'McCarthy's Rents' art installation

[John Bennett]

It may well be art, but more importantly it's an exercise in one man's ego and perversion.

The return of Anne McMurdie?

[Altered DNA]

A little bit about myself and the installation

Hello all,
Before I get into the why’s and wherefores of my project at Domy Books, there are a few people I need to thank for their help in recreating that crime scene. First, I’d like to thank my good friend Chris Campbell, an incredible ceramic artist in his own right, for helping put together or flat out building from scratch nearly every piece of furniture that you see in that room. He built the bed, end table and fireplace all from scrap wood from pictures I collected online or from the simplest of sketches on scraps of paper. Chris was also the catalyst for the color scheme used in the installation, but more about that later.

I’d also like to thank my good friend Jason Becker for all of his help in making the life casts of my model, Lindsey Harrison, and for his help in casting all of the silicone arms and legs. I couldn’t have done it without him, and I couldn’t have asked for a better helper.

Last, but certainly not least, I owe a debt of thanks and gratitude to my wife Trisha. Without her constant support and love, this would never have been finished on time. She kept me going when I was tired, fed me when I was hungry, and never let me forget the deadline.

Now, a little bit about me. When I was a young boy, I was fascinated with monsters and monster movies…still am as a matter of fact. That fascination led me to wonder how these monsters were made and who made them, which led me to discovering Lon Chaney and movie makeup in general. From the time I first discovered Richard Corson’s Stage Makeup book when I was 8 until today, my world has revolved around makeup and special effects makeup. I have a huge library of makeup and special effects books, as well as almost any and every video or DVD put out on the subject.

Before my wife and I moved to Austin, Texas almost 4 years ago, I was working with a great makeup artist in Orlando named Rick Gonzales. He owns and runs Rick Gonzales Studios in Orlando, Florida. From Rick I learned hands on about mold making, body casting, using silicones for molds and making prosthetics, the finer points of sculpting and airbrushing, and how to make props and effects for as little money as possible, as well as too many other things to mention. Working with Rick allowed me to work on sets for low budget films, international commercials, music videos, and TV shows. He taught me about set etiquette, how to deal with onset problems with makeup and actors, and more importantly, how to act like a professional.

To backtrack just a bit, my interest in movie monsters eventually lead me to an interest in real life monsters. When I was in my early teens, I read my first book about Jack The Ripper. Of course, I had heard about Jack The Ripper, and was vaguely aware of his crimes, but I had no idea what the extent of his crimes were or how horribly he mutilated his victims. Reading that first JTR book opened my eyes to a world that, at the time, I was naively unaware existed. I knew people murdered other people, sometimes savagely, and I knew about people like Hitler and Stalin who murdered scores of people indiscriminately, but JTR was my first brush with a serial murderer. I just couldn’t wrap my mind around the idea that there were people out there who killed people just because they could, and had no other motive for the crime other than the death itself. Since JTR was my introduction into that world, I figured that if I could somehow figure out who he was, I might be able to make some sense out of why he acted out as he did, and how that related to modern age serial murderers. Obviously, the more I read about the crimes, the murkier the waters became. Every book had it’s own suspect and every author was sure they knew the true identity of JTR…until the next book came out and somehow or other disproved one or more of the “facts” that the previous authors stated. In my mind, it was time to try a new approach. After reading and collecting every JTR book I could find, and coming no closer to a suspect that at least “I” could say I believed to be truly viable, I decided to investigate other serial murderers. My thought was that by studying people that had committed similar crimes and been caught, maybe I would learn something that struck a chord with me in relation to the Ripper crimes. Maybe some little piece of psychological insight, or evidence of childhood trauma or war experiences would ring true with one of the suspects that I had spent years reading about. I spent my high school years continuing to read every new ripper book that came out, as well as any true crime book I came across in the hopes of finding that one thing that helped it all make sense and put it to bed once and for all.

Well, high school came and went and I was no closer to a suspect than I was when it all started with that first book. If anything, I was only more confused and the facts more convoluted. Reading and rereading about JTR and his crimes became a part of my life and the crimes became more like scary bedtime stories than factual incidents that involved real people.

After I graduated high school, I headed to college. My major course of study was Criminal Justice. Not because I was interested in becoming a police officer, but because I realized that if I was ever going to figure out who JTR was, I was going to need more tools for the task than reading books by people who spent their time rehashing what someone else wrote decades or even a century or more ago. So, I spent the rest of my college years taking courses in Psychology, Sociology, Criminology, the causes and history of crime and punishment, as well as the history of the penal system in the United States and the rest of the world, and all the other science classes I could sign up for to further my knowledge base. During this time, I was also working for the makeup department on campus and working on all of the college plays in my free time so that I could keep up with my makeup skills and to have a creative outlet in my life that was more about fun and creation rather than death and destruction.

After graduating with a Bachelor of Sciences degree in Criminal Justice, I moved out into the real world to find work. I won’t bore you with all of the details of that, but some of my jobs were: assistant manager of a restaurant (1year), design engineer for a major custom motor coach manufacturer (6 years), custom motorized window blind builder and installer (4 years), etc. While working at all of those jobs, I still found time after work at night and on the weekends to work on my makeup “hobby”, as my parents like to call it. They’re still not sure you can make a living at it, and would prefer I spent my time trying to get ahead in a “real” job. Suffice it to say that my interest in true crime and JTR in particular were and are still a part of my life, as is special effects makeup.

This more or less catches us up to the present day, not counting some detours to get married to the same woman I’ve been with for 18 years and have known for 25, as well as buying and selling a home in Florida and then buying a new one here in Austin and getting settled into this incredible city. We live in a neighborhood close to some great friends we knew from college, and just a few houses down from some great new friends we’ve made since moving here. All in all, I couldn’t ask for better place to live. Most of our friends are artists of one sort or another and my wife and I spend our evenings and weekends going to art gallery openings or working in our shops out in the garage. She has her side and I have mine, and it’s a nice way to spend some time together while working on our projects.

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.

The front of the store is an art book store, and there’s a wall that runs through the middle of the store that starts about 15 feet into the store. On the right side of the wall, after the book space, is an art gallery space. On the left side of the wall is more books, and in the back is a small hallway that leads to an installation space in the back of the store. So, when you walk into the store you can see the short hallway, but you can’t see into the space until you actually walk down the hallway and past the back wall that separates the installation space from the back wall of the book store. Hopefully, that makes sense.

At any rate, last year, after he found out I was into special effects and mask making, the store manager, Russell Etchen, asked me if I could create something for the show that was in 3-D, as most of the work created for the shows was 2-D artwork. I had intended to make a series of masks that could be sold and taken away by the buyer for Halloween night, but an illness in my immediate family prevented me from being a part of that show.

Talking with Russell earlier this year, he asked me if it would be possible, and if I’d be interested, in recreating a crime scene in the installation space at Domy Books for the Monster Show this year. After talking with him and Allison Kuo(Assistant Manager) at length about what they might want and about my thoughts on the subject, I decided that I would do the show if I could come up with a suitable scene to recreate. My initial thought was to create an original crime scene from scratch that had no basis or connection to an actual crime. Then, after looking through some of my true crime books for reference, I thought about recreating a well known crime scene photograph. After looking through one of my JTR books, I came across the picture of Mary Kelly that we all know so well, and decided to research it and see if I could make that work for the installation. The fact that it was the first instance of crime scene photography in the history of England was also a major appeal of the photo.

Truth be told, I was initially going to do the whole scene in full color, because after years of looking at that picture and trying to figure out what half the things were that were going on in that room, I figured that the only way to get any concrete answers was to do it as real as possible, and that included doing it in color. I went back over to the store and discussed it with Russell, and he seemed really up on the idea, so at that point I bought a sketchbook and decided to start making preliminary sketches and gathering information about her murder and the whole scene in general. I kept notes on everything I could find in my books as well as everything I could find on the internet that pertained to that one moment in time.

While talking with Chris one night at a friends going away party, I was telling him about the idea I had for recreating the Mary Kelly murder in full color. We were talking about how gruesome and intense it was going to be and wondering if it would be too shocking for most people to view. Chris came up with the brilliant idea of recreating the scene just like the photo, in black and white. The more we talked about it, the more excited I became about trying to recreate that scene just like it looked in all the books about the crimes. We talked about my doing it all in black and white except for the blood, which would be the only color in the room, but I eventually decided against it in favor of the whole thing being black and white. It would be less shocking to the viewer, and would allow someone to examine the room and the scene without being distracted by all of the obvious gore.

I had also intended to recreate the outer wall of the room in my original sketches. As the installation room has only 3 walls, with the open wall facing the hallway, my original idea was to put up a fake brick wall with 2 windows in it, which would also be in monochrome black and white. There would be a missing pane of glass, and the muslin curtains with an old coat hanging over the inside window, and the viewer would have to reach through the pane and push aside the curtains and the coat to see the scene inside the room, just like she was originally found. Doing it that way would have effectively put the viewer in the position of the first person that found her, Thomas Bowyer, so that every viewer is the first person on the scene.

Unfortunately, time and money did not permit me to build the wall, but I think it worked out for the best. Without the wall, the viewer is able to walk through the scene and see it from every angle, much like the police of the time would have been able to do, and it makes it more accessible than an old photo, if that’s possible. It allowed me to make sense of the, what I thought at the time, weird angles of her legs and arms. It brought home her death in a way I never would have thought possible. In creating her body, I had to consciously think about what happened to her and how she came to be and look like you see her in the original photo. It’s one thing to read about JTR cutting the strips of flesh off of her abdomen and slashing her face to shreds, but it’s quite another to sculpt it and recreate it.

I was as accurate in the depiction of her injuries as I could be based on the current information at hand, meaning the photo and the coroner’s report. It wasn’t done to be lurid, sensationalistic or as some kind of torture porn exhibit. The reason the rest of the room is in pure white is so that the viewer’s main focus is on the reality of the crime. The fireplace, the tables, the bottles and pipes and chairs are all secondary to the death of Mary Kelly. In the books and on the websites, everyone focuses on the minutiae of the room instead of on the most important object in the room: the body of Mary Kelly.

By breaking down the barrier of the 4th wall in the installation and in the photograph, I put the viewer in the position of the “Monster” Jack The Ripper admiring his handy-work and in the position of the police, morticians and coroner that had to deal with the aftermath of his brutal crimes. You see it like they saw it, for better or for worse, which is why we look at it. Can any of you honestly say that if the missing photos of the Mary Kelly crime scene resurfaced sometime in the near future, that you wouldn’t look at them? And, if so, why? She’s over a hundred years dead, the buildings demolished, Jack The Ripper, whoever he was, is dead. Why bother? Because, just like me, you’d be curious. “What am I NOT seeing when I see that photo?” you’d ask. Well, my installation shows you what you’re missing, to the best of my abilities. You can see the scene from any angle, as close or as far away as you want to be…

I don’t now, nor have I ever, seen Jack The Ripper as some darkly romantic figure stalking the shadows of Whitechapel servicing the city by dispatching one “unfortunate” at a time. There is nothing sexy about Jack The Ripper. He was more than likely a sociopath. He probably fit right in with all the other dregs wandering around down there at the time, and I doubt we’ll ever know who he was, which is why we continue to look at the photos of the victims. It’s our only tangible link to the man. We don’t have any weapons to fingerprint, no real contact with the killer (Other than the Lusk letter, which I believe to be the only real JTR letter), and no real description of what he might look like. All of the descriptions are different. Who was he?

My installation is a way to take a small step back in time and see the crime for yourself, with the focus on a real person in a real situation. It’s not supposed to be pretty or sanitized, although I’ve seen that phrase used on this site. The reason she is the only detailed part of the scene is because she’s the ONLY important part of the scene. Everything else is secondary and filler. She was a real person murdered by another real person. Not a ghost, or a legend, or a Mason, or some agent of the crown…just a sociopath bent on killing others.

I figure I’ve dragged this out enough for one day, but tomorrow I’ll go through everyone’s posts and answer individual questions one by one if they haven’t been accurately covered in this post. Sorry for the length, but now you know a little bit about who I am and hopefully a little bit about why I chose Mary Kelly’s murder for the installation.

Thank you for reading.

Peace,

David N. Allen

[babybird67]

thank you Dave

for telling us so much more. I for one have been moved by your work, totally unexpectedly i might add.

I too love monster movies...i can't tell you how many times i watch films that Ray Harryhausen has completed special effects for...Sinbad etc...they are among my favourite films!

[Ally]

[QUOTE=babybird67;104384]

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.

So an "artist" is completely removed from the subject matter of what he chooses to create? If this were a recreation of a murdered, raped splayed out child that he had lovingly and painstakingly crafted in every detail would you be so quick to see it as art? If it were "artistic" photographs of child pornography, done by a truly gifted photographer is the "art" more important than the subject matter and what the "artist" chooses to represent?

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?

Thanks, and when I want someone to tell me how I ought to behave I'll return to five years old and ask my mommy. Til then, I don't really need gentle reminders, but thanks for thinking of me. Especially considering that the only person who would have a right to make such a reminder is a person who had never made a personal remark about someone else. And that's not you. Now, if I were to call him ugly and fat, maybe this criticism would be valid. But I am making a judgment on his actions, and I don't agree with them or what they say to me about him. And I don't agree with turning a real butchered woman into a spectacle for people's Halloween amusement and then hiding behind the label of "art".

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?

Because he flat out lied. He stated he'd been here for months researching. Then he states he'd hoped to talk about it before it made it here. I doubt he cobbled this together, threw it together in a weekend and was "surprised" that it went live. If he had ANY real desire to discuss this like he said he did BEFORE it was posted here, he had several opportunities. You are telling me he's spent MONTHS crafting this, and researching on this very site but didn't have time to post it like he claimed he wanted to BEFORE it was found? Please. I am not that gullible.

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.

No but we can certainly discuss the motives of those who choose to appear here. And when we get freaky geeks who are only interested in licking their lips and drooling at the gore, you bet your butt they get chased off right quick. Look at the reception to the chick who believes in mediums and channeling. No where near as offensive as this dreck, but she's getting a HORRID reception and people are turning her thread into a joke. So while we are not the arbiters in who is interested, we certainly are in how they are received here.

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.

Lucky? he found the discussion in under five hours. That doesn't seem like luck to me. Seems like he was waiting for it. Especially since the gallery owners contacted casebook to MAKE Sure we'd all discuss it.

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.

If an "artist" can't explain his work then it's not really a work of art is it? If you can't tell you what motivated you, what's the point? but as he has now come and told us it was strictly a commercial venture a "shock and awe" installation like any funhouse, horror-house joke made for Halloween. I think that pretty much puts paid to the idea of it being "art".

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

.


I think in order for something to be art, at the very least it must express something about the "artist". If this doesn't express anything about the man who made it, it's not art. And what it expresses to me, about the man who made it, is disturbing. He took a real woman and made her into a plastic object of horror for commercial and crass reasons. To see if he could. Because it's SHOCKING. Not good enough reasons to make a caricature out of a real butchered woman. Not for the titillation and amusement of some bookstore crowd wanting a fake thrill on Halloween.

[babybird67]

So an "artist" is completely removed from the subject matter of what he chooses to create? If this were a recreation of a murdered, raped splayed out child that he had lovingly and painstakingly crafted in every detail would you be so quick to see it as art? If it were "artistic" photographs of child pornography, done by a truly gifted photographer is the "art" more important than the subject matter and what the "artist" chooses to represent?

No. Why do you insist on trying to sensationalise everything by alluding to paedophiles. Do you feel the same way about other posters to this site who have spent hours crafting out intricate details of the room, where the photographs were taken from etc? Why do they escape your censure? Because that is 'research' and not 'art'? What the art and the artist represent is open to interpretation, and there are ways of criticising art without demeaning the person behind it or attributing to that person base motives based only on your subjective interpretation of what he meant.

Thanks, and when I want someone to tell me how I ought to behave I'll return to five years old and ask my mommy. Til then, I don't really need gentle reminders, but thanks for thinking of me. And I don't think personal remarks demean the person making them. If I were to call him ugly and fat, maybe. But I am making a judgment on his actions, and I don't agree with them or what they say to me about him. And I don't agree with turning a real butchered woman into a spectacle for people's Halloween amusement and then hiding behind the label of "art".

I think as a community it is always good to remind eachother of how to treat one another, especially when we disagree. I've gone a bit over the top when i have been fired up myself, and usually regretted it. I was giving a gentle reminder as a friend, that's all. It wasn't meant to offend you.

I dont agree that he has turned a real woman into a spectacle. I presume you felt the same about From Hell's recreation of the whole series of murders, that everyone working on that production were moneymaking perverts full of ego? I was not 'amused' by looking at the piece not did i want to gawp at it as a 'spectacle'. It said something serious to me. That it is capable of doing one thing to you and another to me should be a sign that art is subjective and we should all be entitled to our opinions without being called perverted for having them.

No but we can certainly discuss the motives of those who choose to appear here.

Speculating on someone's motives and calling them perverted and egotistic etc is allowed? Wouldn't you rather hear what he has to say before you condemn him?

So while we are not the arbiters in who is interested, we certainly are in how they are received here.

'We' as in the community, several of us have been interested in this and want to hear more from the artist. I don't share your views on what this work represents or the speculation about his motives, and personal abuse is against the rules, so why don't you just leave those of us interested in it to ask the artist about his work? You don't have to be involved at all if the work does nothing for you.

Lucky? he found the discussion in under five hours. That doesn't seem like luck to me. Seems like he was waiting for it. Especially since the gallery owners contacted casebook to MAKE Sure we'd all discuss it.

Well, seeing as Philip had told the artist he had started a thread about his work, and gave the artist the link, i think that explains that for you.

If an "artist" can't explain his work then it's not really a work of art is it?

I can't believe you just said that. I thought you had degrees in literature? The blood of our very subject would be drained away if works of art/books etc had ONE single meaning, or could never be enlightened by the input of the author/creator. As an undergraduate we had Iris Murdoch come to our Uni to talk about her work...are you saying we should have said to her not to bother because her work could speak for itself and she had nothing other to add? Especially something controversial. like this...where you are imputing motives to someone that i firmly believe his work DOES NOT show him to have had. Blimey i had better give up reading and art altogether then if it is all that transparent.

If you can't tell you what motivated you, what's the point? but as he has now come and told us it was strictly a commercial venture a "shock and awe" installation like any funhouse, horror-house joke made for Halloween. I think that pretty much puts paid to the idea of it being "art".

I don't think he said that at all.

I think in order for something to be art, at the very least it must express something about the "artist".

I think it does but i profoundly disagree with you about what it says. That is because art is subjective.

If this doesn't express anything about the man who made it, it's not art. And what it expresses to me, about the man who made it, is disturbing. He took a real woman and made her into a plastic object of horror for commercial and crass reasons. To see if he could. Because it's SHOCKING. Not good enough reasons to make a caricature out of a real butchered woman. Not for the titillation and amusement of some bookstore crowd wanting a fake thrill on Halloween.

Sorry but i dont agree with you at all. Do you despise the people in the bookstore who went to buy Jack the Ripper books with the photo in it? Or do you only despise them and feel disgusted by them if they went a bit further and looked at the exhibit?Are 2-d images acceptable but take it a degree further and we become perverts? Are you disturbed by the people who did the special effects on From Hell, and all those who made money out of that film, and all Jack the Ripper films, including respected names in Ripperology here? What about people who have made money out of their books on the subject with Mary's photo in it? And Catherine's?

I agree it is shocking, because the crime itself was shocking, not because of anything the artist chose to do with the material. My reaction to it took me by surprise, but it was not one of titilation, spectacle, amusement etc...it MOVED me...i felt emotions for Mary that i had only felt for Catherine before. Before this i had always been unfair to Mary...gave her less attention because she gets it all most of the time anyway...she's the young pretty one everyone romanticises. The artist, far from demeaning or dehumanising Mary, finally allowed me to connect with her in a way i have not been able to before. it didn't do that for you? That's fine. Those are your views. Nothing the artist says is going to change your mind. You're entitled to your opinion. If you honestly think i am perverted and found some amusement in looking at the exhibit, that's your opinion, but i would say i would have thought you would know me a bit better than that.

[Ally]

He flat out said it was a Monster show installation. It was made to be a Halloween monster show. And if he had come in here and just been honest and said that he'd done it for the amusement and the shock value for a Monster show, I probably would have left him alone. But he's trying to hide behind a label of "art" and frankly I have higher expectation of art than fun house horror amusement freak shows.

He attempted to circumvent criticism by wrapping in a nice safe "art" package when it is nothing of the sort. It's pure pap, and pure shock value and if he'd gone straight for that, he would have done a lot better. As I told you, what I most strenuously object to is this being labeled as art. If you want to believe a funhouse freak show qualifies, more power to you.

And how is it more sensational to cite pedophilia as being "over the top and sensational" but a butchered murdered splayed out woman is somehow LESS sensational? How is that exactly? Could it possibly be that the murder of women is considered not so bad a thing really and therefore fair game for sensationalism and horror shows? It's more acceptable to use REAL victimized women in art?

[Supe]

My reaction is unimaginative, derivative and quite boring.

Don.

[Ally]

Oh and of course I do have to take one thing back. Now that we know this wasn't a work of art at all but a commercial venture, I take back the necrophiliac comment. Clearly it wasn't meant to be art and therefore says nothing about the maker. This, as a commissioned commercial venture, says nothing.

[Altered DNA]

A Reply to Ally

I would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have about the installation or about me in particular, but I have no desire to argue with you about the merits of my installation. If you don't like it, I appreciate your opinion, and your comments. But calling me names and assuming you know about me and my character based on this one installation says more about you than it does about me. There was no conspiracy about posting it on this site and I was under the impression that most of the people here would appreciate knowing about it. I wasn't paid for the installation, and in fact spent quite a bit of my own money creating it. If you saw it, and talked to me in person about it, maybe I could change your mind. But as it is, I'm sorry you feel the way you do about it and about me in particular. I worked very hard on it and tried my best to make it accurate, and for that I'm not in the least bit sorry.

Peace,

David N. Allen

[Archaic]

Hi, Dave, I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to explain to us how this project came about. I appreciate it very much, and I respect you for having the courage to do so in the face of criticism.

So we're not all at the bottom of a test tube??? I swear I saw a very large eyeball at the top.
Well, I knew you had studied a lot of Psych in college; I did too.

It's interesting how varied our reactions have been, isn't it? I do think your piece could be utilized in an academic setting, because it evokes such strong emotional and philosophical responses. And it's a sure-fire argument-starter, which college professors always seem to enjoy!

I'm going to look at your photos again and re-read your post when I have a little more leisure, I'd like to give the subject some serious reflection.

Thanks again for choosing to engage in dialogue with us- I think some people in your shoes might have run away.

Best regards, Archaic

[Khanada]

I'm pretty much with Archaic and babybird on this one. And as for whether it's art or not-art, that's in the eye of the beholder and I don't see either side winning the other over -- not about this piece, nor about any other.

In my favourite museum, there is a painting that is totally white. Nothing else, just a flat, white canvas, and not even a clever name. It's called White. I don't consider it art at all, and refer to it quite mockingly as The Emperor Is Without Apparel. Some might see something I don't. But they could go on until they turned blue, and I would still think that the piece was not art in the least. Largely because I could do the same think in fifteen minutes with Krylon. (That said, if someone likes it, they like it. Not a problem, just don't expect me to suddenly like it because they do, y'know?)

Thank you, Dave, for sharing your work and for stopping by. I only wish that the trip to Austin was a bit more practical for me at the moment, since these days I live much closer than I once did.

[Ally]

Dave,

If you are attempting to claim this as art, then too bad. Art is a reflection of the person who made it. And if it is art, then I don't really like what it says about you.

However, since it has now been made clear that this was commissioned for a horror show, while I still find it tasteless, it's less a reflection of you than of our times, where it is acceptable to use a real life brutalized human being as an object of entertainment.

[babybird67]

He flat out said it was a Monster show installation. It was made to be a Halloween monster show.

To say something about monsters...Jack was a monster...only a monster could be capable of doing what he did. You speak as if it was something done merely to 'entertain'. I strongly object to that. It didn't 'entertain' me, nor am i a pervert. It enlightened me. For that, i admire it, and the man/men who created it (if you object to the words art/artists so passionately).

And if he had come in here and just been honest and said that he'd done it for the amusement and the shock value for a Monster show, I probably would have left him alone. But he's trying to hide behind a label of "art" and frankly I have higher expectation of art than fun house horror amusement freak shows.

I don't agree with your interpretation of what he said, nor of what he intended. I notice you have ignored all the questions i put to you in my previous posts. Are we perverted to look at the image in 2-d as well as if we look at it in 3-d? Why do those at the bookstore buying Jack the Ripper books with the photograph of Mary in it escape your censure as perverts, but if they were to look at the replication of it in 3-d you think motivation suddenly changes? Why do people go to Madame Tussauds every year to look at 3-d replicas of real people? Are they perverts too? If this had appeared in a legitimate commercial Chamber of Horrors in such a place, would you have reacted in the same way?

He attempted to circumvent criticism by wrapping in a nice safe "art" package when it is nothing of the sort. It's pure pap, and pure shock value and if he'd gone straight for that, he would have done a lot better. As I told you, what I most strenuously object to is this being labeled as art. If you want to believe a funhouse freak show qualifies, more power to you.

I will have to go back and re-read what Dave actually called his work as i don't recall him using the word art or packaging it as art; the word he used was installation. Over here, installation usually has the meaning of something like a gas fire, something installed domestically, and i don't think it accurately describes what the work is. As you know, when we first discussed this in chat, i hadn't seen the work and we were debating 'art' in general'; i was operating on the understanding that people had said this was art. I have no problem with it being called art...it certainly has a much profounder effect on me than you are giving the creator credit for. I certainly did not look at it or appreciate it through perversion, amusement, spectacle etc.

And how is it more sensational to cite pedophilia as being "over the top and sensational" but a butchered murdered splayed out woman is somehow LESS sensational? How is that exactly? Could it possibly be that the murder of women is considered not so bad a thing really and therefore fair game for sensationalism and horror shows? It's more acceptable to use REAL victimized women in art?

Red herrings once again. It's sensational to link theoretical recreations of paedophilia to this particular recreation of a crime scene. Ever been to the London Dungeon? There are recreations of quite grisly historical things there. I think it's a red herring to suggest that this work says anything about the murder of women being not so bad a thing really. Why would you conclude that about this and not conclude the same about films which recreate the details and circumstances of the murders...perverted egos at work there, in the films? In the research books? No. Not at all. And neither is there a perverted ego at work here.

I've told you honestly my serious experience of this work...i am not a pervert, nor am i into spectacle or gratuitous horror; i think the murder of anybody, gender or age regardless, is wrong. I got something i did not expect from this work, and i don't care if you don't get it, but i won't sit by and let you malign someone who has stated his intentions, none of which are reprehensible (he did not make money, unlike those involved in the entertainment film From Hell) just because you object to what he has done as being called 'art'.

Some people think art is a painting of a can of soup or baked beans; some people think art is a bunch of cubed geometrical shapes arranged in a particular order; some people think art is a cow's carcass sawn in half and preserved in formaldehyde; some people think art is a messy female's bedroom strewn with junk and sanitary towels a la Tracey Emin; these people are all right; these people are also all wrong; because what art is, is fluid, subjective, individual, unique, uncontrollable, effusive, rebellious...in essence, it is uncontainable. It shirks labels and it shirks stereoptyping. It asserts itself whether you will or no. You cannot shout it down. You cannot silence its effect. You cannot control it. You can only walk away from it if you choose to.

Personally, i don't care what it is called but I have no problem calling this art, or with admiring it, making my admiration public, and therefore aligning myself with someone you wish to label as perverted. You don't have to think it's art. Walk away from it despising us. Just stop trying to tell us we aren't entitled to appreciate it as art if that's what we feel. I respect your opinion to dislike it; please respect mine without trying to belittle it/me with accusations of perversion and amusement because you are way off the mark.

[anna]

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.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=babybird67;104448]

I don't agree with your interpretation of what he said, nor of what he intended. I notice you have ignored all the questions i put to you in my previous posts. Are we perverted to look at the image in 2-d as well as if we look at it in 3-d? Why do those at the bookstore buying Jack the Ripper books with the photograph of Mary in it escape your censure as perverts, but if they were to look at the replication of it in 3-d you think motivation suddenly changes? Why do people go to Madame Tussauds every year to look at 3-d replicas of real people? Are they perverts too? If this had appeared in a legitimate commercial Chamber of Horrors in such a place, would you have reacted in the same way?

As with all things in life INTENT matters. This was created for a shock and awe HALLOWEEN exhibit. If you believe that proper placement of a person's brutal death scene, a real life human being who was brutally slaughtered is in some commercial funhouse, freak show for the halloween amusement of the masses, then fine. You and I have a fundamental difference regarding how this case is best seen. This was not done as part of an overall informational setting about the crimes, the people or the history. It wasn't done to tell a story or to enlighten. It was done to titillate the masses in a haunted house type freak show setting. We have a "house of horrors" here in Orlando where scary monster scenes are on display. Who knew its appropriate setting was actually the Louvre.

I will have to go back and re-read what Dave actually called his work as i don't recall him using the word art or packaging it as art; the word he used was installation.

Allow me to help you there:

My name is Dave Allen, and I am the artist responsible for the art installation at Domy Books here in Austin, Texas.

As you know, when we first discussed this in chat, i hadn't seen the work and we were debating 'art' in general'; i was operating on the understanding that people had said this was art. I have no problem with it being called art...it certainly has a much profounder effect on me than you are giving the creator credit for. I certainly did not look at it or appreciate it through perversion, amusement, spectacle etc.

Any horror film or rubber movie monster designed to gross out and freak out the people seeing it, would have about the same effect on anyone. The only reason you are more profoundly affected is because you are aware that this was a real person. The average viewer is going to look at it and be grossed out and take no more away from it than they did with any other exhibit in that house of horrors. The only reason this had ANY special impact, is because you came to it with prior knowledge of who that mass of flesh was. The people that this was intended for, the people who were drawn into that bookstore to be amused and titillated and horrified on halloween are going to have no greater reaction to it than to any other "fright fest" exhibition-- AND THAT'S AWFUL. She was a real person. She doesn't belong among the other dracula/frakenstein/boogie man exhibitions. She shouldn't be used as Halloween fright fest entertainment.

Red herrings once again. It's sensational to link theoretical recreations of paedophilia to this particular recreation of a crime scene.

No, it's really not a red herring. The fact that you see it as a red herring proves my point. To you, using a crime against a child to sell or entertain or amuse or shock, is an awful, awful, sensationalist thing. But to use the real life murder of a woman to do the EXACT same thing, is art. Double standard all the way.

I've told you honestly my serious experience of this work...i am not a pervert, nor am i into spectacle or gratuitous horror; i think the murder of anybody, gender or age regardless, is wrong. I got something i did not expect from this work, and i don't care if you don't get it, but i won't sit by and let you malign someone who has stated his intentions, none of which are reprehensible (he did not make money, unlike those involved in the entertainment film From Hell) just because you object to what he has done as being called 'art'.

Making money isn't the definition of what separates art from non-art. The makers of the movie From Hell never tried to package it as art. They put it out there purely for what it was and the central focus was not the spread eagled death scene of a woman placed amongst other Halloween horrors purely for the sake of showing her death.

Personally, i don't care what it is called but I have no problem calling this art, or with admiring it, making my admiration public, and therefore aligning myself with someone you wish to label as perverted. You don't have to think it's art. Walk away from it despising us. Just stop trying to tell us we aren't entitled to appreciate it as art if that's what we feel. I respect your opinion to dislike it; please respect mine without trying to belittle it/me with accusations of perversion and amusement because you are way off the mark.

You think too highly of the artist and your opinions to think that I would find them worthy of despising. If he wants to make monster movie props and call them art, and hide behind a label of art, when he knows flat out it was a commercial venture and nothing of the sort, that's his right. And I have the right to point out it's total balls.

As I have already stated the ONLY reason this impacted you more than say seeing a "dracula chewing on a woman" exhibit is that you knew she was a real person. And the only people who are going to be in anyway impacted by this is people who knew she was a real person. The rest are going to have no more consideration for that exhibit than any other that was there. He made her more of an unreal, fictionalized horror than any movie has ever done. He took her completely out of context and slapped her in among cheap horror thrills. If you hadn't known the reality, this would not have affected you as strongly as you say it did. And for the vast majority of people, that don't know it's a reality, they will have no great impact or revelatory experience from this. They'll view it, go "ew", compare it to the picture for its accuracy, and move on to the next installation of the Wolfman chewing on a leg. Yeah. That's art.