Bean Vandalized!

Daley could have been going to town on peters. (Okay, I'll stop now.)

I didn't realize Cloud Gate was paid for with taxpayer funds, Spook. All this time I had been thinking it was funded by a private grant (SBC)?

Well, in a roundabout way, wwe are paying for millenium park:

Chicagoist article

Millenium Park

TIF money was also used, which came from us.

oops - i mean to say this is NOT an attempt at "appropriating" the bean for artistic purposes.

please define art.

Yeah, god forbid we use the news to talk or think about deeper subjects or context. Silly us. We will strive to stay on message next time.

This coming from one of this site's serial posters.

Do you have an actual point beyond snark? If not, that's cool, but perhaps you should leave the grown-up table in the meantime.

So yes it is technically "wrong" what the artist ( Peters?) did, but is it wrong with respect to the patronage pigs trough called Millennium Park? I say No.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I was pissed at the whole fiasco known as Millenium Park too, especialy after the first "private party" that kept the general public out of the park. But like other have said, I don't agree that it's OK for one artist (if this "Peter" was an "artist", which I doubt) to fuck up some other artist's work just for their own self-determined "greater good", as if the "greater good" is universally accepted. For some, the "greater good" involved tearing down every CHA building they could lay their hands on. For some, the "greater good" involved layoff off everybody at the Republic Windows and Doors factor. I personally don't think it's right for one person, in this case "Peter(s)" to determine what is in the interest of the "greater good", especially for me. I determine my own version of "greater good".

That should read "...in the case of the alleged protesting of government-sponsored art, why not directly attack the government?..."

Are you really standing up for law and order here? It's some petty, and not even pretty, vandalism and you and stealth and the rest seem to think this way leads unto madness. You sound like the "keep britain tidy" people who keep demanding that graf art by people like Banksy get painted over.

Why does my preference matter? Because it's mine. Just like the land that scrap pile is sitting on. Or the land where they're going to bury the children's museum. It's public land being used by the rich and dull to make themselves feel clever and involved. I could care less if their ugly, vanity temples are shat on by the multitudes.

This argument of yours though, that if we aren't scandalized by petty little act we are opening the door to mere anarchy is a poor one, it's simply the slippery slope fallacy. The blood-dimmed tides will not be unleashed by Peters (s). One can find this amusing, even a bit refreshing and still live in civil society.

o.k. I made the mistake of having two beers after working out on an empty stomach, so I'm in no mood to comment on all these great comments tonight, but I do want to comment on ingrids "

"it won't be such a big step before Peter are at your door....maybe kicking it in or throwing a brick through your window or scratching their names on your bike (or car). I'm sure you'd be outraged then."

Maybe Albanyparkour and I feel that Daley has already done much worse than the above acts of property damage. So if Peter scratches his name on a stupid hunk of corporate metal, then not only are we not going to lose any sleep over it, but we are going to welcome the debate it brings and perhaps think it looks more human with PeterS on it. Oh and perhaps we "lost on Mili Park" because not enough people are willing to scratch their name on the mayor's bullshit or at least say Gawd Bless ya to those that do like Peters. I mean really in this law and order city, I don't expect any slippery slope, unless its the poor slipping down the slope, but we have come to expect that but heaven forbid any body scribble on Daley's shrines. Then its turn lose the dogs, sorta like poaching during the 18 century

every day you manage to post something that makes me dislike you more...

Really? Because every day I have no idea who you are and can't remember a thing you said. Join the conversation, I'm as apt to be wrong as anyone, but grumbling vaguely is just silliness.

To the point, You and Stealth want to see art where there is simply design. There is a difference, and it's not just one for art majors with "art scorebooks" at had.

The Bean, and the rest of millennium park (including that appalling Gehry garbage) was chosen not for it's beauty or passion or voice. It was chosen to enhance a tourist experience. It is there to serve as a photo oppurtunity, a means of revenue generation. That's why the work is so bland, so simplistic and lacking in anything approaching daring.

Frank Lloyd Wright made the point that the greco-roman revival of the late 19th century was a sickness of nostalgia. Rather than make something challenging, something new, something with integrity and character, it was about giving people an experience that reinforced their perceptions and desires rather than challenging them. Give the people what they want is the mantra of the decorator. The artist gives you what they need to express.

Yes Stealth, Banksy has made good bank on his work. He's also nearly been killed "decorating" the divider wall in Gaza and had his work demolished and defaced. I'm not against artists making a living, that's snobbery, what I'm against is calling something chosen for it's inoffensive blandness with no real connection to the landscape art.

Unless you want to run the course of saying that everything is art, which is all fine and well I suppose.

Albany,

Throughout the history of art there have been sponsors/patrons – art purchased by the Pritzkers isn’t a new outrageous phenomenon. People with lots of money financially support art organization and artists all the time – this may not be ideal, but there are worse ways to spend money. Also art and architecture is often chosen by committee – would you prefer that just one person choose? I would prefer some kind of internet vote when it comes to public art, so the tax payers can have a say.

Is it only okay to vandalize the art because it was expensive? Or is it okay to vandalize it because you don’t like it? I think what you are missing here is that some of us don’t want to see any art vandalized, whether it cost ten bucks or $23 million. I don’t want to see Banksy’s work destroyed, and I don’t want to see Anish Kapoor’s art destroyed. I am willing to stand up when anyone’s art is being defaced, because I have respect for art in general.

As for Degas and Matisse, many people didn’t initially like their work either, because it was different and didn’t meet their requirements of “real art.” Matisse had patrons like Gertrude Stein and the Cone sisters. Their works are worth millions now and are owned by very wealthy people. These wealthy people loan or give these works to museums for tax breaks. By your reasoning, how is defacing a Degas or a Matisse any different than standing up for a Kapoor? They are worth millions, owned by rich people or corporations, and used as tax shelters, and some people may even think their work is boring. And as hard as it may be to imagine, the bean is someone else’s matisse.

I have no problem with graffiti artists as long as they don’t ruin other people’s artwork, which they usually don’t do because they are artists. In fact a lot of graffiti art is great. (But I do mean graffiti art, not the gangs who mark their territory by tagging my apartment building. While it may be anthropologically informative, I don’t see it as graffiti *art*). I have as much respect for their work as I do for just about any work hanging in the Art Institute. I wouldn’t support defacing their work either.

You make some very fine points. Unlike Stealth and static and Matilda you're not sinking into name-calling simply to make an argument and it's a better discussion for it.

It's not the expense, it's the message behind it. If Cloud Gate was a private commission loaned or leased to a museum or gallery that's simply the commerce of art. Instead we have a massive lump in the middle of what looks like a child's playground of clashing art styles, revival attempts and feeble attempts at open civic space.

I have no issue with patronage, more power to an artist would can find one really. I take issue with defending the status of a piece like Cloudgate that is less an artistic work than a singular piece of ornamental design chosen to maximize the profit center that is millenium park.

I'd disagree that Cloudgate is comparable to another work, save other large civic decorative pieces. From it's construction to it's design to it's ownership and maintenance, its has much more in common with an office building than something hanging on the walls of an office.

In short, I don't think a piece of art was defaced, I think a section an enormous Chicago-Machine white elephant got vandalized.

Do you have ANY concept of the literally BILLIONS of dollars that tourists bring to this city every single year?

Yes. And you expect me to believe that Millenium park (not the museums, culture, food, sports architecture) is that big a draw?

Spending millions on a park that lasts decades is chump change, not 'squandering'

Millenium Park cost over $500 million dollars.

Money well-spent since finally people have a reason to visit this cow-town.

Were you at that meeting?

My last name isn't Pritzker, Crowne or Daley. So no.

Your arguments against the bean have amounted to:

No, they haven't. Look, you're not very bright, I get that. Your sentences seem hurried and not very well-considered and I'm straining to see what you mean versus what you've typed. Read what I wrote again. Since you won't, in sum, I don't think it's art. It's ornamentation, gilding, decoration. I'm as outraged by this as I would be by a the "H+DB 99" on the tree outside my house.

Actually, I kind of like that tag. It's sweet.

NONE of those arguments have anything to do with the bean itself, or in any way justify someone vandalizing a piece of art.

Which is why I didn't make them. You can go back to anonymously hating me. Maybe you and stealth can get together and share witty bits of sarcasm. That would kill the hours between waking and sleep.

my posts are written that way because i'm at work and don't have hours to agonize over every nuance and block quote.

i stay quiet mostly because i know there is no point in trying to convince someone like you they are wrong in an online discussion. Sometimes though, i get tired of self-centered commentary.

i'm pretty sure you yourself resort to plenty of name calling based on the declaration that i must not be bright based on a few lines of text.

those were you arguments, and i can even put them in fancy block quotes if you want, so as to help make them clear to you. but i strongly doubt you care what you said previously, as evidenced by your style of posting. it's reactionary, defensive, and rarely returns to the overall point of the discussion. you like to instigate, which to me, is tiresome.
i feel that most people on this board would agree with me, but in the end it doesn't really matter at all since this is an internet discussion that can, and will, go nowhere.

my posts are written that way because i'm at work and don't have hours to agonize over every nuance and block quote.

Does it make your argument any more valid to belittle me and make it sound as if I'm some layabout because I type fast and enjoy a good argument? And the blockquote tag is dead simple.

i stay quiet mostly because i know there is no point in trying to convince someone like you they are wrong in an online discussion. Sometimes though, i get tired of self-centered commentary.

And yet since you've entered this conversation you've gone on about how much what I say and how I say it irritates you. There's always a point, you just have to argue it well.

i'm pretty sure you yourself resort to plenty of name calling based on the declaration that i must not be bright based on a few lines of text.

Writes the person who has made a number of decelerations about me based on a few lines of text. No, I don't think you're very bright and I think you've jumped into this conversation with the hopes of simply scoring some points off me or venting or something else unrelated. Hence my supposition. Doesn't make you a vile person or anything.

those were you arguments, and i can even put them in fancy block quotes if you want, so as to help make them clear to you.

But you didn't.

but i strongly doubt you care what you said previously, as evidenced by your style of posting. it's reactionary, defensive, and rarely returns to the overall point of the discussion. you like to instigate, which to me, is tiresome.

No, I'd rather have a fine argument that doesn't sink into recriminations, sarcasm and assertions to "grow up". See my response to Jackson93 up above.

i feel that most people on this board would agree with me,

Ah, the silent majority. This is meant to intimidate and shame me. It's not effective.

but in the end it doesn't really matter at all since this is an internet discussion that can, and will, go nowhere.

Only because you don't seem to want it to. You don't want to either have a laugh, have a discussion, have a good (but passionate) argument. You just want to tell me you don't like me and you're sure other people don't either. There, you've contributed your nothing and can go back to your very busy day.

In the age of the internet and iphone, we're all geniuses.

Well, let's take this a step further. Isn't public art, but it's very nature, meant to be damaged?

Now obviously, if somone took a jackhammer to the bean day one that's an extreme, but the picasso has certainly been worn down, and not just by winter. The charm of the lincoln statue in Springfield is mainly in his prominent nose worn by decades of kids (and adults) rubbing it for luck.

Why not let a piece get dirty, let it get messy and written on, let it become something of and in the space. That's transgressive to many people, because they're viewing art as something permanent and timeless, when it's really not.

Picture the city, covered in tags and scrawls and names and color. Not some clean ikea surface, but living, and owned by the people who carve their initials into it sometimes.

Ok, I'm wandering up my own ass a bit. Apologies.

Spook and Albany: I can almost see what you're getting at...and this is why I am more comfortable in NYC because I like the nitty grittiness of that city as opposed to the cleaned up buttoned down pristine Chicago.

But that doesn't mean I condone vandalism. I think that intent plays a big role, and I don't think that Ashley or Peter's intent was to make any improvements for art's sake.

And as for art not being permanent or timeless...tell that to the museum curators who live and die for the art in the museums. When Jackie Kennedy wanted to bring the Mona Lisa to the United States, my GOD! You would not even believe the machinations behind that ordeal! I'm pretty sure that the ones responsible for that piece were viewing it as something permanent.
I think I probably do as well. If I go to a museum, I want to see the original and not a photocopy.

I can take or leave the Bean...but if I do happen to pass it some day I don't want to see it marred by thousands of names scratched onto its surface, because if you condone one, you have to condone them all.

And as for art not being permanent or timeless...tell that to the museum curators who live and die for the art in the museums.

We're getting dangerously close to my professional life here. Knowing curators and archivists and all kinds of museum professionals, I can tell you their greatest hope is to preserve an object for their lifetime. Anything beyond that is simply wishful thinking.

Museums are a relatively new idea. The notion of preserving an object forever and always for everyone's enjoyment is a fine one, laudable even. But sometimes art should be allowed to grow old and die. Public art especially.

Are you familiar with "The Long Now" foundation? Some great thinking about timescales of artifacts, ideas, even languages. Kind of mind-expanding.

http://www.longnow.org/

Spook,

While there is certainly injustice and illegal activity within Chicago and the Daley administration, I can't help but see your comparisons as an insult to the people who suffered those other regimes. We definitely have problems - i am not dismissing them, downplaying them, or excusing them. We have not yet even come close to the suffering experience by people under Franco, the Nazis, or Mugabe. The wrongs of the Daley administration pale in comparison to the extreme limitations of freedom and human rights abuses of the regime you reference.

Oh, Spook, I've done much, including marching (not big anti-war stuff, but more like marching on an alderman's office in order to get specific change) and other forms of protest and persuasion, including directly with political leaders at the local and state level.

Lake front types? Listen, Spook, you really have to stop dealing in assumptions and stereotypes. Perhaps no one ever told you this, but they make you look silly. Perhaps you don't care. Hell if I know. But you would have though all those writers you claim--claim--to have read would have taught you such a thing long ago.

How's that house working out for you? Can I come over to vandalize it?

Sorry about hip-hip vs rap. It is like speed metal vs thrash metal--a distinction that only the geeks care about? Or Superman vs Batman?