5 incredible works of an insane explosive artist [pics]
Fri, Mar 7, 2008
Nothing lasts forever. We’re very aware of that, being environmentalists.
However, some of the most beautiful and incredible occurrences are ephemeral, creative and destructive all at the same time. The above are all vital elements of the genious explosive artist Cai Guo-Qiang’s work. Although not strictly environmental, more like “actually” destructive, Qiang’s explosions and installations emulate the destructive forces of nature and technology. Unfortunately I’m not an art critic or expert, so I won’t attempt to explain the works in more detail. Attempting to do that would be like tearing a butterfly to shreds in order to understand how it works. So, without further ado, here are some of his five most amazing art pieces:
5. Tornado: Explosion Project for the Festival of China
On October 1st 2005 in Washington D.C. USA the Potomac river was lit up for 7 minutes.
4. Restrained Violence: Rainbow: Project for Extraterrestrials No. 25
At 6pm on February 28 1995 at the First Johannesburg Biennial, a building is blown up. The art piece lasts 5 seconds
3. Inopportune
One of Qiang’s less ephemeral pieces, Inopportune is displayed between December 12, 2004 and October 2005 at the MASS MoCA North Adams, USA.
2. 45.5 Meteorite Craters Made by Humans on Their 45.5 Hundred Million Year Old Planet: Project for Extraterrestrials No. 3
On July 7, 1990 at 9 pm at the Chine demain pour hier exhibition, Pourrieres, France a 10,000 meter squared controlled explosion takes place. It lasts only 3 seconds.
1. Transient Rainbow
On June 29th, 2002, New York was lit up to celebrate the opening of MoMAQNS. The light show lasted 15 seconds.
Source: CaiGuoQiang.com
If you’d like to see more colorful pictures and keep up-to-date with interesting news, why not subscribe to our RSS feed or get email updates?
2 Trackbacks For This Post
-
Daily Links 18 Mac 2008 Says:
March 17th, 2008 at 6:30 pm[...] Incredible Works Of An Insane Explosive Artist - (Environmental Graffiti) Possibly the Worst Car Pile-up in World History - (Wrecked Exotics) The Creepiest Chair You’ll [...]
-
Ultimate Stupidity » Blog Archive » Links Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 4:48 pm[...] Incredible Works Of An Insane Explosive Artist - (Environmental Graffiti) Possibly the Worst Car Pile-up in World History - (Wrecked Exotics) The Creepiest Chair You’ll [...]
Popular Posts
| Wooden beds Check out a huge range of wooden beds on sale so you can find the perfect bed on bedtrader.co.uk |
March 7th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
those are incredible! Amazing!
March 10th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Fireworks I can understand. But why would anyone want to see ‘art’ exhibits that consisted of nothing but tigers, one of the world’s most majestic creatures, riddled with arrows?
If the media (not to mention websites!) would stop giving such ‘artists’ exposure they’d have no option but to quit creating grotesques and create something that could truly be called art. That is, of course, if they are true artists as opposed to mere opportunitis out to jump on the bandwagon of public outrage.
There is no art here. Any moron can create a ’spectacle’ simply by whipping down his pants. Creativity takes courage, determination, and hard work. Something most of these artists are sorely lacking.
Steve N Lee
author of eco-blog http://www.lionsledbysheep.com
March 11th, 2008 at 4:20 am
Here’s a great video from the Cai Gugenheim exhibit:
http://www.scribemedia.org/2008/03/06/cai-guo-qiang/
March 13th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Totally agree with Steve N Lee… If modern “art” means torturing, killing, or displaying dead creatures who have no choice and no voice, as long as we keep giving them credit the madness will never end. Intelligent people don´t give credit to this rubbish, it´s only lemmings who follow others for fear or being seen as uncool who do (though they most probably also think inside their heads that it´s all rubbish).
March 13th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
@Marisa, The tigers were not real and were intended to highlight a problem. I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick.
C
March 15th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Steve and Marisa, you obviously don’t understand what this and other artist are doing, I see Marisa didn’t realize what Steve was really saying and she only thought (misplaced as it was) that it was wrong to have dead tigers full of arrows on display as art, that would be! These are fake, a display of exactly how sick it is, to show us that it happens, to pay attention, and do something about it. As for Steve, anyone who doesn’t understand that “art” is for everyone, those with different opinions, views of what is aesthetically pleasing, and reasons for creating their own pieces of mind, should not try to act as if they are an art appreciator, when they are simply an art standardizer, someone who would rather see the same thing over and over again, because it’s their standard of “beauty” instead of appreciating art for what it is, even if it’s scary, disgusting, grotesque, or gorgeous, it’s the artists choice to make it, but it’s the viewers choice to view it!
March 17th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
If a society needs to see ‘art’ like this to know it’s wrong, then there’s something seriously wrong with that society. Not to mention those who defend the right to exhibit such ‘art’ under a misguided conception that they are defending the freedom of expression.
What would you like to defend as ‘art’ next, Moany? Installations that show graphic details of, I don’t know, let’s say…
An American G.I. being beheaded by a terrorist?
A burning baby impaled on a stake?
Auschwitz?
I’m sure someone could make great arguments for the validity of each as examples of man’s inhumanity to man and, thereby, something valuable, something we can learn from.
You might like to dress in a Nazi uniform, engage in anal intercourse with a baboon, then release a video of the event in the name of art. Now, while I may be wrong, I doubt patrons of the Tate or Guggenheim will be lauding you as the new Picasso.
Just because art can be vile doesn’t mean it has to be.
There’ll always be a minority that needs to see pain and suffering to know it’s wrong, but for the rest of us there’s a thing called empathy… Oh, and logic. And understanding. And education, compassion, kindness, visualization…
March 17th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Quote: “If a society needs to see ‘art’ like this to know it’s wrong, then there’s something seriously wrong with that society.”
I’m no artist or art critic, but…
Art as social commentary is just one of many functions that art has. Art can exaggerate emotions and moods and cause people to react emotionally. While we all know that killing tigers, in this instance, is wrong it would be a totally different experience to actually see it being done. Or imaginations can sometimes only go so far. Since we can’t all experience a tiger being killed, the artist decided to display a (quite realistic) representation. It helps us to understand on another level.
I don’t think the artist created these pieces to cater to a bloodthirsty audience. I think they were created because people don’t want to see these images.
There was a short story in Reader’s Digest about a man who was a hunting guide for rich Westerners in India. He had hunted tigers for quite sometime, but it wasn’t until he approached a poorly-shot tiger and saw the life drain from it that he had a change of heart and became a conservationist. For him, that visual aspect was key in his understanding of what he was doing. Understanding a concept is sometimes not enough.
March 17th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
I totally agree with Steve N Lee on his Mar 10th and 17th posts.
It does not matter that the tigers are “fake” (per Moany’s suggestion) as it is the artist’s goal to make us fully envision them as “real”. The “fake-ness” of the tigers does not lessen the grotesque nature of the assembly (let’s not call it “art”). What does matter is that there will be one or two individuals in the viewing audience who will not want (or be able) to make the distinction between “real” and “fake”, and subsequently interpret this assembly as an endorsement of the act.
Does such a grotesque display qualify as “art” ONLY if the viewing audience is horrified and spurred into a pro-active response? What if some perverse characters actually enjoy the display…if this were the case, would the assembly still be “art”? If we suddenly see a rise in the discovery of skewered tigers in China or Africa, should we applaud the act as an homage or encourage the perpetrators as emerging artists?
To say that “our imaginations can only go so far” employs the same logic that makes everyone in this world (and particularly the U.S.) a “victim”. Individuals now claim to have lost the capability of abstract thought (i.e. the thing that makes us uniquely ‘human’) and so therefore are able to get compensated with millions of dollars in a court of law when they spill hot coffee on themselves and suddently realize, to their complete and utter amazement, that they have recieved second-degree burns. This is utter horseshit.
Those that champion depictions of this sort in the name of “art” have totally twisted the notion of “art” to fit a warped and very narrow interpretation. I guarantee you it is not a universally accepted notion. Ask around. I seriously doubt many would find concurrence with the notion of skewered tigers as “art”. At best, it might be a “protest”, or a “statement”, but it is not “art”. Let’s not elevate it to that classification, nor call those who produce it “artists”.
BTW, can someone please explain the thematic connection between fireworks and skewered tigers? Please?
March 18th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Wether you like it or not this is art. I could show a picture of an orange peel and that would be considered art. The fact that you don’t like the display doesn’t mean it’s not art.
You think that people shouldn’t make displays like this, because some one might like it. People make movies that we don’t like, does that mean we should stop making and showing them? No. If you don’t like it don’t look at it, don’t pay attention to it.
Art is in the eye of the beholder.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Steve and UseYourHead, I believe you are both only looking at the very surface of this piece of work and have missed the deeper message the artist is sending. To be fair, the pictures here only gives a very limited partial view of the installation, and by no means do they render enough to give the artwork justice. The shear scale of the installations provide an extremely powerful statement in and of itself.
Perhaps to give more context, all of these pieces are by an internationally acclaimed contemporary artist Cai Guoqiang. He is well known for his explosive (sometimes literally) and provocative large scale installations. He *indeed* has had solo exhibitions at the Tate Modern, the MET, MoMA, to name a few. In fact, the tigers you see in the pictures are part 2 of 2 of the series “Inopportune”, and part 1 of which is on exhibit at the Guggenheim right now through the end of May (http://www.guggenheim.org/exhibitions/exhibition_pages/cai.html).
To fully appreciate the artist’s statement, you have to look at both parts of the series in conjunction. The first part is an installation of a series of 9 cars that seem to have been frozen in time during an explosion. 9 real cars with glowing light-tubes that radiate from the cars’ interior are suspended from the Guggenheim’s central atrium ceiling, each representing a frame in a cinematic progression of an explosion. The pictures of the tigers are part 2 of this series. It is an installation of 9 tigers that also seem to depict a frame-by-frame cinematic progression of an attack.
These 2 parts are the ying and yang of the complete piece - providing stark contrasts yet an irreplaceable parallelism at the same time. The exploding cars have glowing beams that radiate outwards acting as a source of energy; whereas the tigers are absorbing and seemingly internalizing the waves of violent blows. The cars are hung high above ground almost as if they have transcended beyond reach; while the tigers are installed in a completely tangible and almost interactive manner, at eye level and equal ground with the viewers. The purposefully tacky neon-tubes coming from the exploding cars provide an abrupt contrast to the ancient weapon of choice in the tigers, allowing the viewers to carve out a spectrum of time and age. The cold, uniformly-white metal of the cars emphasizes the warmth and softness of the animals’ fur.
Personally, the statement I read from these 2 combined pieces is the intrusion of technology and modernization of mankind that so violently pierce our own natural surrounding. The glory and wonders of industrialization is also slowly but surely threatening and destroying other living beings that share our surroundings. The beauty of this piece is in the tension and energy that radiates out of the motionless bodies of the tigers. There is an indescribable sense of resilience and passion for survival, a lasting aura of fear and dignity that almost lures you into joining its struggle. It is undoubtedly emotionally stirring, leaving me in unsettled pity and asking for justice. At the same time, I leave the piece asking myself whether our daily living and consumption are sending more tigers down this path.
This, again, is only my personal interpretation and I am by no means an ‘artist’ or a curator. I’d respect any interpretations that you have, but I only invite you to view these pieces as a whole before reducing this to just a couple dead tigers. If you are interested in what others say, there are essays written by curators and other artists on Cai’s pieces (i.e. search for essays “Inopportune” by Laura Heon and “Of Terror and Tigers: Reflections on Cai Guo-Qiang’s Inopportune” by Robert Pogue Harrison.)
March 21st, 2008 at 5:29 am
Chubby; et all:
1) this is a conversation/argument that can offer no satisfactory conclusion to anyone
2) a picture of an orange peel is…..just that.
3) yes, I do think that certain movies like; oh, let’s say “Saw III” and “Chucky XVII” should not be made. Think of all the better purposes all that money, imagination and effort could be used for
4) “Art is in the eye of the beholder”….quite an interesting and relativistic….and over-used and tired expression. Careful what you wish for. You may find yourself one day injured by the backlash of the “don’t-look-at-it-don’t-pay-attention-to-it” posture you now champion.
5) You have all now provided me with reams of data and reference websites to convince me that skewered tigers are “art”. Since when did the process, indeed the OBLIGATION to submit to such lengthy ‘discovery’ become more important than the object itself. Have we lost the tree for the forest? (yes, that is what I meant)
6) Tates, Guggenheims, etc are all stations on the uber-artists rite of passage, and all are fully staffed with historians, docents and curators who cite the same mantras as you have provided above. All of whom are a little too ‘highly evolved’ (read: far-removed) from the spiritual uplifting and healing the rest of us seek/expect from “art”. Here’s an interesting fact: I WORK in an artistic profession and am amazed at some of the simplistic (or over-wrought) bullshit I see memorialized in trade magazines and exhibited in museums.
7) a bit ironic that exploding cars are now the “de rigeur” statement that exemplifies our current society, non? Is that a legacy we want to be remembered for by the archaeologists who excavate the Guggenheim in 2573?
All that is being asked for here is some common sense. Tolerance of the insane can only beget more insanity, no matter how intelligently one objectifies it. It takes more courage to call out bullshit than to turn away from it. MC, you have included a few intelligent and compassionate segues in your reponses above. But in the simplest of terms, you are arguing in defense of skewered tigers and exploding cars. Just think about that sentence for awhile. Could you explain that to your kids? Can you live the rest of your life with that? Is this the legacy you want to leave? Will the archaeologists understand?