wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] John Weber from NJ Shore January 25, 2008 - 10:49AM

  If he takes the labels off how does he deal with the UPC code? How does the product scan?

  
  
• [2] Stephen from Brooklyn January 25, 2008 - 10:53AM

  Brian, This is not a new idea. The situationists, a post existential European group, pursued simialr methods via 'detournment' where they re-wrote text in cartoon bubbles and billboards.

  
  
• [3] theresa from queens January 25, 2008 - 10:54AM

  Hey what a great idea! I just self published my first book called Junkfood Bear. I have to market it by myself. Thank you for a great idea!!!

  
  
• [4] Gary from Manhattan January 25, 2008 - 10:54AM

  THIS IS TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE. What this guy does is exactly what the guy in 1982 did with the Tylenol poisonings.

  
  
• [5] jane silver timm from hudson valley, NY January 25, 2008 - 10:54AM

  we have a small antique shop and people change tags all the time.

  it is just a terrible idea to change tags.

  some pictures on foods are to let non-readers know what is in the can!!

  
  
• [6] sean from brooklyn January 25, 2008 - 10:55AM

  Ryan Mcguinness put his postcards in the moma design store.

  then stood outside and signed them when people bought them. This was like 10 years ago.

  
  
• [7] VR from 11416 January 25, 2008 - 10:55AM

  Ugly dolls are not really ugly.

  http://www.google.com/images?q=ugly+doll&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-30,GGGL:en

  
  
• [8] Pete from Brooklyn January 25, 2008 - 10:56AM

  I love spam, especially on white bread with ketchup. My mom gave it to me for lunch as a kid. It's crispy and delicious and I love how the bread gets stuck to the roof of your mouth.

  Oh, and I'm a member of the Park Slope Food Co-op.

  
  
• [9] Harry from Jersey City January 25, 2008 - 10:58AM

  Are these the same guys who take toxic brightly colored orange, green, blue cleaning products and put them next to the apple and other kids' juices. I think it's pretty disgusting.

  
  
• [10] daniel@parkdesignstudio.net from manhattan January 25, 2008 - 10:58AM

  You asked a good question of one of your callers: "what's the point". Much of this conceptual art is clever, but rarely of much significant real intellectual interest. They say that the "point" is to "raise questions", "challenge notions of...", "explore ideas", which I guess is fine, but it's not that interesting or important, just marginally clever.

  
  
• [11] ab January 25, 2008 - 10:59AM

  As a fellow artist I feel like this kind of thing has been done over and over and over again since the 60's(at least) in various ways....I wish we could get past it...it's really really unoriginal.

  
  
• [12] Abdul from NYC January 25, 2008 - 10:59AM

  As for the last caller who market his/their magazin by shopdropping, where does the money goes when the stores made sales on the magazines?

  
  
• [13] ab January 25, 2008 - 11:01AM

  #11

  I totally agree...most of it doesn't accomplish what the goal is at all...not even close. It's not challenging and certainly doesn't make you "think" or "raise questions" (except "what is the point?")

  
  
• [14] Nora Herting from Brooklyn, ny January 25, 2008 - 11:02AM

  Brian,

  I am disappointed by your uncharacteristically obtuse response to the caller who discussed Chris Taylor's work of replicating mass produced glasses for sale in the Met's gift shop.

  It seems to me the purpose of the artist, is not to create an original design, but to make a comment on the the commodafication of "art" that is for sale at an institutional gift shop. He is making a statement by conflating craft, originality, and preciousness of objects. In regards to his insertion of a glass egg into a real package of eggs, I imagine that his intent is to create an small intervention or disruption in the experience of consumerism.

  
  
• [15] Jackie from Brooklyn January 25, 2008 - 11:08AM

  Please Brian, more segments like this. I know elections are important but there's only so much candidate coverage one can take. I found this topic interesting and fun - even if it is illegal and often immoral.

  Thanks

  
  
• [16] J.C. from Minneapolis January 25, 2008 - 11:13AM

  I fail to see the artistic value in this. In fact, I agree with the comment above that this is irresponsible behavior. You are messing up someone else's property, after all, even though you have more leeway over touching/moving products because the store invites the public in.

  Go find something more constructive to create.

  
  
• [17] Jon P. from Hewitt, NJ January 25, 2008 - 11:14AM

  Why is consumerism so bad? There are 300 million people in this country. We all have to buy food and products. It seems the people against big stores like Wal-Mart and target can afford to shop anywhere they want. I don’t seem to here much protest from the blue collar crowd that has to make their paycheck go as far as it can. Shopping in overpriced "all natural" stores are not even an option for this crowd. Did any of your guests fabricate a fake tomato and put it next to the $4 organic tomato to protest its high price?

  
  
• [18] genji siraisi from NYC January 25, 2008 - 11:22AM

  I've taken to illustrating airplane magazines with my character 'pushtobreak'. I've sometimes added a game in the contents listing: "Can you find all the pushtobreaks? There are 27" Some are just 'pushtobreak' writen on parts of photos, ads or maps. When done right it actually looks like part of the magazine.

  
  
• [19] petia from nj January 25, 2008 - 11:42AM

  i found the the call from the leftist underground publishers to add insight to disturbing systems of production and distribution in order to become a part of it.

  brian's guest makes no valuable contribution to discourse on new models of cultural critique. his work comes across as deviant behavior, when in fact, this is business as usual in economic and political structures. please, artists, step out of your skin and make new forms of artistic practice that break with such acutely narrow forms of cultural knowledge.

  
  
• [20] Harriet Hill from Brooklyn, NY January 25, 2008 - 11:58AM

  The UPC Magazine guy: that is a total lie. Anyone who is familiar with retail databases, knows that his UPC would not have generated a buy order or anything else. It has to be in the system first. So Brian you're the one who was duped. Oh yeah. And the are you the one song is super effing annoying.

  
  
• [21] FM Brazil January 25, 2008 - 02:42PM

  The "nothing is new under the sun" folks are missing the point. If we become overly concerned about how an idea is indebted to its influences nothing will ever get done, in any field including art. I'm quite certain that the Situationist idea of detournment does not have an expiration date.

  
  
• [22] lauren from NYC January 25, 2008 - 04:13PM

  I am so glad that so many other listeners felt that this guy's idea was so unoriginal! "Artists" like this tend to bug me, perhaps because NYC is so overflowing with them. I feel as though they will come up with any old idea for their art, just to set them apart from the rest of the crowd. I believe that this guy even said something to this effect in the very beginning of this segment.

  
  
• [23] Richard S January 25, 2008 - 05:02PM

  So much negativity. If any of you actually followed the link to the website you'd see that this kid is straight forward about citing the history of others working with this type of idea.

  
  
• [24] Gene from NY January 25, 2008 - 06:36PM

  A friend of mine hung his (relatively small) work at MOMA in the 60s. It lasted about a week.

  The point?

  He was thrilled.

  
  
• [25] chris taylor from providence February 02, 2008 - 12:57PM

  Hi

  I was referenced by a caller on the show a few nights ago. I am Chris Taylor.

  The caller that referenced me did not depict my work accurately. Let me clarify.

  I re-fabricated a 17th century ventian glass goblet and planted it into the COLLECTIONS ROOM at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. I did not purchase anything from the shop and drop it. I studied the technique for many years and then was invited to view the piece by the curator of Decorative arts at the Met. I copied it and during one of my visits to the Collections room I put it onto a shelf next to the original in their collections room, in the basement. It is a goblet that is the most specialized of the particular technique(reticello), that originated 500 years ago, in any collection today. There is alot more to this story.

  I am now going to call Will Sweeney who was the caller, and inform him of those details before he calls someone else.

  Chris

  
  
• [26] chris taylor from providence February 02, 2008 - 12:57PM

  Some of the comments that suggest originality as a criteria for what art is leave out a tremendous amount of art that may not fall under the 'original' umbrella. I am interested in what is left out when this kind of criteria is used to judge art.

  As for what's the point? The goblet I made is now shown on the museum floor with the 'original' because a distinction cannot be made as to which is the 'original'. This has implicated the authority of the museum, curator, and connoisseurs.

  Is the point to find another venue that could highlight and perpetuate the long standing tradition of close-copying within craft? What about the master/apprentice relationship? Should that not be available to me to subvert without categorizing it as trying to be art? I am a craftsman that has learned my craft by devotional striving which gives me the authority to engage in such work.