After reading through every single post on every single page, I would like to share my opinion on the issue.
I don't claim to be an artist, but I do see myself as a very avid student of art.
To me, and many others, art is a form of expression. There is an intent, sometimes tacit, sometimes explicit, for the artist. This intent can sometimes be self-gratifying ('total oblivion to other., I create for myself only'), sometimes to seek to influence, sometimes to seek to impress. But always, the intent drives the execution. Sometimes it works, sometimes it fails.
My comments are on the (claimed) art piece :
Wu Xiao Kang (1979 - 2005), a presentation of Bicameralism
The intent was made clear to me on
http://adoseoflight.com/overdose/xiaokang.html
One thing
Wu Xiao Kang (1979 - 2005), a presentation of Bicameralism suceeded in doing is it got enough of my attention to want to make a response. I didn't go through the initial phase of being duped, so by the time I read this thread, the 'hoax' had been clarified.
That was about the longest foreplay I've ever made on the internet.
My key critique is,
if this entire drama saga were considered an art piece, without personal moral judgements, the student of art in me is very much impressed.
I mean the
entire saga.
That means right from the start,
hypothetically speaking the intent (which I talked about) is to seek to influence emotions of the incognito public for a fictitious character. The performance is the
hoax itself (yes, lying is an art, whether we see it that way or not). To create a fantasy to elicit a spontaneous reaction.
Like how in some avant garde art exhibition, an artisit suddenly walked into the gallery, stood on a chair, sling a rope over the beams on the ceiling, and hanged himself. That was the art piece. Of course, it 'deceived' the audience. Of course, it was a hoax and he didn't actually hang himself. All of the audience were initially shocked. Some phased to rage. Some, amusement, others indifference. But the intent of the art is to elicit these emotions.
Now that they have explicitly stated their intent of the artwork, I have no fear sharing the above, of them changing their stance and claim that their initial intent is of a similar nature, in the name of art.
But this
Wu Xiao Kang (1979 - 2005), a presentation of Bicameralism piece is getting so much negative response. Is it because the whole thing was a hoax? It is because the audience feel deceived? Can it even claim the integrity of an artisitic expression?
I think not.
I think the execution had fallen flat from the intent: They say they were trying to assume the psyche of a schizo and portray bicameralism through photography. So according to them, the main performance here should still photography. The drama mama (of the death, the online petition to get the last roll of film etc) was supposed to have been the icing on the cake. But instead, this drama mama became the main performance. Much effort was given to create the hoax. Very little on the photography. So when the audience really looked at the main performance (photography), the audience is thrown aback.
Where is bicameralism in the photos?
Where is schizophrenia in the photos?
Did this artwork draw any awareness to schizophrenia like it claimed to set out to do? Or just an individual?
Did this artwork accomplish any bigger accomplishment like it claimed (to raise awareness for the less fortunate) than the self-gloryfying one?
All these are tacit feelings which I believe many share, but remain tacit, until made explicit.
Reading the published intent by them is leaving a really bad taste in my mouth.
It's insincere, pretentious, placed on some faultless pedastal, hoping to seek justification because of the pedestal it is on, but not what it is.
The intent is obvious. It is to draw attention for self glamourisation like so many people felt, not what the creators claimed. This intent had shaped the execution, where the icing became the main performance, and the main performance did not live up to the promise of the icing. Thus I would say it deserves the response its drawing.
