Anyone seen the Sunset in the Main Hall ? Fantastic.
I wasn't too taken with the Henry Moore show as he seems
a bit dated now. The Anish Kapoor exhibit was excellent
too. I prefer the Main Hall to be used for a single mind-blowing
exhibit, something that makes you want to return for a
second or third look.
I'd post a couple of photos but unfortunately we're still waiting
for James to make the facility available.
Sometimes I wonder if it's best to do a few things very well,
rather than a lot of things fairly well.
James, now that was an interesting article.
I often wondered what happened to these giants
when they've finished their run. At least it's being
considered that they be lent to countries with better
weather so they can be shown outside.
I think it might be better to allow people to go to the
Sunset without any giveaway photos. The 2 on your
review page don't do it justice.
I have posted 3 on the news group under the Foggy Sunset
thread --: http://groups.msn.com/News/general.msnw
and took the liberty of mentioning your Independant article.
but was Marsyas a decoration? (it was certainly decorative)
are ugly pieces of art better art?
how decorative is something allowed to be before it's disqualified as serious art?
My knowledge of art isn't wide, but to my feeble brain there's as much evidence of creative thought, and as much impact on the viewer, in the foggy/sunny/handyandy thing in the turbine hall now as there is in, say, a urinal (Duchamp - "artist") or a glass case exhibiting various combinations of felt and melted fat (Joseph Beuys - "artist"). The main difference to me is that I can pass a pleasant 10 minutes basking in the sun in the turbine hall and enjoy it!
I agree the turbine hall is a great place to be...for the impact and the people-watching. And this exhibit , plus the previous one, puts a smile on the face of many visitors. I did enjoy it, honest.
Would 100's of kites kept aloft by an airstream be art? Installing a snowmachine in the ceiling? I really Don't know. Like this, it takes minutes to think up and weeks for the technical folk and handymen to make. The execution is the marvel, I think.
I also agree that people should take a look and be surprised, rather than know too much in advance.
I understand what you're saying, but isn't a lot of (not just modern) art like this (in the sense that it's often made by contracted 3rd parties rather than the artists, and that the underlying idea is very simple)?
Apparently, Rembrandt wasn't unusual in that large parts of "his" paintings were done by his pupils and he concentrated on the finishing touches. Warhol, Koons, Kapoor (since arguably Arup, the engineers, were the star of Marsyas), are surely following in this tradition.
I went to a very famous (I say this because, not trusting in my own judgement to discern everyday objects from high-concept modern art, I think maybe I should be able to take as given that all the exhibits in there had been chosen by someone whose opinion is considered valid) modern art museum recently where I was gobsmacked to see a pile of felt strips on the floor. Yes, it was a work of art which the artist had deliberately restricted his/her involvement in to such an extent that, apparently, they sent the strips in the post and got a spare curator to drop them on the floor, and wherever they landed that was the work of "art".
Compared to that, I'd say that the sunset was a triumph of creativity and artist involvement.
You've raised an interesting topic, I think. Wonder what anyone else thinks?????????