Rent a Wife

What the hell is going on?
Wives for rent? For an unlimited time? Chose your preferred category?
Of course, Rent-a-Wife is a joke. But is it an artistic joke? A provocation joke? A silly joke? A horribly sexist joke? Or is it?
If it is an ironic look at the way women are seen by today's society (not only male), than why does it seem strange?
Because there is a catch. (Duhh...) And it is not about feminism. It is about renting DVDs. As what we have here is an ad for DVD rental.
How far is this from Vanessa Beecroft installing her objectified women in a shoe-shelf, to sell shoes?


Could I be accused of the same hypocrisy, exposing something by exposing it?

Oh, and if you think it's getting pretty much impossible to look at gender issues in a witty way without being accused of this or that, the desert is for you:

Technorati: commercial, publicity, funny, parody, art, art, contemporary art, vvoi

Thickening light: Emilia Bergmark - Jiménez

There is a melancholy light in Emilia Bergmark-Jiménez's work that makes one want to stay there.
By «there», I don't mean the place that is being photographed, but rather, the space of the photography itself. The picture seems not so much to portray something, but rather, to use it for its own means, as if the image had a goal of its own, quite separate from the object matter, or even the photographer herself.
What is left of the person? What form can a person have if light goes through her and plays with her seeming irrelevance? Maybe, the person becomes distant. Translucent.
Yet there is something about that form that appeals precisely because it is being put so close to forgetting.

This may well be what remains of memory, when what is left to oblivion, is rescued by thickening the nearly empty space, the traces gaining contours that are not what was left behind, but are some ambiguous form we vaguely recognize as ours, as belonging to us, as representing this left-over area that is neither the object we knew, or the eye of the beholder. It is this lovely, strange in-between.(via)

2 addictions

1 and 2

What you see

If the previous post made you think of how powerful not-so-free association can be, then you might like Logo.Hallucination. Its author, Christophe Bruno, used a pattern-recognition software to analyze images on the net and discover similarities with known brand logos.

And our dear Courbet can apparently be associated to Corus:

Now, here is the crazy part: after discovering the image, Bruno sends an e-mail to its owner:

Madam, Sir,

We inform you that our automated monitoring spiderbot has detected a potential infringement of Intellectual Property Law in the digital image located at the address […]. Indeed this image includes a total or partial representation of the logotype of the brand XXX. Since you are responsible for the diffusion of this image on the Internet, we would like to remind you that such unauthorized use of copyrighted work could be liable for statutory damages. Moreover, it may have violated other US federal laws, including (among others) the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and the Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Accordingly, we hereby suggest that you should contact immediately, and possibly through our agency, the company XXX so that we negotiate with them a friendly contract which would allow a regularization of this situation, according to the following possibilities:

Case 1: You might be financially rewarded by company XXX insofar as this situation constitutes advertising and promotion for the brand XXX. In this case you must explicitly indicate the reference to the company XXX by adding its logo to the aforesaid image and insert a link towards the site of this company.

Case 2: You wish to continue the exploitation and diffusion of your image without mentioning the company and in this case you will have to settle reproduction rights with this company insofar as the latter authorizes you to further exploit and diffuse your image.

If you fail to comply with these requests, the company XXX will have no choice but to proceed in a manner appropriate to protect its valuable intellectual property rights.

Sincerely yours

Logo.Hallucination

Scary? Funny? Ironic? Insofar as this is an artistic project, it sounds hilarious (especially if we were to try and find the author of the Origin of the World)(pun intended). But if internet cafés started off as an artistic project, why can't a ruthless fight over image rights start off as a funny piece of software?














(via)

The virginal origin of the world

Needless to say, this work by Tanja Ostojic is a reference to Courbet's Origin of the World:



Produced by the 25Peaces collective, it was supposed to be a promotion of Europe, and from what I understand, to participate in the campaign in favor of the European Constitution (in 2005, if I am not mistaken). As the image was posted on huge billboards, it was considered too radical and was taken off. And the Constitution lost the referendum.
But what is the actual message? Is it 'the origin of a new world'? It seems more like the beginning of something that can never be born. Instead of the origin, instead of the troubling, but real, thing, we get... panties with stars. Thank you very much. Where exactly is this Europe supposed to originate? Oh, and the retouched skin, the pure atmosphere of soap commercials and soft porn... It reminds me of Jeff Koons. And I'm not sure that's where I would like to see my Europe. Then again, I'm not sure Orlan's earlier variation on the Origin of the World motive would be convincing in a political debate:

Any other alternatives?

Tanja Ostojic's work was accused of misogyny. After writing the above words, I found a fascinating interview with the artist, who clearly states that the objective of the work was not to promote the EU ideals, etc., but it was created beforehand, namely as a comment on the EU's politics of (non)intergration. Now it makes sense. Ostojic actually seems quite upset about the context the work was shown in and the idiotic way it was treated by the Austrian media. Her site also made me discover another, impressive work by Ostojic: Looking For a Husband with an EU Passport (2003):



Wow. This hurts. I would call this a hard core artistic attitude. In that it doesn't have any problems with exploring what is too intimate to be shared. Nudity is a common, though not at all necessary element. It is really about exposure. Maybe, about making us feel uncomfortable. Do I like it? Is there any way one can like it?

(partly via)

Technorati: photography, erotic art, fine art, painting, art, contemporary art, vvoi

The object-driven touch: Robert Wechsler

What can we control?
What is the part of reality that is actually controllable?
Say, when we take things in our hands.

Applied Geometry (2004)

There is a point where reality simply will not be tampered with. It says only so much.
And the beautiful thing is when someone manages to feel this point and use it, changing the vectors, but keeping the power, the energy, the impulse that the world drives through us.
Does that sound esoteric?

Sanctuary (2005)

What is the fish doing in the church? What is the Holy water doing around the fish? Within the fish? It is all here, and the transgression is only a small part of the game. The name Sanctuary, to me, is not ironic. It is playful, yet strong.

Where do we go from here?

Zebra Print (2006) (H .75"x L 1.25")

Here?


Good work, Robert Wechsler.

(via)

Technorati: design, fine art, installation, art installation, photography, visual art, art, contemporary art, vvoi

Using walls (p.2): the Splasher controversy

There are several excellent Polish sites about art. They focus mainly on Polish art and the Polish contemporary art milieu, and have a certain tendency toward a specialized and a high-brow discourse, but they have lots of good discoveries and insights and are a great reference point. And they're in Polish, which makes me one lucky bastard. Lucky for most of you, they also have lots of images of new Polish works. I recommend two: art.blox.pl and strasznasztuka ('terrible art')
From time to time, they also put on things happening outside of Poland. Below is a translation of one of the articles:

"Splasher" is now the hottest street-art name in New-York. Not because of what he makes, but because of what he destroys. Stencils, stickers and posters on the streets of Brooklyn and Manhattan have been for over a month the objects of the attack of the anonymous 'vandal'. Street art created by people as famous as Banksy or Swoon are destroyed in the same way - by a cruel splash of color paint.

The street art works, once considered only as acts of vandalism, are now themselves victims of a vandal. But is Splasher really just a street hooligan? It seems not. He chooses his goals very carefully - they are always the works of known artists, who have also often entered into the regular gallery circuit, and their works are sold at auctions for big money.

The mysterious Splasher is being looked for on the internet. Bloggers are looking for the motive of his actions. Many believe Splasher simply protests against the commercialization of street-art and against putting it in the same pot with classic works of art.

But what are Splasher's actual motives? Next to many of the works there were manifestos glued to the wall (one of them is reproduced below). They have references to dadaism and expressions like 'True creativity is the joyful destruction of this [existing] hierarchy'. Is Splasher the conscience of contemporary street art? Or a conceptual artist, who as part of an adopted theory of 'destruction' creates a new work of art?

New Yorkers don't appreciate Splasher's "art". The destruction of the works of known artists, such as Banksy, results in disapproval, and even anger. Splasher is not seen as the "savior and renewer", but as a simple vandal. Vandal among vandals? Or could Splasher be the last real street artist, who sacrifices famous murals and stencils in the name of a fight for the purity of the art form? Because what is the difference between street art and gallery art, if we can't destroy someone else's work at will in either place? After all, street art is based on an idea of destroying and lawlessly occupying space. Always at the cost of someone else. After all, the street is not a museum - every street artist, even Banksy, is subject to the same rules and accept that his work can be removed at any moment.

The question remains - do Splaher's desperate gestures make sense? Is it better to fight for a pure street-art, or to cherish its highest achievements?

(text by strembol)

more on Splasher here
And here is the idea that Splasher is a marketing ploy by the very people who promote street art as a commercial art form - this way they get free publicity (with a street-art war twist to it, apparently?).
The very idea shows us something new: that these are real people, existing in a real society, and obeying its laws. Whether they are perpetrators or victims, they participate in a social context. And its a relief to see how clearly they are integrated in it through the Splasher affair.