The brilliant and talented David Nolan found this yesterday and it's of a piece with the dinnerware featured on Tuesday. Sort of. What do we think? Link here.
14 January 2010
Gang, yea or nay?
The brilliant and talented David Nolan found this yesterday and it's of a piece with the dinnerware featured on Tuesday. Sort of. What do we think? Link here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It shows artistic talent but I wouldn't buy it.
ReplyDeleteYou're evil. *sniffles*
ReplyDeleteI think they are interesting as art, beyond interesting actually.
ReplyDeleteI love it!
ReplyDeleteWhat is it about them that makes you love them Alycia?
ReplyDeleteLove. Here's a great concept played out to the "nth" degree. Take iconic Chinese art form, apply to 20th Century rubbish form. Ecco -- Fabulous. Me likey.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you Nancie, it's brill as they say in London.
ReplyDeleteI like them too. Very cool and inventive.
ReplyDeleteEverybody on Twitter hated them, almost everybody here liked them. I wonder what that means...
ReplyDeleteParadoxical illustration of tradition meeting popular culture. Also very fitting during the week that Google announced it's pulling out of China--this debunks Google's message that American consumerism and Chinese constraints don't mesh.
ReplyDeleteI love these. To me they point out how the "trash" from one era becomes the art of another. I'd totally buy some (if I was so inclined to buy bits of art these days)
ReplyDeleteyay!
ReplyDeleteAhhh but Saxon, Chinese artistic constraints and Chinese human rights restraints are different things entirely. And I still think these things are fantastic.
ReplyDeleteI think they're amusing, and thought the dinner set was too -- but they're both for the art gallery, not for ordinary life.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you Chookie. Excuse my American ignorance, but what is a chook?
ReplyDeletePaul, please please please don't publish those nasty dirty pictures of Pat Robertson and the sheep that I sent you. You can use any other pictures or links I send to you but not those pictures. I don't want my name attached to any of that filth.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nim comment that the cans play on the idea of "trash" as art. Lots of things we collect and unearth from past cultures could be trash or everyday items, yet they sit protected in our museums alongside art from the same time period.
Imagine somewhere far in the future, a perfectly preserved empty Pabst Blue Ribbon can sits in a museum somewhere in space for children of all ages to admire, after it was extracted from the waste pile that enveloped the Earth. Sorry I just watched Wall-E finally and that just popped out.
Paul, they call chickens "chooks" in Australia.
ReplyDeleteDavid: I promise, your images will stop with me. And yes, I can see a PBR can in a museum a thousand years from now. Talk to an archeologist sometime about the wonder and joy to beheld in a midden.
ReplyDeleteMelody: Thank you, I've never heard that word before.
It's an endearment, like 'pet' or 'hen'.
ReplyDeleteI was aquainted with a gal who used it often and she was raised in Australia.
As for the china cans-- they do come across as pop art, quite clever I thought. The urban graffiti dishes, meh, not so much. But I have a thing about servingware as art. I don't want dishes on the wall-- if they are to be decorated, put it on the rim, not where you put the food. But that may just be me.
Thanks for the clarification Susan, I think I just picked up a new term of endearment, chook.
ReplyDeleteNay .... all the way! Smiles -Brenda-
ReplyDeleteThanks Brenda. Who knew that porcelain china could elicit such a response? I should talk about this stuff more often!
ReplyDelete