Some very nice work from you, morning class 🙂
I am glad so many enjoyed the reading as much as I did.
Eva and Franco were attempting to convey some of the ridiculous movies that are made today. And the fact that very few people thought second about if this was a real movie or not plays right into that American movie ideology. Sometimes we get obsessed with the idea of things more than the actual thing itself. Take apple for instance many of you are so hypnotized, brainwashed, by apple-love that they could release the crappiest piece of junk on the market and still have their followers buying it up most eagerly.
The main theme of Eva and Franco’s exhibition “It’s Always Six O’ Clock” is that culture can die when it is frozen into a cliche. Appropriation, plagiarism, remixing, culture jamming, and identity simulation continue to represent the core of the Mattes’ artistic strategy. They are trying to get people to understand that “nothing is original” nowadays. The concept of originality is none existent. Everything is remixed and reproduced to the point were nothing is original like it was before….When you remix something, it makes that piece more special and interesting. It makes the art seems special because it was worth remixing. Eva and Franco believe that the art nowadays all is the same and conforming to the world. We should aim to make it different and special. When you make a piece, you should leave behind your reality and time should halt.
Eva and Franco’s Stolen Pieces project seems like fun. I’d be lying if I said I’ve never wanted to touch a piece in a gallery that bore the words “Do Not Touch” and Eva and Franco really haven’t helped this slight thought turn into a mini-obsession. If anything, I think that the art piece missing a piece gives it more character, more flare and therefore increses what it’s worth. Instead of being touched and contributed by one artist, it was touched by another. It’s been given two points of view instead of one. ……Sometimes, copies pose more contraversy and make a louder statement than their original. COPIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THEIR ORIGINAL, a reoccuring theme from when Eva and Franco stole Hell.com.
I think that unless the piece shows some kind of proof that it existed at one point, how do we really know of it’s true character?
Interesting readings this week, I found them much more compelling than last weeks reading, and I think this was mostly due to the fact that it explained a bit more exactly what the Mattes intentions were in everything that they did. I felt like I had a bit more insight into their lives and their goals than I had before and it even made me stop and think “oh wow, so THAT’S what they were trying to accomplish, it totally worked!”
I don’t think that art diminishes in its value as time descends upon it or pieces go missing here and there from either theft or wear and tear of old age. I’m also thinking of art in a much broader sense than is mentioned here, as theater, film, and performances are pieces of art work as well. And those are almost always representations, unless you’re seeing the opening night of a new show it’s never the “original.” I believe art is somewhat similar as well, that once the piece is finished its replicated in the viewers eyes, and much like a performance the value of the art is always important and different, because its the interpretation that changes as well. I can’t think of a time when I watched the same play in different nights and thought yes I feel the exact same way I did before. Of course it’s going to be similar at times, but it’s never really the “original” condition-watching an artist create or paint the artwork to me is experience the art in its original.
The reading for this week really resulted in some mixed feelings towards Eva and Franco. Some of you thought they were awesome, some downright didn’t like it/get it, most didn’t know what to think. Although there were far too many “just-answer-the-questions-Glenn-gave-us-in-as-few-sentences-as-possible”, some of you went above and beyond the call of P4.
Here are the 5 9a-ers who achieved an 100 (or more) on 94:
once I read that Luther Blissett was just this fake name that Eva and Franco were using, I thought “Dang, who knew anyone could pull something like that off!” But then I read about Darko Maver… Eva and Franco created a fake artist. They created a fake artist with actual art EXHIBITS and he got so big, that he soon became the talk of the art world. Eva and Franco literally created an avatar in the real world. Then again, they came up with this idea during an LSD trip so I guess it kind of makes sense… But when they faked his media-covered death, they were completely lucid. It was at this point in the chapter that I started to better understand the controversy around their art.
With the identities of Luther and Darko uncovered, Eva and Franco made a huge statement. I think the goal of an artist is to give society questions to ask themselves. With these identities, Eva and Franco were doing just that. They were making statements on how society lives and how people switch identities constantly wherever they are. You can be a completely different person around your parents then you would be around your friends, your partners, your teachers. Eva and Franco were simply doing just that but instead they were being honest about it.
What awful, amazing, disgusting, brilliant people. I’m sure there have been plentiful amounts of artists since the beginning of whenever art became “art” that have taken what that “art” was and did something different with it, though they may not be in art history books. They were perverse with it, ending up riddled with ridicule or excommunication, or they were glorified and canonized. Eva and Franco Mattes were both ridiculed and canonized sometimes with the same projects and pieces, just furthering how different people’s opinions and perceptions are. The futurists of the early 20th century didn’t have the ability to mess with internet codes or use children’s pop-culture in disturbing ways to make a point, but the Mattes were born in the right time for them to make their own revolution.
Luther Blissett was a moniker they considered “multiple and therefore omnipotent.” He wasn’t real, nor was he a single person, but instead a collective of new radical artists, writers, musicians, and activists that had a fancy for disturbing common perception. Of course something like this would attract the Mattes. The main feature of using the Luther Blissett guise, which developed into an underground cult figure and persona, was to give opportunities to artists to expose the pitfalls and frailties of the media and how it influenced people’s reactions. A more focused direction was taken with the Mattes’ invention of Darko Maver, the name taken from real-life Slovenian criminologist. After reviewing images of bloodied bodies online during an LSD trip, the Mattes’ decided to use the confusion of what was technically real and illusion and create an artist that the media would sensationalize. He had a photo (their friend), a biography (written by a friend), and even pieces of poetry (also written by a colleague). They created mannequins and realistic sculptures of desecrated bodies, some of which eventually displayed in an art gallery. The people bought it and thought he was an actual person. The Mattes’ faked his death and the media reported it. Then, the reveal. 0100101110101101.ORG uncovered itself as Darko Maver. Nice.
The Nike Ground fiasco kind of resembles some of the issues brought up in the Bomb It documentary. For years our culture has been polluted and harshly infused with constant advertising everywhere. The themes of advertising are manipulative and coercive. Yet once someone tries to manipulate them or make a point about their corporation, the red flags go up and people get upset. It even goes back to the point of certain things being sacred and once someone desecrates it, it’s not pinned as art by most, but vandalism or other criminal acts.
My first impression of the book was not an expression I usually feel towards a book. I was shockedwhen I first looked at the cover of the book especially when there was Mickey Mouse on it and a veryscary looking plate of bones. Mickey was dressed nicely, almost to a waiter/bartender outfit so I wasguessing he was going to be serving that plate of bones, most likely to the reader of this book.
This first passage was actually quite difficult to understand.