into the field. The artist was not responsible for posting a link to his work here...i believe Philip was the one to do that, so we are lucky that the artist even KNEW it was being discussed, and he has posted i see tonight stating he will contribute again at some point. Give him a chance, i say. I for one would like to hear what he has to say about his work.

You may find it art and that's all you care about. It may well be art, but more importantly it's an exercise in one man's ego and perversion.

Art is certainly not all i care about. This particular piece shocked me with its power to move me...i wasn't expecting it to be honest. I fully expected to be on the side of the debate where, like Damian Hirst, i would be arguing, well, that's art for some but it does nothing for me. But it did do something. It showed me something i hadn't connected with as far as Mary herself was concerned, and that's good i think. I do not think your comments about ego and perversion are fair, and it is that sort of remark i was referring to when i made my remarks about demeaning yourself. If i was on the receiving end of some of those comments, i wouldn't come near Casebook with a barge pole. I would think if people are going to treat me like that, why should i bother? you have already made up your mind he is a perverted egotist, so why should he bother coming back and seeking to explain his work to you at all? I do hope he does come back because i would like to hear from him.

Criticism of the art work is fine; derogatory comments about what you think the artist behind it must be like and what his motivations were are not. That's just my opinion. I spent a long time in chat with you the other night discussing it and i think we had an excellent debate about the art...you didn't resort to insults then, why do it on the boards? There really is no need.

For Dave: i do hope you come back and post about your work. I'd like to hear more from you.