'McCarthy's Rents' art installation

[Ally]

Well said Babybird.


Ally...a simple sorry is in order...you can pass comment on the threads without personal insults or implecations against someone's character being involved.

Doesn't this whole episode really encourage you to display your work to do with JTR,on these boards.

Excuse me? Aren't you the one who passed judgment on Cora Crippen saying she was an awful person who deserved to be murdered because she was a nag and a bad wife and you knew this because you'd seen a documentary that told you so? Hypocrite much?

[anna]

I take it you've failed to read my reply to a question asked by "The Grave Maurice". ...but it was a nice try.

How do you know there are others of us who would like to share our work with our friends without your self-opinionated comments spoiling it for us.

Please take more care to consider what others may feel.

Still waiting for your apology,Ally.

[Ally]

You'll be waiting a long time. The fact that you reconsidered and took them back after the fact doesn't change what you said. If people are expecting everyone to love and lavish them with praise for everything they do, tough crap. This is the real world, and we aren't required to praise you and tell you how wonderful your work is, if in fact we don't believe it's wonderful. And a public display of photos and an exhibition isn't a private showing among friends, it's inviting everyone to view and comment. And not all the comments are going to be nice. Welcome to reality.

[anna]

To my friends,

I have always wanted to display my work on JTR on these boards,amongst friends who have delighted me with their daily conversations and excellent company over a long time.

The treatment of Philip and his photo really put me off,and this thread has done no better..and I know I am not alone.

We should all welcome others work with a more open mind and gentler comments...remembering that we all have feelings towards what we produce and display.

[Ally]

To my friends,

I have always longed for the day when the mediocre wouldn't be suckered by false praise, when the incompetent wouldn't be held up by the work of their betters and when people would learn to accept that insincerity, in the long run, helps no one.

Let us all encourage everyone to accept the reality that the world is full of vastly differing levels of talent and opinions and just because you think you are a great talent and wonderful, doesn't mean the rest of the world should debase themselves by lying and agreeing with you if in fact you are not.

Let us welcome those with honest opinions even if they brutally disagree with our own and recognize that even in the heat of vicious disagreement, we must accept that they have the right to their opinion and we have the right to ours and only in the airing of those disagreements does anyone ever have a hope of learning anything new.

And above all let us agree that the weak-minded really need to be killed for their own good and the continued good of the human race. Before they breed.

[Archaic]

Altered Perceptions?

Oh, dear. Well, I do agree that Intent matters; it matters hugely in all our choices and in all our actions.
As I'm sure everyone here knows, the concept of Mens Rea ('guilty intent') is one crucial to the functioning of our justice system.

I was glad that Dave said his intention was not to create a piece of "torture porn", because when I saw his installation I feared that it would hold great appeal for individuals of that ilk. The number of people who are into very extreme forms of S&M and who eagerly put it up on the internet is just staggering, which doesn't say much for the mental health of this world.

Someone asked about the meaning of the phrase "Art Installation" so I'll try to explain: It's a term used to describe a three-dimensional work
that is created to occupy a particular space or site and is designed to affect the viewer's experience or perception of that space.
In other words, it's a "built" 3-D piece rather than a flat painting hung on a wall; it is "installed" at the site where it is to be viewed and the viewer is able to physically move around it, experiencing it from numerous perspectives of their own choosing. (Hope that helps)


> One question I want to ask Dave is whether he would feel any differently about this MJK piece if it had NOT been created by himself?
Dave knows he is a nice sane happily married guy who DIDN'T create this for prurient reasons- but what if some complete stranger created this, someone whose personality and motives were unknown and had to be deduced solely from viewing his creation? Someone might really be a creep into torture porn?
> Would Dave -or his wife- want to walk in there unawares and be personally confronted with this piece? How would it affect them?

>What if this piece DIDN'T represent Mary Kelly from 1888, but instead represented a more recent murder victim like a member of the Otero Family or a victim of Jeffrey Dahmer? Would this alter everyone's perception of it, would they react very differently?

I'm sincerely interested in hearing Dave's response to this, and I'd also like to hear the thoughts of others.

Thanks and best regards, Archaic

[Robert]

Hmm. Well, if this piece was next to Dracula and the Wolf Man, then I think that's the wrong place (though I appreciate Dave probably can't pick and choose where it goes). Also, I don't see why it should have the title it's been given - it would be better if it wasn't about anyone in particular.

I envisage it simply being in a gallery somewhere. Someone opens the door and there it is. No title. No explanation. Bowyer didn't get an explanation when he looked through the curtain, nor did Watkins when he shone his lamp into the corner of Mitre Square.

[Ally]

Here's a link to what was included in past shows to give you context as to what kind of setting this appeared among:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/domybooks/sets/72157608910297802/

Mostly cartoon monsters and naked, blood drenched woman.

[JennyL]

My reaction was very similar to Jen(babybird)'s-with the caveat that I didn't have the same feelings-or lack of-towards Mary Kelly she describes before seeing the photos of the installation(though I very much understand where she's coming from and she descibes it very eloquently).

But though I was skeptical at best to begin with upon first seeing the tiny Flickr preview image and perceiving what was probably going to be seen in the other views, it surprised me and in fact I give it its due as an entirely serious, and moving/thoughful, installation.

It happens I'm an artist whose work straddles (in my opinion) fine and commercial art in that I'm trained in and use classical draughtsmanship and received my training in accredited art schools(NYU and CalArts), but I use my skills in commercial, broadly-aimed entertainment (for films). Early on in my professional life I took a very jaundiced view of "Art" that seemed to me a load of nonsense and self-indulgent/without sufficient care or skill taken, a joke-sick or otherwise-on the viewer. But with with age I've come to appreciate a lot of things that I just had no patience for in my 20s; I guess I've educated my tastes a bit more-but I still can't abide Damien Hirst.

That said, all art from the viewer's shoes IS subjective, and really, ultimately there is no "right" or "wrong" point of view/reaction/impression.
There IS what the artist was actually going for and what he or she felt with a work; whether that is clear to the viewer is another matter entirely-and it may be that if s/he doesn't communicate an idea, the art is a failure--or not. These things have been argued probably since the cave paintings went up.

I was struck by the handling of the setting of the figure here, the monochrome choices, the "flat", underplayed titling(I can also see as someone suggested giving it no title at all, but given the historical story here I think the title right as it is)...I found it sobering and haunting and yes, it gave me a new perspective-no pun intended-on the infamous photograph and what the photograph is of, what it's about: the horrific murder of a woman by person unknown, in a small and mean room in a back court 120 years ago.
It also reminds me of a very unusual show that was mounted some years ago of the meticulous crime scene "dollhouse" tableaux that someone had done to use for forensics study and training; these little miniatures representing stabbings, hanging, all manner of murders and the like weren't originally meant to be funny or cute, and although they weren't originally made as "art", the careful craftsmanship had, for the curator, turned them into art.
The "McCarthy's Rents" installation is by its nature both a forensic recreation and an art installation, and I think that was the stated intention. That he used the offered opportunity of the annual gallery show to do it is just an example of having a question posed: "what is a 'monster'?" and answering it with what came to his mind. Honestly, if he'd been building this in his back bedroom with no inciting reason such as the show, that would (for me) be another story.

For me it does make a difference that it is portraying a version of one of the murders of 1888. It wouldn't elicit the same feelings at all from me if it were not exactly what it is-the representation of the most famous of the "Jack the Ripper" victim photographs and was instead some modern real life crime. I am glad it wasn't randomly chosen but the result of a serious idea from someone who cares more about the Whitechapel murders than to think that it involves "some top-hatted guy in the olden days". If it were, then that would be another story--but it isn't.

Which brings me to the installation at Domy Books. Every Halloween at the store they have an annual Monster Show. It opens on or about Halloween night and has artwork created by artists from all over he country. Each artist creates their own version of what a “monster” is…it could be anything. Some artists use photos, some artists do drawings or etchings, while others do paintings or collages.

My wife and I have been going to the shows since we moved here and have always been excited by the level of work as well as the creativity of all of the artists involved. Some of the monsters are funny, some are scary, some of them are just plain weird, but they’re all interesting and good.

I quote the artist here because he makes quite clear that all kinds of people do all kinds of stuff for this Halloween shown and he knew that. His idea sprung from something he had an interest in, that he felt he could do well and give the "monster" question his own answer, hopefully communicating something to the viewer that they wouldn't expect.

I've exhibited (including in one one "Dia de los Muertos" group show here in Los Angeles where the qualifications were apparently much like those in this case: something on the theme) and I know from experience that some artists will do what I consider frivolous, or offensive, or dumb, or superficial pieces for a show. But the context is irrelevant to what we're discussing here, and I think he made his own intentions and feelings clear about "McCarthy's Rents". If someone has a frivolous reaction, of even laughs at it-as I've seen patrons do at anything from Guernica or Gauguin's nudes to Frida Kahlo's "ugly" unibrow--it has no bearing on my reaction or on the art itself.

To sum up: I thought Dave's installation was striking and thought-provoking--and hard to take. Well done.

[tji]

Hi

The lady who recreated 'death in miniature' was Frances Glessner Lee.

Funnily enough I had never heard of her before last week. She was a fascinating woman who decided to recreate crime scenes to a model scale to help the Police force of the time in their forensic investigationsin the 1940's. She recreated models that had been drowned, stabbed and mutilated, making them and the scenes as true to life as possible.

Apparently they are kept at a medical examiners office in Baltimore with a guest book for people to leave comments.

I'm guessing that they might invoke the same feelings as this.

tj

[Ally]

I have no problem with what Lee did. Lee's purpose was instructive and she was a pioneer in forensic science. Her purpose was to teach people how to catch the people who did this. A completely different thing. As I have said, intent matters.

[Monty]

Ive just caught up with this thread.

Hmmmmm

Monty

[Cap'n Jack]

I feel as a writer, I can also be called an artist, and as both I have published works that are very much in the public domain, so when I approached this subject, as a writer and artist, I was painfully aware that the promotion of images actually portraying dead and brutalised women might well serve as volatile fuel to certain individuals in society, leading them to view women as disposable 'art' - if you like - and at the same time further the base cause of sensationalism and tittilation, which does lie at the heart of such matter.
I made the decision never to use such images in my work, as I thought a work of art did not, and does not, require sensationalism, tittilation or certainly never the raw fuel that might patronise killers and the despicable work they do.
This is not art, it is a weird form of male patronage, and bonding, that leads to a quick excuse me.

[JennyL]

Hi

The lady who recreated 'death in miniature' was Frances Glessner Lee.

Funnily enough I had never heard of her before last week. She was a fascinating woman who decided to recreate crime scenes to a model scale to help the Police force of the time in their forensic investigationsin the 1940's. She recreated models that had been drowned, stabbed and mutilated, making them and the scenes as true to life as possible.
tj

Thank you for naming her, TJ--I'd completely forgotten. "The Nutshell Studies" of course! There's a book that I've stupidly never bought-have to rectify that...well, thanks again.

[babybird67]

JennyL

can i say how much i enjoyed reading your posting and learning about your own background in the arts. You spoke very articulately and i agree with you.

AP...you've spoken about titilation and pornography in relation to the Mary jane Kelly photograph before, and it is nonsense now as it was then.

Ally...may reply to your other points later, but i feel i am wasting my time, to be honest. You see some kind of perverted intent, now, i can't see that at all, and from what Dave said it seems as if a lot of very considered thought went into his production of his work. Also i think it's very patronising of you to presume to know what everyone who views his work will think, as in suggesting it is only because i have prior knowledge of what it represents that i am capable of a sobering, serious response to it, and that everyone else will view it as a freak show/entertainment/spectacle etc. But anyway, we will never see eye to eye on this so is it worth continuing the debate?