'McCarthy's Rents' art installation

[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]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[Supe]

My reaction is unimaginative, derivative and quite boring.

Don.

[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?

[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]

[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]

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!