The Turbine Hall had been screened off for the installation of a new artwork when I was in the Tate Modern gallery (in London) towards the end of September, and all I could see through the gaps were layers of dust on various surfaces. The last piece I'd seen there was the striking sunset with mist (by Olafur Eliasson) which cast an eerie yellow light over the gallery, and knew subsequent installations had included boxes and slides, so what might be causing dust...?Well, I saw the answer on the news today: it's by sculptor Doris Salcedo (read bio) and called Shibboleth 2007 (see more photos). It "runs the full 167 metres of the cavernous hall" and "begins as a crack then widens and deepens as it snakes across" reports the BBC. The photos leave me rather underwhelmed, and despite the artist's statement of the deeper meaning ("racial hatred and division in society") it looks like a bad job was done throwing some concrete slabs.
I find myself wondering whether the Tate employees tasked with preventing people from tripping over the cracks and kids dropping litter in it will get a bonus or have hand-outs explaining just why the floor is cracked. And how it was made (it took over a year and was apparently done elsewhere, then installed in five weeks) rather than why.
For those who don't (can't?) take modern art seriously, perhaps they'll be seen as laughter lines on the face of the Tate Modern?
Find Out More About the Tate's Crack:
• BBC News Report
• BBC Video Report
• The Guardian Arts Blog
• The Guardian Report and Photo Gallery
Photo: © Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images
Comments
Is it realy sane and serious to name this ART ? They use so many words to describe these “things” they should also find a name for this s***.
Well, it is either a profoundly unfunny joke or it is far above my sensibilities. Is it uncool at this point to create a peice of art that is instantly understood? I believe if I had a statement to make, I’d try *saying* it, and if I had art to make, I’d make it, but I’m not much on mixing the two. Sorry, I think the racial problem idea came after the crack as a coverup. I’m not buying it.
Can something ever be great art if it requires an explanation for people to “get it”? I think one of the things that characterizes great art is that it stands by itself, is self-contained, and generates a response in a viewer without an explanation or explanatory board (though the latter may add to what a viewer gets from the artwork). Think of those Renaissance paintings with all the symbolism that passes most people by but still stop you in your tracks when you encounter it.
What annoys me is that this impermanent installation is being paid for out of public money. If the Tate wants to purchase a really good work of art, they bleat about lack of funds, and appeal for donations then they go out and spend thousands on this temporary installation.
If a rich individual wants to waste his money fair enough, but spending the taxpayers money on it is a scandal.