In one corner there’s Flavorpill’s friend Douglas Jaeger, head of The Happy Corp., who MoMA hired to design a massive subway ad campaign in Brooklyn. He thought it would be cool to unleash Poster Boy — a New York street artist/subway vandal known for slicing and manipulating ads — on the classic works. Well that, and he was also trying to head off something that he saw as inevitable.
The end result: Warhol’s “Marilyn” got a nose job, a race car landed in some water lilies, and Fred Flintstone enjoyed a post-coital smoke. (See some good images here.) The remixed campaign got a boatload of press. No harm, no foul, right?
Wrong.
In the other corner you have the MoMA, an educational institution with a certain reputation to uphold. They’re pissed: “The museum deplores any kind of vandalism and we are distressed that this happened, did not condone or authorize it and hope it doesn’t happen again.” The MTA is pissed too, but we find their claim a lot less compelling: “It is shocking that someone who claims to run a legitimate business in New York would so blatantly break the law and vandalize our property.” Almost as shocking as your incessant fare hikes.
What we’re wondering is:
Comments (1)
Street Art is such a huge part of the contemporary art world (i would love to explain why but i wouldn't have the space or time, just wikipedia it). If the MOMA would look at the bright side they could profit form this. they should document the "revisions", have a bunch of art historians write essays on the works, compile said essays into a catalog and offer up the work as the nouveau exhibition. It's like the work from the 1980's dealing with AIDS that artists paid to have put on the sides of buses. then they should collect the works along with photographs of people observing the work and make an exhibition dealing with street art at say PS 1. I don't know, just a thought. They could be on the forefront of the art world and accept the change that is occurring, embrace it and encourage it. the avant garde is only beneficial to art historians in retrospective. here is a chance to take advantage and they're busy acting like the work is less worthy of their recognition because it is "vandalism". let me ask you this MOMA, would you call duchamp's l.h.o.o.q. vandalism of the mona lisa today? or would you pay big bucks to feature it in an exhibit? Think about it.
Post a new comment