the artwork/viewer relationship

by jennifermaddock, 02.27.06 06:38 pm

An intervention into Rachel Whiteread's Embankment piece took place during the Jonathan Meese performance on Saturday (25/02/06) in the Turbine Hall of Tate Modern. I feel the dynamic of smaller galleries is often lost in heavily populated, more heavily guarded galleries such as Tate Modern, whereby one can feel extremely distanced from the artwork. Witnessing this sort of playful interaction acts a welcome reminder that the viewer's relationship with the artwork doesn't have to be so one-way. This kind of interaction opens up a discourse with the work that Whiteread would surely welcome. The playful aspect of her piece is clear when considering its sugar-cube like forms, Tate and Lyle's sweetest work to date! Interventionists I commend you.

Re: the artwork/viewer relationship

by Diemdee (02.28.06 06:17 am)

sugar-cubes and their content were ALOT more interesting in 1968

Re: the artwork/viewer relationship

by Diemdee (02.28.06 06:28 am)

Imagine Injun Joe locked in a dark vault somewhere with only J. Antonioni's “Gnaw” to, er, gnaw on...

Imagine numb crowds at the Tate milling by the video of said performance....'getting it'....

Lights on, lights definitely far OUT....


Re: the artwork/viewer relationship

by Madhatter (02.28.06 12:02 pm)

Didnt “Sadie Edginton” post this first? What happen? I'm so confuzed.

Re: the artwork/viewer relationship

by somelikeithot (02.28.06 12:10 pm)

“An intervention” - ? details?

is there a “line” between “vandalism” and “intervention”?

we went to the recent opening in nyc, - it pissed off my buddy to no end. “inside oh i fucking get it” Call it a throw back to scuplture 101, but I happen to be a fan of hers. how do we define space if not by the space around it? content aside there is something visually stikeing about the staircases, - is it possible the “easy to digest” and market boxes diminish the more socially powerful work - condemned houses and such?

Re: the artwork/viewer relationship

by jennifermaddock (02.28.06 02:49 pm)

In response to somelikeithot:

I found a pretty cynical attempt to differentiate between vandalism and intervention while I was reading about the event in Tate Modern: Stuckism handy guide to the art world....
An act by an individual which interferes with an existing artwork is termed an “intervention” and the individual termed an “artist” if they are endorsed by a Tate curator or are dead. The same, or similar, act by an individual interfering with the same artwork (or even interfering with the interference to the artwork), if they are alive and are not endorsed by a Tate curator, is termed “vandalism”, and the individual termed a “criminal”.
It's from the Stuckist anti-art movement website, I thought that you'd like it. I can see some truth in the suggestion that there is a double standard in such situations but the suggestion of interaction/intervention as vandalism I see as old-fashioned. It is something that should be promoted in order add a dynamic to the artwork with the capacity to assist the work in avoiding becoming stale.

‘For me, an image is the sum of destructions’ -p.p.

by somelikeithot (02.28.06 03:48 pm)

cool thx! i will def check out,

i guess the answer like all of art is subjective and lays with in intention - are they “acts of rage” or as you suggest “assist the work in avoiding becoming stale”. i think we had a thread up at one point on how the chapman brothers worked in to this equasion.
Issue 3 Summer 2001

.A Partial Guide to the Tools of Art Vandalism.

Re: the artwork/viewer relationship

by somelikeithot (02.28.06 04:30 pm)

- note —- (as i mentioned on this thread) i see a huge line between furthering the content of the work and vandalism. and for me there is a differance. the above post refering to vandalism -

Re: the artwork/viewer relationship

by Amanda Drednaught (02.28.06 07:08 pm)

yin / YANG

Re: the artwork/viewer relationship

by somelikeithot (02.28.06 11:53 pm)

so what about Shafrazi?

Toni Tony Tone

by Amanda Drednaught (03.01.06 12:50 am)

magnesium in water

give god a hand clap

Re: the artwork/viewer relationship

by Madhatter (03.01.06 02:45 am)

We'll just put some bleachers out in the sun

Re: the artwork/viewer relationship

by Diemdee (03.01.06 07:41 am)

Langenberg's 9th Law:
If you choose form over substance, you will have your wish.

Re: the artwork/viewer relationship

by Madhatter (03.01.06 11:12 am)

Langenberg's 67th Law:
You can't have cats and puzzles too.

There's a kind of masochism (or stocism) in steel. A kind of pain that one takes (no) pleasure in. In the same way, each material, each medium, has its own pain. No one dwells on that, it pleasure of paint this or obdurate steel that - at least for the viewer. Effortless elan. Elation!

I was sniffing tolulene (a popular paint stripper) last night and I had some pretty fancy hallucinations.

In one, I was on a bus headed away from Storm King and I was arguing with some people who had not been assimilated. I said that the old material world order was waning like some poetic twilight age of yore, and the new pixelated digital god was uppon us.

I told them I was a bridge between the old and the new, having arrived in the middle. Behind me was a wave of illiterate instant hermeticisms. Ahead of me, the old, clinging to a world order of collapsed hierarchies and roads to ghost towns, railroad barons interred amidst orchards of rotting myths. The inhabitants ululating wildly in packs, like dogs, looking for salvation, finding only painfull pixelated neon probes.

Then, in dreamlike fashion it was the morning and my roomates boytoy umplugged my ethernet cable, removing the card in the process - which is held in with pure love.

I had to restart the system, which, I think, is what is going on. At least in the service industry.

Re: Customer Service: the artwork/viewer relationship

by Amanda Drednaught (03.01.06 11:27 am)

Offer comfortable shoes and a map. Oh, and smile.

Re: the artwork/viewer relationship

by somelikeithot (03.01.06 12:10 pm)

Langenberg's 78th Law:
Investigate a vendor with increased interest if their competitor trash talks them.
- (but really that becomes the 77th by default and the year of both HL and I'z birth)
- i am weary of supersitous Laws - would rather feel it out thru form.

Re: the artwork/viewer relationship

by Madhatter (03.01.06 01:48 pm)

I read that the financially strapped Milwaukee Art Museum is letting in barbarians, projectile vomiting while perched like gargoyles atop statuary. Time to get my fiddle out of the pawn shoppe.

by somelikeithot (03.01.06 02:07 pm)

find your brand. man.
there is a way to do it right. we heard an artist speak last night about how they were “influanced” by pop culture but tried to not participate they just “couldn't get away” - oh and anyone in the generantion below her - has no intrest “in history” i mused over this when i fell over a pile of misplaced history books last night...- don't let the dogma bitya.

Re: the artwork/viewer relationship

by Madhatter (03.02.06 03:04 am)

A culture lookin for a culture...

Flu like symptoms.

Re: the artwork/viewer relationship

by thingsthatgo (03.02.06 09:52 am)

In the garden of eden all was good, All those who presided there where not but good and experienced only this. The mythical fall relates to the uncertainty of whether there was anything else, anything other than good. Was there another experience outside of this?
In the mythical fall the two sexes which were one made a decision to act upon this lingering thought, a question. Spit into two instead of two in one—pure experience and the lingering were replaced with the simple question of was there work to be done. Arose all sorts of conflict. Thus arose new experience. Tsunami one day the next ripples.

Re: the artwork/viewer relationship

by Madhatter (03.02.06 10:52 am)

People threw up, passed out, were injured, got into altercations and climbed onto sculptures at Martinifest, a semi- formal event organized by Clear Channel Radio and held at the museum Feb. 11, according to several people who attended or worked at the event.

“Hindsight is 20-20 . . . it was probably too cheap,” Kerry Wolfe, a local programming director for Clear Channel, said of the event's premise - unlimited martinis for $30.

Luckily, the gum, stuck to the painting's lower left-hand corner (from the viewer's perspective), had not adhered to the fiber of the canvas. But it did leave a chemical residue about the size of a quarter, said Becky Hart, assistant curator of contemporary art. She said the conservation department was researching the exact chemicals in the gum to determine which solvent should be used to clean the painting.

Once a solvent is chosen, Hart said the picture would be placed on a vacuum table that would pull the solvent through the canvas, removing the stain. She said the museum hoped to have the painting repaired in two weeks. The picture will remain on view in the meantime.

From the Floor

Re: the artwork/viewer relationship

by Madhatter (03.02.06 10:53 am)

“He said he liked rap, so I said, ‘Well, you know what rock 'n’ roll is,' and he did, so I said, ‘Can you imagine if somebody had messed up the beat in rock and roll so you didn't have any rhythm in rap.’ And he looked at me, and he got it immediately.”

Re: the artwork/viewer relationship

by Madhatter (03.02.06 11:17 am)

Let them eat cake? No, I ate cake. Great cake.

But this is for real so forget about me got 8 more minutes to go

by somelikeithot (03.02.06 11:29 am)

wholly yikes please tell me that video is of the “bloopers”.

Re: the artwork/viewer relationship

by Madhatter (03.02.06 11:34 am)

Ladies and gentlemen, GOrdon Matta Clark!!!!!

Wild applause.

Why Gordon, why now?

Wild applause.

Lets go to Rirkrit Tirivanija

Rirkrit, why Gordo, why now?

Rirkrit: “I have 2,000 slides, but you ask questions, only one”

Thanks Rirkrit. Well, there you have it, a gaping VOID! Well be hanging out for the whole thing to reach critical mass and impode, ending space time as you know it...stay tuned!

And now a word from ourt sponsor, HYPERNET!!!!

HYPERNET uses quantum tunneling to give you news and paradoxes before you can even say word one. Let there be light!

what happens when u run out of lines?

by somelikeithot (03.02.06 11:42 am)

omg. nice photos!!...
wtf did the gate keepers go out on smoke break? thx. 4 depreciating my degree...
each time i see a hole thru a wall it is unique and suprising like a snowflake...

Re: viewer/hole/viewer relationship

by Diemdee (03.03.06 07:04 am)

As the retarded attention shifts from objects to bandwidth.... opportunist plays to the crowd with amusing institutionalised insincerity.

Madhatter get your fiddle, I'll get the toluene.

The rest of you just go get another degree.

Re: the artwork/wikipedia relationship

by Madhatter (04.01.06 02:35 pm)

Dear Mr. Watt:
Liberty Counsel is a national public interest law firm. We have presented many briefs before the United States Supreme Court, and we have argued before the High Court and in state and federal courts throughout the nation. Liberty Counsel has offices in Florida, Virginia and hundreds of affiliate attorneys licensed in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We frequently provide assistance to various organizations including Exodus International (“Exodus”).

It has recently come to our attention that your web site,, is using an image that you admit was taken from the Exodus web site. As you are aware, that image is located at

You appear to believe that the stolen image is exempt from federal intellectual property laws as a “parody” due to “fair use.” Unfortunately, the intricacies of federal law cannot adequately be covered on “Wikipedia” due to the variety of facts addressed by courts in numerous cases. Your use of the image is indeed a violation of copyright law and is not covered by “fair use.” Nearly the entire image file from the Exodus web site was is used on your web site with only two changes. You changed “Gay” to “Straight?” and “” to “” Furthermore, your altered image substantially diminishes the potential value of the original image as utilized by Exodus on billboards across America and online. Moreover, your infringing activity creates the false impression that Exodus is sponsoring or endorsing the altered billboard, in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125, as it contains the “E” logo mark that belongs to Exodus. You have not been licensed or authorized to use either the image or the logo belonging to Exodus.

We are confident that you will understand our insistence that you immediately cease use of the image on your web site or in any other form. Please confirm your agreement to this request, and please note your confirmation that no other use is being or will be made of the images or logo, by signing and returning an original signature on a copy of this letter at the address shown above, no later than March 15, 2006. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation with this request.

Mathew D. Staver, Esq.