Because he was apparently unable to add anything to the human patrimony (for the lack of a better word)... he chose instead to try become relevant via subtracting from it. So maybe the tourist...
Because he was apparently unable to add anything to the human patrimony (for the lack of a better word)... he chose instead to try become relevant via subtracting from it.
So maybe the tourist that etches writings onto the walls of Colosseum or Hagia Sophia is actually a misunderstood avant-garde artist?
It can churn your stomach to see such a precious artifact destroyed, but the work paid off in both cultural and symbolic value. The story behind the artwork is as fascinating as the dropping itself. You see, it enraged most antique collectors, but Ai was out to remind them about the evils of the Mao regime. It was a crystal-clear depiction of what the Communist regime was doing to the elites. Ai countered the outrage from people by describing what General Mao used to tell them, “the only way of building a new world is by destroying the old one.”
As if there wasn't a million ways to say that, yeah. Breaking shit is just easier, so why not! /s
I am really glad that I didn't visit his exhibition in Istanbul a couple years ago, supporting work of this kind. This is not expressive nor creative. It doesn't mean anything w/o excessively imaginary readings of the work. It leeches off of the value of work that it irreversibly destroys.
So instead of an individual owning it, a museum does? With all of the "priceless relics" that either get thrown out or moved into storage in museums, I don't really see how that would be better.
So instead of an individual owning it, a museum does? With all of the "priceless relics" that either get thrown out or moved into storage in museums, I don't really see how that would be better.
It's a shame to destroy such a nice object and I don't think the statement made by the resultant photo sequence is of greater value than the original urn. I don't think this sort of art is in...
It's a shame to destroy such a nice object and I don't think the statement made by the resultant photo sequence is of greater value than the original urn. I don't think this sort of art is in anyway brilliant or ingenious - in fact, I think it's arrogant and meritless.
I respectfully disagree; there's nothing special to distinguish the urn other than that it's thousands of years old. Wei Wei's MO has always been, along with many other contemporary Chinese...
I respectfully disagree; there's nothing special to distinguish the urn other than that it's thousands of years old.
Wei Wei's MO has always been, along with many other contemporary Chinese artists, to make provocative art by shattering barriers and breaking down social norms, especially for making political statements.
This is sad. That 'other than' clause is special enough to distinguish the urn. Destroying it is theft of the commonwealth of humankind. Ai Wei Wei's work has been displayed in Istanbul, but to me...
I respectfully disagree; there's nothing special to distinguish the urn other than that it's thousands of years old.
This is sad. That 'other than' clause is special enough to distinguish the urn. Destroying it is theft of the commonwealth of humankind.
Ai Wei Wei's work has been displayed in Istanbul, but to me the pamphlet was enough: this guy is provocative, that's for sure, but I can't really say the same for the "art" part. This thing is way less effective, efficient, creative or useful than just criticising what we care about or stating what he wants us to care about.
Where was the concern for the lives that were lost during that awful regime? Do you really care more about an urn than what happened to those people? Why do we care more about this material object (and by extension, any other material object) than we do about human suffering that's going on even today? The kinds of questions that make people who care a lot about the urns a tad uncomfortable, probably explains in part their criticism of him and discomfort with this radical statement against the inherent value of objects.
Not really. That's not a particularly illuminated or nuanced view of why people care about archaeological artifacts. These objects are the key to the tale of both the oppressors and opressees of the past. Destroying them does more harm to the story of the latter, given the way the history is written only gave them a voice through their oppressors, mostly. And that aside, there is no need to pick sides here, it is the Past, and we can care about all sides of it. But of course, that's too much of a nuance for someone who lives off of destroying historical artifacts catering to the new world-wide pseudo-intellectual middle class. The likes of Wei Wei are good showpersons, but trainwrecks of an artist.
These posts have convinced me that Ai Wei Wei is an artist whose works evidently do have impact, given that they have made people question and think about the topic he intended.
These posts have convinced me that Ai Wei Wei is an artist whose works evidently do have impact, given that they have made people question and think about the topic he intended.
That is quite a low---and dangerously low---bar, to be honest. News of rape make me think of the flaws of a patriarchal violent male-centric society, but I'd rather have rape cease to exist than...
That is quite a low---and dangerously low---bar, to be honest. News of rape make me think of the flaws of a patriarchal violent male-centric society, but I'd rather have rape cease to exist than that there be events that lead people on to thinking of such facts.
How exactly would that specific vase have told a story? As in, what about it makes it special other than that it's from the Han dynasty?
Not really. That's not a particularly illuminated or nuanced view of why people care about archaeological artifacts. These objects are the key to the tale of both the oppressors and opressees of the past. Destroying them does more harm to the story of the latter, given the way the history is written only gave them a voice through their oppressors, mostly.
How exactly would that specific vase have told a story? As in, what about it makes it special other than that it's from the Han dynasty?
Because he was apparently unable to add anything to the human patrimony (for the lack of a better word)... he chose instead to try become relevant via subtracting from it.
So maybe the tourist that etches writings onto the walls of Colosseum or Hagia Sophia is actually a misunderstood avant-garde artist?
As if there wasn't a million ways to say that, yeah. Breaking shit is just easier, so why not! /s
I am really glad that I didn't visit his exhibition in Istanbul a couple years ago, supporting work of this kind. This is not expressive nor creative. It doesn't mean anything w/o excessively imaginary readings of the work. It leeches off of the value of work that it irreversibly destroys.
The tourist is committing vandalism by desecrating something that isn't theirs; I'm assuming Wei Wei paid or otherwise owned the vases he destroyed.
The idea that you can own these objects is deeply flawed, they belong in a museum.
So instead of an individual owning it, a museum does? With all of the "priceless relics" that either get thrown out or moved into storage in museums, I don't really see how that would be better.
It's a shame to destroy such a nice object and I don't think the statement made by the resultant photo sequence is of greater value than the original urn. I don't think this sort of art is in anyway brilliant or ingenious - in fact, I think it's arrogant and meritless.
I respectfully disagree; there's nothing special to distinguish the urn other than that it's thousands of years old.
Wei Wei's MO has always been, along with many other contemporary Chinese artists, to make provocative art by shattering barriers and breaking down social norms, especially for making political statements.
This is sad. That 'other than' clause is special enough to distinguish the urn. Destroying it is theft of the commonwealth of humankind.
Ai Wei Wei's work has been displayed in Istanbul, but to me the pamphlet was enough: this guy is provocative, that's for sure, but I can't really say the same for the "art" part. This thing is way less effective, efficient, creative or useful than just criticising what we care about or stating what he wants us to care about.
cc @tempestoftruth :
Not really. That's not a particularly illuminated or nuanced view of why people care about archaeological artifacts. These objects are the key to the tale of both the oppressors and opressees of the past. Destroying them does more harm to the story of the latter, given the way the history is written only gave them a voice through their oppressors, mostly. And that aside, there is no need to pick sides here, it is the Past, and we can care about all sides of it. But of course, that's too much of a nuance for someone who lives off of destroying historical artifacts catering to the new world-wide pseudo-intellectual middle class. The likes of Wei Wei are good showpersons, but trainwrecks of an artist.
These posts have convinced me that Ai Wei Wei is an artist whose works evidently do have impact, given that they have made people question and think about the topic he intended.
That is quite a low---and dangerously low---bar, to be honest. News of rape make me think of the flaws of a patriarchal violent male-centric society, but I'd rather have rape cease to exist than that there be events that lead people on to thinking of such facts.
How exactly would that specific vase have told a story? As in, what about it makes it special other than that it's from the Han dynasty?