Thatâs not a trash bag -- itâs art!
by DAVE BARRYItâs time for an update on the British art world, which, as far as I can tell, exists mainly to provide me with material. As regular readers of this column are aware, British art institutions have taken to paying large sums of money for works of art that can only be described as extremely innovative (I am using ââinnovativeââ in the sense of ââstupidââ). Here are two examples that Iâve written about:
⢠An artist named Martin Creed won the prestigious Turner Prize, plus 20,000 pounds (about $30,000), for a work called The Lights Going On and Off, which consisted of a vacant room in which the lights went on and off.
⢠The prestigious Tate Gallery paid 22,300 pounds (about $35,000) of British taxpayersâ money for a sealed can containing the excrement of a deceased artist.
Itâs hard to imagine art getting any more innovative, but I am pleased to report that the British art community is doing its darnedest. According to a London Times story sent in by alert reader Ronald Thurston, the prestigious Paul Hamlyn Foundation has awarded one of the biggest art prizes in Britain -- 30,000 pounds (about $47,000) -- to an artist named Ceal Floyer, for a work of art consisting of: a garbage bag.
Really. The work is titled Rubbish Bag, and to judge from the photograph in the Times, it is a standard black plastic garbage bag, just like the ones you put your garbage in, except of course that you have to pay people to haul your garbage bags away, whereas Ms. Floyer got $47,000 for hers. There is a compelling reason for this: Ms. Floyerâs bag is empty. Thatâs what makes it artistic. Ms. Floyer is quoted by the Times as follows: ââItâs not a bag of rubbish, itâs a rubbish bag. The medium is clearly portrayed: It says it is a bag, air, and a twisted top.ââ
Got that? Itâs NOT a bag of rubbish: Itâs a rubbish bag! If THATâS not $47,000 worth of innovation, then I donât know what is.
Posted by: mojo 2004-02-27 |