Chicagoist: An Interview with Artists Burtonwood and Holmes

htfc_rules

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:00:33 -0600

That makes three of us talking c*ck then - Tom, me and you

mdw606

Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:04:33 -0600

I love how all the so-far dim commentators try to make a case about the politics and lifestyle associations of these two visual artists being shabby or not to their liking, but then concede the excellence of the artists' work. As if a radio-diagram grasp of the commentators' own personal opinion somehow elevate their statements in relation to the aesthetic dilemma at the center of the artists' critique. Without cognizance of that dilemma, none of the commentator's holier-than-thou posturing elevates the discussion to even a basic level of competency. Yet another case study in why comment sections are largely a waste of readers' time.

htfc_rules

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:11:06 -0600

Watch out Michael Moore... Full marks for bullsh*t bingo. Interesting artwork tho - can't knock their creativity.

Chris_60614

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 00:01:37 -0600

I don't have a problem with artists making political statements. Art can be such a powerful medium to make a point, but in this case the message is so unoriginal and obviously pre-canned for the homer anti-war audience. Duh, war is bad. Duh, we live in a mass consumer society. Thank you Captain obvious, anything to add??? I bet Burtonwood is the guy with the Che shirt on. It seems like they did about as much research on economics and how the 'rest of the world' fights wars, as they did at the Union League Club.....hello, Stiffler?...serious? I still like their stuff, and although it is intellectually bankrupt, I still think you could pull some serious ass with shtick like the above.

jbud

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:35:17 -0600

skulls covered with military symbols? why are they being so literal? why are they using art to talk about politics? why make objects about war? why not write an essay instead? why not make fliers? why is an art gallery the best place to talk politics?

Chris_60614

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:42:20 -0600

After reading that interview two things are for certain: 1. Burtonwood and Holmes need to stick to inflatable camo-santa's, and leave more serious topics like war and economics to the experts (or at least people in community college). These peeps don't have a clue. 2. If you are an Artist, non-sensical dribble like this will get you laid on the spot in Bucktown. Seriously, If I dropped a loaded AK-47 in the middle of Logan Square, would random violence and terror ensue? Please! In the real world the AK-47 doesn’t create new markets, its supplies centuries old markets created by very UNRANDOM hatreds. Hutus have been slaughtering Tutsis for 600 years without the AK-47.....And in the Civil, WWI, and WWI; Man did just fine with canister, the Lee Enfield, and the MG42. True War is Hobbesian. War is not 'Field of Dreams.' It has to have a human origin. Tools and the industrial complex only make it more efficient. Although clueless and smug, I like their art. I would like to see them expand their work to reflect a more well rounded representation of warfare and conflict in the world today. How bout the military-religious complex? Surely citizens of the world don’t need a JDAM or M1A2 tank to go to war? How about a juxtaposition of TNT with some sort of religious symbol like the prophet Mohammed? I bet that might make a point, but It would take some real courage and possibly involve some risk. Which is probably too much to ask from these two . I certainly agree with thing they said: "Unfortunately, there are too many bullies who will prey on the defenseless." You probably wouldn’t get death threats from Starbucks or Lockheed.