Trafalgar Square, in the heart of the city of London, England, is famous for its statue of Admiral Nelson (victor of the Battle of Trafalgar) high at the top of a column. There are also four large platforms (“plinths”) on the square, three of which bear statues of worthy 19th century men. The fourth has always been empty — waiting for some new worthy person to commemorate.
In 1999, a new project began to rotate pieces of modern art, chosen by competition, on this fourth plinth, a use that has proved to be very popular and successful (if sometimes controversial).
The latest project is probably the most fun, and also the most interesting and democratic use of this public art space. For 100 days (starting July 6), various people will stand for one hour each on the plinth, 24 hours a day. Anyone can apply to do so, and the 2,400 participants will be chosen completely at random from the people who apply, assigned a random time, and be able to do pretty much whatever they choose during their 60 minutes. The Guardian reports that “Antony Gormley, the artist whose idea it was, said yesterday: ‘I will be very upset if somebody doesn’t take off their clothes when they get there.'”
The project is called “One and Other“.
9 comments
They and 500 pigeons can stand on the block. Great idea.
The Guardian reports that “Antony Gormley, the artist whose idea it was, said yesterday: ‘I will be very upset if somebody doesn’t take off their clothes when they get there.’â€Â
…and if that is the level of discourse on public art, we should all feel pretty angry.
MK, where’s your sense of fun? I think it is completely valid for one or more persons to use their time on the plinth to get naked. The concept here is “public”, and being naked in public remains controversial (and illegal in many places), so if someone wants to explore that, why not? It also strays into the realm of parody/satire, sending up stuffy ideas of the seriousness of art. Yes, I know, it’s all been done before, but we’re all still so uptight about nakedness, so clearly it needs to be done some more.
Hi Crimson,
I like fun as much as the next person. Really.
However, when it comes to art with a massive price tag (I think the fee for the artist was £300,000, which is roughly $550,000) in a highly visible location, I think I expect a bit more nuanced thinking from the artist than “show me your tits.”
In a way, it’s oh so clever: a reflection of our reality TV and participatory media age where we are the content (I just pictured that TIME Magazine cover where the person of the year is “You”) and the context is all that needs to be set up. And Trafalgar Square is a rich context indeed, with ample references and resonances built-in. However, like most reality TV and certain participatory frameworks, all it reveals is a paucity of ideas at bottom: Thousands of members of the public are expected to pay their own way to get to Trafalgar Square, to fill the void that the artist has created.
Not my idea of fun, sorry.
I really don’t think one can make an assessment of the artist’s thinking based on one offhanded quote to a newspaper.
There’s two big assumptions there, Dylan: (1) that it was an offhanded comment, which insinuates that Mr Gormley is naive, and (2) that the quote is the only piece of evidence that I read, which insinuates that I’m naive. Careful, now…
MK > The quote is the only piece of evidence you cited in the judgement you made in your first comment. That’s all we had to go on. If you know a lot more about the discourse going on regarding this piece, then say so when you make that kind of judgement.
Myself, I do not know much about the artist, or about whatever fee he was paid.
It seemed to me, however, that the concept of the piece was actually quite interesting in relation to its location. The plinth was designed for a monument that was permanent, of someone chosen by the artist or a committe for their symbolic importance, in a fixed pose chosen by the artist. Other pieces have subverted some aspects of the original 19th-century intention (such as the monumental statue of Alison Lapper that I linked to) but kept others – fixed pose, long-term, chosen for symbolic importance. This new piece speaks to and overturns all those things – the subjects will not be chosen by anyone for specific reasons but selected at random, maybe famous maybe not, they will be live, they will have consciously asked to be part of the project, they will choose their own pose(s), they will be impermanent even within the limited term of the artwork. Gormley’s quote seems both partially light-hearted, and partially simply bringing attention to the fact that the behaviour will be the subject’s choice, not the artist’s (many things can happen, and he’d like something to happen but has no control over it). It really does not seem intended to encompass the full range of the project’s vision.
If you disagree based on a greater knowledge of the context of this project, that’s fine, but that didn’t come across at first.
Well, now this is interesting. Does one need to have a “greater knowledge of the context of this project” to agree or disagree with the notion that this is a meritorious project? Of course not.
In a recent issue of Frieze Magazine, Boris Groys is interviewed on the subject of art criticism. What he says (I simplify/summarise drastically) is that we have entered an era where there is no such thing as negative criticism, there is simply being mentioned or not being mentioned, and that if you don’t like something, you simply do not mention it.
He also went on to say that when analysing the impact of critical articles, people assumed that if an article was accompanied by a large photo or if it was placed in a prominent position, it was a positive article (even if it wasn’t). Without a greater knowledge of the context of the piece, just by being mentioned, people will assume something is important. It will assume a place of prominence, and people will form opinions on it.
Now back to this: Groys is right. There is just mentioned/not mentioned. You mentioned it, you liked it. And now, perhaps, I should stop mentioning it.
But for the sake of Wire readers, I’m afraid I won’t, as you suggest, recite my credentials or indicate every bit of evidence that I used to arrive at an opinion before “mentioning” something.
Thanks for the debate. I’m happy I had a chance to mention Mr Groys.
I originally replied because your comments were about more than whether you liked the piece itself. It seemed like you were making a strong judgment of the artist (not just the piece) based on a single quote. From your later comment and your display of art-criticism erudition, I’ll assume your opinion of the artist and his thinking is based on a much greater familiarity with his thinking than appeared at first, and so is well-considered, so I’ll consider my concerns satisfied.
You’re welcome for the debate, and the opportunity to cite Mr. Groys.