Art or rubbish?

13/09/2009 10:57:56 a.m.

Bernie wrote:

I am one of the other Waikato finalists this year. Although some media have suggested other finalists are up in arms over Dane’s win I have seen no evidence of this and affirm his finished work. What does concern me is the journey from original idea to that finished work. The Waikato is a competition, and as such has terms and conditions all entrants must follow. In the 'Close up' report on the Waikato competition Dane’s instructions were held up by the gallery curator, they read; 'INSTRUCTION FOR WORK Retain all disposed and discarded packing material from the other works in the exhibition. Leaving nothing out -include all bubble wrap, cardboard, plastic etc. Pile all this material into a heap in the exhibition space.' Then in smaller writing it read; 'This jpeg is not the work only an instruction in order that the work may be completed' This last sentence interested me as I know in the terms and conditions for entry into the competition item 6 says 'An image of the entry is to be submitted with the website entry form' Could this be Dane’s 'image' and if so is that really sticking to the conditions of the competition? Item 7.10 in the same entry conditions states; 'Art works can not be changed or added to once they have been submitted', that’s pretty subjective in this case. Item 7.2 'Employees of the Waikato Museum are not eligible to enter.' Maybe not, but allowed to make the work? Once the judge had seen all entries on line she picked semi-finalists, these were delivered to the gallery for her to view and judge in person. That was mid July. My understanding is this is when the winner was chosen. This begs the question ‘did the judge ever see Dane’s finished work, or was it an instruction and the image it placed in her mind or something seen that made him the winner? Danes work has depth and smarts, but as a competition entrant the registrar must make sure all the terms and conditions of the competition are followed. I just hope all have played by the rules.

13/09/2009 10:21:40 a.m.

Bernie wrote:

Although some media have suggested other finalists are up in arms over Dane’s win I have seen no evidence of this and note that I am the third in this blog to affirm his finished work. What does concern me is the journey from original idea to that finished work. The Waikato is a competition, and as such has terms and conditions all entrants must follow. In the 'Close up' report on the Waikato competition Dane’s instructions were held up by the gallery curator, they read; 'INSTRUCTION FOR WORK Retain all disposed and discarded packing material from the other works in the exhibition. Leaving nothing out -include all bubble wrap, cardboard, plastic etc. Pile all this material into a heap in the exhibition space.' Then in smaller writing it read; 'This jpeg is not the work only an instruction in order that the work may be completed' This last sentence interested me as I know in the terms and conditions for entry into the competition item 6 says 'An image of the entry is to be submitted with the website entry form' Could this be Dane’s 'image', and if so is that really sticking to the conditions of the competition? Item 7.10 in the same entry conditions states; 'Art works can not be changed or added to once they have been submitted', that’s pretty subjective in this case. Item 7.2 'Employees of the Waikato Museum are not eligible to enter.' Maybe not, but allowed to make the work? Once the judge had seen all entries on line she picked semi-finalists, these were delivered to the gallery for her to view and judge in person. That was mid July. My understanding is this is when the winner was chosen. This begs the question ‘did the judge ever see Dane’s finished work, or was it an instruction and the image it placed in her mind that made him the winner? Danes work has depth and smarts, but as a competition entrant the registrar must make sure all the terms and conditions of the competition are followed. I just hope all have played by the rules

11/09/2009 1:16:28 a.m.

Peter wrote:

The so called "intellectual artists" who see deep meanings in the dumb things they do must be at the top of the vanity tree. I suspect a lot of these so called artists are close to insanity. I am reminded about the ape in England that was given a brush and with it dabbed paint all over a canvas. Then "arty farty critics" stood pontificating about all the deep meanings that the artist wanted to convey, not knowing an ape had made the mess they were looking at in about 30 seconds. They shrunk after "waxing lyrical" only to be told the truth and crumbled before the eyes of the TV crew, and showed they were full of nothing but "bovine excrement". Great it was to see. Another example was the idiot who bought a three deep pile of house bricks for his gallery in London from one of the lunatic art fringe for a small fortune. This idiot was inundated later with offers from bricklayers I understand offering to do it for him at a fraction of the cost next time he wanted to display a pile of bricks. What pathetic plonkers these humility challenged people really are. A book in the Bible records, " Vanity, Vanity, all is Vanity" , and never was this vanity displayed better in the human heart than by these sad morons who try to defend the indefensible fact by calling this kind of nonsense art. I think Rubens and all the other masters can rest easy in the grave. Now that was art.

10/09/2009 9:50:21 a.m.

Meliors wrote:

Simon, I really wish that the judge could have come close to articulating what you have said here about this work! My disappointment was not in the winning work itself, but in the lack of intellient analysis from the judge and other defenders. Which is not to say there has been intelligence expressed by the attackers- the whole debate has been singularly stupid. I hope you republish these comments somewhere where they will be accessible outside of the context of the CL clip. As a finalist in the Awards, my own response to this 'controversy' can be found on my blog www.meliors.net

10/09/2009 8:33:33 a.m.

simon wrote:

in this way dane's winning work uses the competition environment to invert in the extreme the typical mode of operation art uses to communicate its intentions. in this way dane’s work challenged charlotte not just to award it the prize, but to finish it, to make it work, and to make it ART. what we all should really be asking is did he, did she, did anyone, realise this...

10/09/2009 8:32:33 a.m.

simon wrote:

if you do not understand this read it again, and again and again and again until you come to terms with it in your own way, in your own words, through your own feelings and though your own experience because that is what dane's work is about. dane's work is about experience. in shaping his winning piece from the discarded packaging of those that lost he imbues a single object, a pile of rubbish, with both an aura of success and an aura failure; with both victory and defeat; ulfilment and emptiness; truth and trash. what is really contentious here (and what seems to be similarly lost on everyone but me) is that dane's work only works if it wins. without victory all that might be interesting, clever, poetic, or whatever is lost, set adrift like rubbish in the wind. what is really contentious here is that dane's work was not just dane's work. dane's work was a collaboration. dane's work was begun by dane but finished by charlotte. in fact, before it won dane's work hardly existed at all. it was not even art - it was a challenge. a challenge made directly charlotte and one she chose to accept. all artworks in competition say two things. firstly they say what all art works say - what they would say if they were not in a competition - firstly they say "i am art and i am about this or about that" or "i am beautiful or "i am clever" or some kind of combination of these kinds of things, and secondly they say "pick me! pick me! i am the winner!". the first voice is primary. it defines the art as ART, and, in competition, is used by the judge to determine the claim of the second... however, in a move that may be more radical, more thoughtful, more specific and more responive to its context than another competition entry anywhere in the world, ever, dane submitted a work that had no primary voice. a work that did not even claim to be art! a work with a secondary voice. only a secondary voice. a work that claimed only to win.

10/09/2009 8:31:40 a.m.

simon wrote:

am i the only person in the country who has anything intelligent to say about this artwork? can nobody else be bothered? are all the thoughtful people just too shy? or did dane mitchell really just win an award with a pile of rubbish, actual rubbish? the key to dane's work is not poetry, though it may be poetic; not concept, though it may be conceptual; not cleverness, though it may be clever; not excess, though it may be excessive; not futility, though it may be futile; not consumerism, though it may consume; not mystery, though it may be mysterious; not controversy, though it mat be controversial; not recycling, though it may recycle; not strategy, though it may be strategic; not effort, though it may be effortless; not mockery, though it may mock; not tautology, though it may be tautological; not paradox, though it may be one; not tribute, though it may offer one; and not, above all not, most clearly and significantly not, not not not not NOT RUBBISH!!! in fact dane’s work is not even made of rubbish - though of course, at first, it may appear to be. the key to dane's work is desire, aspiration, and ambition. the key to dane's work is hope. the key to dane's work are the hopes and dreams of his fellow contestants. the key to dane's work are the vey hopes and dreams his victory crushed. dane's work is NOT made from rubbish. dane's work is made from hopes and dreams. dane's work is made from the crushed hopes and dreams his victory created, and dane's victory is made from the defeat of those who lost. this is the key to his work. this is why it may be poetic, conceptual, clever, excessive, futile, consuming, mysterious, controversial, recycled, strategic, effortless, mocking, tautological, paradoxical, memorialising. this is why it might not be rubbish. this is why it might be art and why it might be interesting. nothing else. N O T H I N G.

10/09/2009 1:08:38 a.m.

the advisorrr wrote:

Good on you Dane! Not my cuppa chai but it's great publicity for the museum yet it amazes me what news from the Tron ends up on TV- Rubbish! Not a good look HamiltON!

10/09/2009 12:38:48 a.m.

Buck wrote:

It got people talking alright, but about how ill the judge is and *not* about the art. I think the judge totally missed the point and has insulted all real artists and also made NZ look stupid to (and about 25 years behind) the rest of the world.

9/09/2009 5:23:22 p.m.

sonia wrote:

Do news programmes in NZ have researchers to perhaps inform the commentators of a few basic facts about contemporary art and it's LONG history? Whatever your opinion on the work of art itself, and I believe we are all entitled to our own, that news item was an EMBARRASSMENT to your channel and the state of the NZ media. I suggest employing the artist David who commented above to advise you, as he seems to be the only one with some insight into this debate. Oh and btw, this is not a primary school project ie EFFORT DOES NOT = ART and this applies to many creative endeavours. Perhaps, intelligence might though, and the ability to challenge, side step, provoke, annoy, educate and amuse... even Michaelangelo did that, a little while ago.