My apologies to Paul for barging in on his ongoing series about "Artwork Khrushchev Probably Would Not Have Liked," but I've found a piece that I think fits the category. It wasn't made prior to Khruschev's premiership, so it doesn't fully qualify under the category. Nevertheless, if Khruschev were still alive, I don't think he would like it.
It's the "Seagull Cinderella" by artist Donna Dobson. Also known as the "seagull with boobs."
It stirred up controversy in the summer of 2016 when it was installed on New Bedford's Seaport Art Walk. Local residents started a petition demanding its removal. This inspired a counter-petition by fans of the statue. I think the statue now has a permanent home in Maynard, MA.
Posted By: Alex - Mon Jan 30, 2017 -
Comments (7)
Category: Art
Inspired by my earlier post about Khruschev's distaste for modern art, I am moved to launch this occasional series about modern art that was made prior to his premiership (1958) that would have likely offended him. I will focus on less-famous works.
If this is not an esoteric thread, I'm not sure what is!
In Culver City, California, artist Illma Gore is painting a canvas with human blood to protest the upcoming inauguration of Donald Trump. She's working with 20 pints of blood donated by artists, musicians, and activists.
I'm sensing that weird stuff people do to protest Trump will be a prolific theme in weird news during the next four years.
We've discussed much gun-based art here before--artists shooting themselves or other objects--but I do not believe we have yet covered this instance by Niki de Saint Phalle.
A white canvas with bags of paint concealed beneath was to be fired upon, releasing the paint in random patterns. But the project proved more intractable than anticipated.
About a year ago, a conspicuously inconspicuous blue rectangle appeared amid the usual procession of selfies, news articles, status updates, event notifications, and advertisements in my Facebook feed... The rectangle was part of a project, “A Refusal,” by the early career artist who goes by the deliberately overdetermined name of American Artist. For a period of one year, American posted blue rectangles to his Facebook page in lieu of the photographs he would ordinarily post; the text portion of his status updates was similarly redacted, crossed out in black and unreadable. Viewers, an artist’s statement explained, could only see the actual, un-blue images by arranging to meet the artist in person.
For quite a while I've been engaged in a similar artistic endeavor. However, I've taken it one step further by not posting to Facebook at all. I call my project "An Absence."
Posted By: Alex - Mon Dec 12, 2016 -
Comments (3)
Category: Art
February 1958: A jury of "celebrated painters" convened for the Mona Lisa Grand Prix awarded the title of "Mona Lisa 1958" to Luce Bona. What made the award slightly unusual is that Bona hadn't been a contestant. The judges just happened to see her as she was walking by outside and decided she was the one. At least, that was the story reported in the press.
Louisville Courier-Journal - Feb 19, 1958
Here's the winner from the previous year, Maria Lea. Apparently the gimmick of this contest was that the winner posed in a picture frame, which made her somehow like the Mona Lisa.
The Lincoln Star - Jan 13, 1957
Later in 1958 a jury of French mystery writers selected Luce Bona as the girl with the "Most Devilish Eyes." I'm assuming she was actually entered into that contest.
I can't find any references to Luce Bona after 1958. Perhaps she gave up modeling, despite such a promising start.
In September 1966, the first ever "Destruction in Art Symposium" was held in London, highlighting the work of the self-styled Destructivists. Basically, they destroyed things and called it art.
LA Times staff writer Robert Toth delivered the following report from the Symposium (LA Times - Sep 11, 1966):
The artists say they create by demolishing objects and even killing animals. Destruction seems a negation of art, but they say it's creative destruction — "like when you burn a picture you create ashes," one explained.
But to justify slaughter of a flock of chickens, more pretentious words are demanded. Said one abortive chicken killer, Ralph Ortiz:
"Destructivist art gives our destructive instinct its essential expression while coming to terms with destruction's most primitive maladaptive aspects — aspects that ordinarily would prove to work for the destruction of the species rather than its survival."
After those words, which seem to mean emotional release for him, the American "artist" looked absurd when the law intervened to prevent the massacre (which, incidentally, was to have bloodied 10 elegantly tuxedoed men as an added attraction).
Ortiz came up with a lone canary but no, not that either, said the RSPCA inspector.
Could he let the bird out the window? No again, for it was a cold night.
The frustrated Ortiz settled for showing a film of a chicken-killing, but not before the coup de grace was administered.
Why not stomp a caterpillar, suggested an onlooker. "I'm not a caterpillar-killer," huffed the affronted artist.
His less ambitious colleagues have fared better. One broke a chair to smithereens. Another created a hole with an ordinary shovel, and promptly priced it at $350.
Ortiz did, however, help axe a piano apart.
In 1996, Raphael Ortiz (he was no longer calling himself Ralph) re-enacted his piano-axing performance at New York's Whitney Museum of American Art... but with one small change. According to NY Times critic Michael Kimmelman, he was now accompanied by "a woman in pigtails and ruffled apron standing on a ladder dropping eggs into a bucket and chanting Humpty Dumpty."
Ralph Ortiz destroying a piano — 1966
Incidentally, literary critic Robert Grossmith has noted that one of the reasons for the obscurity of the Destructivist Art movement is that "not a single Destructivist work of art exists. There are no primary sources. Not a solitary Destructivist novel, poem, play, story, painting, sculpture, film, dance or piece of music was ever produced or, if produced, allowed to survive. In fact if a Destructivist work of art was to turn up today, its very existence would automatically disqualify it from being considered as genuinely Destructivist. There can in short never be a Destructivist work of art, in any accepted sense of the word ‘be’."
I'm assuming all WU-vies will want to shell out $345.00 for this figurine as the perfect Xmas gift for that lazy brother-in-law, son, uncle, or father.
Paul Di Filippo
Paul has been paid to put weird ideas into fictional form for over thirty years, in his career as a noted science fiction writer. He has recently begun blogging on many curious topics with three fellow writers at The Inferior 4+1.