Missed opportunity

[rika]

What a banal idea from an artist! If not a crime. Looks like gold to me, and I am not even a metal mangler. This artist had a great idea, and then fell victim to his fifteen minutes of fame. Shovels?! Are you kidding me? In the right hands a great sculpture would have been born.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1Cz2Rm...tree-planting/

[cheesepaws]

I guess I don't see the problem here. Can you elaborate on why this disappoints you?

[GlennT]

The only problem I see with this story is that the guns likely came only from law-abiding citizens, weakening their ability to protect themselves from the drug gang members, who I do not imagine as being among those who willingly gave up their guns.

As for turning the collected guns into shovels, it is not a particularly original idea but in fact right out of the bible, the verse about turning swords into plowshares. That this was done rather than creating a sculpture is not in my opinion falling victim to his 15 minutes of fame. Rather, he is doing creative problem solving as a human being, not stuck in "artist mode". Plus, he had earlier talked with victim's families and perhaps got the idea from them.

Had he turned the guns into a sculpture, to me that would have been playing up to the 15 minutes of fame idea more than making shovels. It would trivialize his art by relying on the human interest factor of the "guns to raw material" transition to add content to the work rather than the focus being on the content of the work as sculpture.

[rika]

Originally Posted by GlennT

Had he turned the guns into a sculpture, to me that would have been playing up to the 15 minutes of fame idea more than making shovels. It would trivialize his art by relying on the human interest factor of the "guns to raw material" transition to add content to the work rather than the focus being on the content of the work as sculpture.

I was too much taken by the visuals, I did not read the whole story, just scanned it. I will retract my "fifteen minutes of fame" comment, as I realize the intent was sincere from the part of the artist. However, I still feel he did not go far enough with the project, he stopped at being the community activist. One doesn't have to be an artist to do what he did, in melting down a product to produce another. If we look at those object (guns) from an aesthetic point of view as a clean slate, a beginning, unaffected by attached meanings of danger and harm, they are indeed wonderful raw materials that can be manipulated, assembled into sculpture rather than functional objects loaded with the well-meaning but predictable attached meanings--spoonfeeeding, really.
I can see how this might feed into Cheese's "invisble sculpture" and "post art" postings, the "art" being the symbolism, the idea in its intangible bare state. But I see that as the fashion of the day that won't hold water two centuries, maybe even twenty years from now. To me art to succeed has to carry a fusion of what has been inherited from tradition (whether the sculptor admits to it or not, this "tradition" is implanted in there somehow) and the relevancy of today in the artist's own voice. A more sculptural approach could have still carried the "message" in a way that could be interpreted as such by anyone, but make an effort at some uniquely composed art object that reflects the individuality of the artist. Just thinking of Scrap's "flower" arrangement from another post as an example. This artist seems to succumb to expectation, not surpass it by not taking the concept far enough. The end product (the shovels) still looks like wip to me...

The sculptor as a messenger of unsurprising but intangible concepts is not all that appealing to me, I guess.

[evaldart]

The "artist" here is pandering to morality, correctness, good-ness, good-will, world peace, green-ness, environmental politics....sheesh, did he miss an opportunity to NOT bother with aesthetics. People do plenty of "good" all the time without calling it art. Nice spectacle though...and the sappy irony of the narrative is obvious enough that even the politicians can get it.

It will be celebrated as a symbol of "peace" then quickly ignored and back to the usual nonsense.

And yes, there was indeed great potential for these thousands of objects to be composed into a thing of visual significance. The fact that they are or were guns is of no consequence. The transformation of the many into a singularity through creative process is the subject. It would be too easy and simple, of course, just to simply weld them all together (piled or flatted-out). So the question would be how do I take a pile of INsignificant once-functional things and turn them into a different SINGLE SIGNIFICANT thing (a significant experience). THERE is the challenge; and since I dont have 15,000hanguns waiting to become art in my boneyard I havent done the hard work of considering such a task.
In all though, 15,000 forks, knives, hot wheels cars, plastic water bottles - all just plain ol' objects possess as much aesthetic potential as the guns.

The opportunity is never "made" by the medium, but I must admit...I would very much like to have that pile. But then I'm a hoarder of junk...I see potential in anything.

[GarryRicketson]

From the way I rread it, and I just glanced at though, later I will try to read it more thourough, but I says " a artist", ....but it dose not sound like his is calling the shovels, "art", it sounds like it was something he wanted to do, and also the community, and for a rural community shovels, would be useful, constructive,.... a sculpture, ok that would be nice,..but no one could use it to plant trees,...

Nice spectacle though...and the sappy irony of the narrative is obvious enough that even the politicians can get it.

After looking more at, the "artists" own site,
I am inclined to think it was mostly a publicity stunt,..just my opinion, though.
The "artist"'s name :PEDRO REYES,
http://pedroreyes.net/,... He wouldn't be the first artist ,to use politics promote himself, though..either.

[evaldart]

He wouldn't be the first artist ,to use politics promote himself, though..either

.

And it is worth debate over whether it is possible for a publicity stunt to become/be art. Is the duped public the medium, or is the performed act (the stunt) the medium? Or is the extended negotiations with bureaucratic entities to acquire the guns...THAT lengthy interaction with committees of law and civil folk - who must have supported, encouraged and quite PERMITTED the entire thing...are THEY the medium. Or are the poor tradesdmen down at the smelting factory who had to do the dirty work of turning tons of guns into tons of shovels...are THEY the medium? Who and what got manipulated here. I would say that the metal was manipulated less than anything else.

[GlennT]

The politically incorrect thing to do, and a great publicity stunt, would be to turn shovels into guns!

[evaldart]

There have indeed been uprisings and whatnot that involved all variations of farm tools as weapons. The Grim Reaper himself fancies the scythe. You would think his job would be easier with an AK-47.

[Nelson]

Agree wth all, depending on how you look at it. Glenn, your point is very sound, cynical from their part, just a show for political harvest. Rika and E, advocate more for the lost potential. From an artistic stand, the inmense amount of fierarms could have served the purpose in a more lasting and profound fashion. Here again, the mundane outweighted art significance, and even a teaching experience.In my view, the artist was more of a paid clown than an artist with such basic "dirty" proposal..

[rika]

Well, I checked the link (thanks, Garry), I quite liked his conceptual work, original, imaginative ideas well executed, so I am baffled by this PR exercise. A stunt to advance his career I guess.

[cheesepaws]

So can someone explain to me how a well established artist - who clearly has a history making participatory and/or community-based art projects – benefits from this project as a mere PR exercise? Does he own stock in a wooden shovel handle company? Is he a lumberjack on weekends who is “investing” in his own future by making sure more trees get planted? Is the argument that it is a PR “stunt” because it got reviewed? Exhibited? Isn’t EVERY exhibition a “PR stunt?”

I’m sorry, I fail to see the source of the cynicism around this work. Like the vast majority of pubic art it is certainly more accessible (in process, concept and final form) but that is a GOOD thing when one of the primary working “materials” include the public themselves. Accessibility is often a concession for state funding (which I would assume was at least a partial factor) – and while the “swords to plowshares” thing is a bit tired in my opinion, I think this work is handled downright elegantly and with the utmost sincerity as it connected with a specific community.

Originally Posted by rika

One doesn't have to be an artist to do what he did, in melting down a product to produce another.

Really? This is so dismissive of the HUGE effort to coordinate the project – and trivializes ALL the other “materials” in the work from the role of participators to the labor of digging holes to the temporal element associated with the growth cycle of trees. The art here cannot be reduced to a simple recycling process. Surely you see that?

Of course nobody has to LIKE the work – I don’t like most of his stuff. Critique the work - if that is your thing, but I am shocked at the dismissive remarks that question the man’s very motivations for making art.

“Duped,” “stunt,” “15 minutes,” “doesn’t have to be an artist,” - would you really say these things if you thought the artist was here, on the forum? Can you honestly support them?

A bit rude if you ask me.

[rika]

Cheese, if you go back, I retracted my 15 mins of fame comment after reading about the project. My initial reaction was to the images without the context, thus the strong language. Sorry again.

Originally Posted by cheesepaws

So can someone explain to me how a well established artist - who clearly has a history making participatory and/or community-based art projects – benefits from this project as a mere PR exercise? Does he own stock in a wooden shovel handle company? Is he a lumberjack on weekends who is “investing” in his own future by making sure more trees get planted? Is the argument that it is a PR “stunt” because it got reviewed? Exhibited? Isn’t EVERY exhibition a “PR stunt?”

There is actually a website dedicated to the project: http://www.palasporpistolas.org/?page_id=164
From what I read it seems to me this is not an art project, although an artist's proposal was commissioned by his city's call for community-based projects. A community activist could have just as well come up with this idea. Just because it was born in the mind of an artist, does it make it art? Don't get me wrong, I think it is a very well intended project, very educative in bringing the community together, including school children. But I cannot see it as art. The benefit to the artist is international name recognition, as these shovels are being exhibited at art galleries all over the world, and he is being invited to tree plantings, openings and panel discussions. Great opportunity to propel to fame in the "art world", without producing art. I don't blame him, I don't envy him, I just fail to see this project as art. It is a city hall-type funded community project to me. Maybe that interpretation is rude indeed in this day of conceptualization when everything can become art if we say so. I also had a problem with an artist's notes about their personal struggle with art being blown up on a panel and exhibited in an art gallery as art. Artist statement as art object, artist's concept as art object. Interesting, no doubt, well-meaning too, but no art.

Originally Posted by cheesepaws

I’m sorry, I fail to see the source of the cynicism around this work.

I don't agree with your cynicism comment at all, just my own observations expressed, as part of my growing as an artist, and trying to find my own place in this vastness, Artland. Btw I think we more or less agreed in another thread that all we can do is to articulate an opinion. And an opinion is opinionated!

And sorry, Cheese, but I think it's cool when you lose your cool.

[cheesepaws]

Originally Posted by rika

Cheese, if you go back, I retracted my 15 mins of fame comment after reading about the project. My initial reaction was to the images without the context, thus the strong language. Sorry again.

Thanks and in fairness my comments are not really directed at just you…obviously. The negativity and skepticism in this thread is off the scale and I am just really just shocked at the dismissive attitude toward one of our own.

Originally Posted by rika

From what I read it seems to me this is not an art project, although an artist's proposal was commissioned by his city's call for community-based projects. A community activist could have just as well come up with this idea. Just because it was born in the mind of an artist, does it make it art?

Um…yes, absolutely. There is zero question here about if this project is or is not “Art” ..as well as being activism.

Originally Posted by rika

Great opportunity to propel to fame in the "art world", without producing art.

Or, in this case, producing a LOT of art – although I doubt very much that it is the kind of stuff that equates with fame and fortune.

Originally Posted by rika

I don't agree with your cynicism comment at all, just my own observations expressed, as part of my growing as an artist, and trying to find my own place in this vastness, Artland. Btw I think we more or less agreed in another thread that all we can do is to articulate an opinion. And an opinion is opinionated!

Sure, I get that…and I would caution you to be very wary about how you go about finding your place in it all. I don’t know of a single person who has “grown” as an artist by incrementally narrowing their parameters on what they perceive as Art. Do you have to like it all – NO, but it is important to be able to appreciate the multitude of approaches and the constantly shifting value of art both culturally and also within your own scope. Art is NEVER static, don’t be fooled into locking yourself into a single definition. Even more importantly – why should you? Art is infinite – plenty of room for everyone, and not one single artist can cheapen it for anyone else. Building walls around yourself in an effort to define what should or shouldn’t be Art will only eventually isolate you from the very field you seek to participate in. Frankly, it takes a hell of a lot more balls to approach Art broadly and inclusively than to whittle it down to a personal list of do’s and don’ts. That is an act of fear – and fear has no place in the studio. I suspect you know this.

We DID (and do) agree that all one can do is articulate an opinion – but it must be an informed opinion. Speculation and unfounded accusations regarding the motivations of the artist we are discussing do not strike me as informed – nor relevant. My advice - if you want to tear the work apart, do so without cheap shots at the guy’s morals or motivation.

Originally Posted by rika

And sorry, Cheese, but I think it's cool when you lose your cool.

Rest assured that my “cool” is intact and accounted for – but my heart sinks a little at the thought of our already difficult and under appreciated field being attacked from the inside.

[evaldart]

So can someone explain to me how a well established artist - who clearly has a history making participatory and/or community-based art projects – benefits from this project as a mere PR exercise?

Community-based art project are massive opportunities for "artists" who wish to ply their (very dependent) ideas. He benefits because it is his j-o-b, his "career", his way of participating...which EVERYONE does - because no one is allowed to just sit back and "be" nothing. Every functioning member of a society must utilize their strengths for the greater good. It has nothing to do with becoming improved by aesthetic consideration. And all you gotta do is read the papers or bake in front of the computer to know which buttons to punch for a bright idea...then lobby for it - which is indeed work - but it aint art. And you cant lose, its a no brainer...the hypermorality of it will assure everyone's success...but it aint art.

I’m sorry, I fail to see the source of the cynicism around this work. Like the vast majority of pubic art it is certainly more accessible (in process, concept and final form) but that is a GOOD thing when one of the primary working “materials” include the public themselves. Accessibility is often a concession for state funding (which I would assume was at least a partial factor) – and while the “swords to plowshares” thing is a bit tired in my opinion, I think this work is handled downright elegantly and with the utmost sincerity as it connected with a specific community.

"Cynicism is just some thing you feel about other folks when you dont like what they are saying. Its too in intellectual discourse...just name-calling. Sorry to rain on your parade...it rains. Any artist who is "conceding" to the state or any other entity is dumbing their work...maybe there are reasons for such things...but succumbing to concessions, especially from the outset of an idea, means the impactfulness of the thing as an aesthetic venture is getting diminished, and maybe eventually lost completely. And what is left is just more servitude, which everyone must do too-much of anyways. Elegantly? what does that have to do with creativity? Or are we not still talking about art on the art website?

This is so dismissive of the HUGE effort to coordinate the project – and trivializes ALL the other “materials” in the work from the role of participators to the labor of digging holes to the temporal element associated with the growth cycle of trees. The art here cannot be reduced to a simple recycling process.

Any professional landscape architect does a project like this every week. And any politician shuffle-shifter can handle even more...and THEY are quite responsible for most of the "public art" that is out there in public. Not ever by MAKING any, of course.

I am shocked at the dismissive remarks that question the man’s very motivations for making art.

It has not been decided by the jury, here, that he has ever made any art. And every opinion is worth as much as the next. Ries speaks often of the prevailing maximum subjectivity NECESSARY for pertinent evaluation of art ideas, and I'm with him on that (but there isnt any "truth" to be had anywhere, ever, by anyone). You musnt spend your shock so frivolously; because you may need it one day for something else.

would you really say these things if you thought the artist was here, on the forum? Can you honestly support them?
A bit rude if you ask me.

You know the answer to that from ol' E. And if there is one place where politeness is phoney, patronizing and quite disrespectful it is within the exchange of intellectual discourse. Are you worried about how you might "appear" on the net? Maybe "established" artists are nicer folk.

Okay...theres that one taken care of...but you uttered another. Sigh. Okay. Lets get to it.

[evaldart]

The negativity and skepticism in this thread is off the scale and I am just really just shocked at the dismissive attitude toward one of our own.

Art is the only "place" where you have no one else of "your own". And if you do, then you might just be involved in something else. Though you all quite "feel" like my brothers and sister in mud, metal and mayhem...I enter my studio, another planet altogether, as a protagonist against everything. All artists do, whether or not they wish to see it like that or not. Theres plenty of time for the art parties and the comeraderie and the family reunions and the festivals and all the other good stuff in life that is NOT art.
And again, the negativity is specifically achieved by YOU because of some other folks thoughts. You do a damned good job of stating your case but tones of scolding and admonishment aren't pertinent to the matters at hand in this thread.

There is zero question here about if this project is or is not “Art” ..as well as being activism.

I would say tha most "activism" is uncreative, unoriginal, and not even all that active in comparison to the otherworldy dynamics of aesthetic venture. And certainly far less effective. If he was original he would have done it differently, if it was intended to be art, it would not have been merely newsworthy.

and I would caution you to be very wary about how you go about finding your place in it all. I don’t know of a single person who has “grown” as an artist by incrementally narrowing their parameters on what they perceive as Art

And now you're giving career advice. Are the quotation marks around the word "grown" meant to infer that "if you keep spouting your mind like this you wont be embraced by the entities that will let you have a career" ? Screw the career. Make ART. And the career will take care of itself.

it is important to be able to appreciate the multitude of approaches and the constantly shifting value of art both culturally and also within your own scope. Art is NEVER static, don’t be fooled into locking yourself into a single definition. Even more importantly – why should you? Art is infinite

Well I'll be damned, after all that other stuff I never would have seen THAT coming. Now THAT is the Cheese I've come to depend upon for good thoughts (except the "culturally part). But you must know that there is NO definition, nor should there EVER be for art. Yet we must confer about the possibility of one as much as possible.

plenty of room for everyone, and not one single artist can cheapen it for anyone else. Building walls around yourself in an effort to define what should or shouldn’t be Art will only eventually isolate you from the very field you seek to participate in. Frankly, it takes a hell of a lot more balls to approach Art broadly and inclusively than to whittle it down to a personal list of do’s and don’ts. That is an act of fear – and fear has no place in the studio. I suspect you know this.

No there is NOT room for everyone...it is not a party, a community a collective or a state or a nation or a race or a species. Art is the ONLY "place" where you must, with excessive courage, face yourself. It is the only place where you have to answer to yourself and YOU know, inside, regardless of what anyone else ever tells you, whether or not you have performed to your limit; or whether or not you have pressed enough and forsaken certain eases and comforts and compliments and accolades and securities and safeties. Remember, the same walls that keep things OUT also keep things IN. BUT the best walls are built to do NEITHER. Imagine that. And to approach art excessively broadly is just a weak invitation to be accommodating to all comers who may or may not have some good news for you, for your career. There is no good news to be experience in the studio - which must me a place of absolute dislocation and detachment - there is only significance. And hard-gained significance resonates and radiates...out of you and your created "things". The furtherance internalized by this assures and RE-assures that you may dismiss most of what you see out there, positioned as art, that is not art at all. And THAT takes "balls" as you so elegantly put it.
And if you're on top of things at all, and MAKE tons of art and LOOK at tons of (real) art...not books and internet, then you will feel very secure on any given day to dismiss or, if need be, dismantle something that might be wishing or posing to be art...but is actually just more cultural bric-a-brac.

Whew, well I'm glad I got that outta my system. Thanks for the ride Cheese, I might have to watch a ballgame now...decompress.

[rika]

Good points, E. I, of course cannot compete with you two and some others in expressing so eloquently my opinion, nor do I want to, but I CAN and WILL think for myself, whether patronized or not. I do think that it is important for every artist to decide for themselves what they consider art or not. And it ain't easy, this comb-through process, it involves a lot of thinking, looking, rethinking, learning in and out of the studio, applying, put to the test what had been learned, and so many other implications. So no, art can never be static, you're right Cheese. But if we are all inclusive as you suggest, how can we ever make a single personal aesthetic decision? I cannot believe you said that. Not even you are all inclusive, although you try very hard, and you have to when in the classroom, but don't tell me the same applies in the studio. That's a place of exclusion, non-participation, non-joining, solitude and (good) isolation. And fear too. In fact, that's the best place to confront and slay the fear-dragons.

In response to my doubt at just any idea being born in an artist's head is automatically art, you said:

Originally Posted by cheesepaws

Um…yes, absolutely.

I really have a problem with this one. It made my cynical, but strangely enough, it gave me an idea (must have had an exceptionally creative day), a conceptual piece that I posted here but later removed because I thought it was inappropriate for this forum. Regardless, thank you for that, I think it's a great work (to me personally).

Lastly, I did not question the motivation or morals of the artist, I just had a problem with the work that I thought was tired and lacked imagination. If he had to make shovels, couldn't at least make an ad-hoc assemblage and then plant the damn trees? Or some other idea that involved a bit more site-specific creativity? Seeing his other work I would even venture to say it was perhaps a collaborative initiative with some non-artist. I've seen similar global goodwill chain-"art"-pleas going on for years on the net. It's old, and it's recycled. Sorry, it still looks like a missed art opportunity.

But indeed, will try to get the info, facts, background check first next time. That's fair to ask.

[Nelson]

Beyond the short-lived moment of propaganda, serving a community or political purpose, whether shovels are made from guns, guns from shovels, or even shovels for shovels, the creative significance is minimum. A loable intention, no doubt about that, but the act itself doesn`t live up to artistic expectations. Politicians need and love a celebrity or any other experienced trade man to engage in their media shows for substance. If we`re trying to figure out the artistic pertinence and significance here, it`s interesting perhaps to notice concense among different intelect level artitists. Of course not just relying on numbers but the argumentation presented. Right on the money Erika, whichever
way you wish to put it.
No pretention of any sort with Cheesepaws, ... any idea being born in an artist's head is automatically art, this is so broad an estatement, that looses meaning to the point that not doing anything, that refusal to think artistically could even be considered art.
Art is considered a creative act, would destructive processes fit in the ample concept? Hate the anything goes conception.
And it comes to mind, the "artist" from Central America who tied a starving dog in a museum/gallery (don`t remember well) to bring forth to his estatement... the dog DIED! In my view, the end cannot justify the means. Good brings good, and evil brings evil.

[cheesepaws]

Thanks for the replies. Sounds good to me.

[GlennT]

Cheese, where was all of this passion of yours:

I don’t know of a single person who has “grown” as an artist by incrementally narrowing their parameters on what they perceive as Art. it is important to be able to appreciate the multitude of approaches and the constantly shifting value of art both culturally and also within your own scope. Building walls around yourself in an effort to define what should or shouldn’t be Art will only eventually isolate you from the very field you seek to participate in. Frankly, it takes a hell of a lot more balls to approach Art broadly and inclusively than to whittle it down to a personal list of do’s and don’ts. That is an act of fear – and fear has no place in the studio.

When Ries wrote in the "Shovels Are Art?" thread:

On the other hand, if I see one more bronze naked woman sculpture, I am gonna hurl.

I realize that technically Ries did not say such sculptures are not art, but the dismissal of an entire genre is much to the same effect. Perhaps dismissing traditional figurative art is not as worrisome as dismissing "conceptual art"?

Speaking of conceptual art, or maybe performance art, what about a new "Ries hurling" series? (Would have to include the images of the bronze naked women sculptures and compare relative effects of each on Ries' digestive tract)

[Ries]

You are right- I did NOT say that such things are not art.

What I said is, regardless of what they are or are not, I have reached my lifetime limit of looking at them, and am simply uninterested anymore. Henry Moore might have done a good one back in the 50's, but I have seen so many watered down copies that I am burned out.

Now the true measure of a great artist would be someone who could interpret the naked bronze female form in such a way as to make me interested again- and, of course, its entirely possible that such a thing could happen.

My basic take on "conceptual" art is, that, just like naked bronze women, at least 95% of it is crap.

Just like any "category" of art.

And only by looking at actual work, without prejudging it by category, can you find the 5% that is worth looking at.

So, in spite of myself, I cast the occasional glance at realistic bronzes, just to make sure I am not missing anything great. Nothing to report, lately.
I do like those Tom Otterness bronzes though, although he seems to stick to money, animals, and weird little guys.

[grommet]

I appreciate the idealism in the process of guns to shovels.. it may be simple, but it speaks to the sense of helplessnes/ hopelessnes, a desire for simplicity, to begin again. That I can appreciate and respect.

[evaldart]

Now the true measure of a great artist would be someone who could interpret the naked bronze female form in such a way as to make me interested again- and, of course, its entirely possible that such a thing could happen.

When you are able to see figurative work in the same manner that you see abstract work you will again be able to improve yourself by looking at figurative sculpture...bronze or whatever. It takes work though...because, as you said, 95% of it isnt art (I would say 90% actually, you're a tough cookie).

[Ries]

Originally Posted by evaldart

When you are able to see figurative work in the same manner that you see abstract work you will again be able to improve yourself by looking at figurative sculpture...bronze or whatever. It takes work though...because, as you said, 95% of it isnt art (I would say 90% actually, you're a tough cookie).

I dont like abstract work much, myself.

So I would say I already see both "figurative" and "abstract" work exactly the same way- that is, as irrelevant to whether its interesting or not.

If it rocks my world, I like it- doesnt matter what artificial "category" it fits in when art historians write the history book.

[evaldart]

doesnt matter what artificial "category" it fits in when art historians write the history book.

Now yer gettin' it