I saw this on the news this morning; I still have mixed views on this as both a piece of art and a gimmick as it is being called.
Firstly, I like the fact that they have taken one of the most run down and derelict buildings in the area to make into something that intrigues passers by. It would really create something new and this concept does fit in with 2008 regeneration. When you are the capital of culture, in my opinion it should be as much about the art being part of everyday life, as well as impressive one off exhibitions etc. For this reason I really like what the artist Richard Wilson has done here with his inside out idea.
On the other hand, I can't help thinking that they could have done something more with exposing the inside of the building, as the current office block is empty it simply is used to expose the space left inside. This part of the concept for me is underdeveloped as I am sure they could have found a way of displaying or revealing things behind it.
The other thing that I think is a shame is that the whole building is due to be destroyed later next year, it would have been nice to think that the money that went into this moving sculpture was a more permanent exhibit.
The various news stories regarding 'Turning the place over', seams to be on one main theme; "is this art?" Having not actually seen it in person I don't really think I am able to comment on this area, however I am visiting Liverpool in a few weeks so I will hopefully be able to discuss this further then.
2 comments:
I agree with you when you say that they should've used the inside of the building to add to the 'installation'. Could the hole in the wall reveal something spectacular or interesting?
I can't help to wonder about if the idea is just to tell us that: "Hey, we are turning this place around and creating something new!"? If so, I don't mind it. But the economical part of it makes no sense at all. I assume they had 'cash to blow'?
To answer if it is art - well, I think it looks more like a PR event. But if it is there for no economical reason, I guess we would have to call it art? (The issue about "what is art" is worth a blog in itself).
I agree, it would have been a much fuller execution if the exposure had revealed something really unexpected, be it amazing, fantasy like or something that only occurs behind closed doors or walls in this case.
To me it feels like a more permanent execution, or one that benefited the public could have been a better use of money if the building is to be demolished.
Post a Comment