'McCarthy's Rents' art installation

[Ally]

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

[John Bennett]

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

Good point.

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

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

I know what you mean!

[Ally]

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

One is a study for clues, the other is an act of devotion that borders on the disturbed.

[ChrisGeorge]

Do we know the motives? Nope. Are we free to speculate? You betcha.

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

It made me think the "artist" is a creepy little geek with necrophiliac tendencies.

Indeed, Ally, as with any artwork, it is in the eye of the beholder, as the old adage goes.

But why should the artist be "a creepy little geek with necrophiliac tendencies" any more than posters on this forum who analyze different aspects of the MJK crime scene photographs?

Chris

[Ally]

Do we know the motives? Nope. Are we free to speculate? You betcha.

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

It made me think the "artist" is a creepy little geek with necrophiliac tendencies.

[John Bennett]

Personally I think the creator is a sick tweaky little geek who made it so he could have a girlfriend to curl up with at night. Now he's bored with her, like all men and has moved on to a new real doll...

As a bloke on these boards, I'd like to thank you for your insight, Ally.

Seriously though, do we yet know the artist's reasoning behind this creation? I certainly don't. As a former art student in the 1980s, I saw many yukky installations where one had difficulty working out what the motivation was. I could personally live without a modern recreation of ANY murder scene, but having seen these images, it did make me think a bit.

JB

[Ally]

Jen,

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

Personally I think the creator is a sick tweaky little geek who made it so he could have a girlfriend to curl up with at night. Now he's bored with her, like all men and has moved on to a new real doll...maybe Mary Queen of Scots? Or possibly simple decapitations don't do it for him.

[babybird67]

wow

i was arguing blind about this 'art' yesterday in chat.

Now i have seen it for myself and i have to say...stunning. If i was geographically close i would definitely go to see it.

It makes a lot of the injuries i could not make out properly from the photograph a lot clearer and i agree with John, the photograph does not have the same impact, perhaps because we are used to it. The fact that this is 3-d makes all the difference and brings what happened to Mary the person home much harder.

For me, art acts in dialogue with reality, and the impact of this art in the round for me recreates the scene at the time, and may allow some to appreciate how those people felt who discovered poor Mary that morning. A
2-d image simply cannot create the same effect imo. It makes the horror more real and gives us a new insight into the experience.

It does not mean that something 'fake' creates more sympathy/empathy in the viewer than something 'real' (i.e. the original photograph); i see it as a dialogue between reality and representation, and this art adds to the experience of the reality of the thing it represents (by which i mean the murder of Mary Jane Kelly). That can only be a good thing imo.

Dave...your exhibit is stunning. Well done.

[Suzi]

Posted the stuff that I did last night inspired by Dave's stuff and the conf on the pub talk pics threadxx

PS I admire what Dave is trying to do here- not quite sure why- but it's impressive x

[Archaic]

More Questions For Dave

Well, these comments are certainly interesting.


Dave, I can't help wondering if you built this at home, and how those close to you reacted to it.
-Did your room-mates suddenly get nervous & move out?

Can you please tell us the dimensions of this piece? (Is it life-sized, 1/2-scale, etc?)

And I'm also curious where you envision it ending up; for example, in an art museum, on public display, or in a private collection?

Thank you, Archaic

[ChrisGeorge]

Have to say, the reactions here are very much what I expected. I daresay Dave is delighted and it's exactly what he was planning.

PHILIP

Hello Philip

Well, I don't know. Is the installation meant to shock, or is it meant to be a truthful reflection of the scene?

Chris

[Robert]

This is kind of horrifying, and I think that's partly because of the contrasts. The room is antiseptically spotless, even parts of the bed and the body seem clean. So some liberties have been taken with the crime scene, but as it doesn't claim to be an accurate representation, that's OK.

I'm just wondering whether it would have been better left untitled. I don't think it needs a title.

[George Hutchinson]

Have to say, the reactions here are very much what I expected. I daresay Dave is delighted and it's exactly what he was planning.

PHILIP

[tji]

Hi all

I have to agree with John Bennett - looking at these new pictures made me realise how I can look at the original kelly photos without much emotion. I look at those photos as a puzzle not a murdered woman.

These new recreations had the clarity to make me realise this is not the case, so I would like to say thanks to Dave for your hard work - and the detail seems amazing. Well done!

tj

[Suzi]

Hi John-
Yes I know- Trapped at home with the lurgey still and saw this- A couple of thoughts-

a) OMG I went to Art College with a Dave Allen (no not THAT one!)

b) Aaagh that's gross,

c) That's interesting......checking out the Flickr thing thing Oooh Wow ...interesting stuff

d) Wonder how he did it- and why?

e) Interested enough to print off a few pics from it

f) PM the guy and ask him how and why......

Suz
(Not eating!.....now! )