Gothamist: Art on Parade

Swipple

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:08:47 -0500

http://www.swipple.com/exhibit.php?id=142

Ramblin Worker

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:03:38 -0500

I have more Deitch Art Parade 2006 photo on www.swipple.com/exhibit.php?id=142 Thanks, Steve MacDonald

libby

Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:55:34 -0500

Addressing the question of how is this art: the wal-mart spoof was political art, demanding social action, demanding that people consider their own value as human beings as opposed to their value in terms of dollars and cents. It asked the question that so many employers are ignoring these days, what is the value of an employee? are people more than just econimically quantifiable? is there meaning outside of the value of your checkbook and your stock price? I thought that was a great piece. The naked lady outfits on the bikes seemed to be about craft and precense, covering one's nakedness with a naked outfit, it seemed to be to be about the layers of identity we cover outselves with, how we construct the identity we want the world to see of us, the result ending up much less honest than what it's covering, while taking on a similar appearance. the naked outfits could not function like an actual body, could not lactate or be penetrated. that seems to say alot about out culture, creating an identity of appearance that does not function naturally. I'm not sure about the hot cops or the dead catholics, but they put on a great show, and there's certainly artistry in that.

Larken

Mon, 11 Sep 2006 01:31:49 -0500

www.genderlab.org questioning the assumptions and prescriptions for gender. your body is your temple and your playground....live boldly

simon

Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:03:13 -0500

the best way to decide if it's art or not is to ask yourself "well, if it's not art, what else could it be?" there are very few options here.

truly anonymous

Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:00:45 -0500

Cute, and you have to give them credit for trying. but "anomalous" hit it on the nose. If this is "art", the art scene in Manhattan is truly dead. Its a clever photo-op through an upscale shopping mall. It should not be confused for actual art.

anomalous

Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:52:54 -0500

How is this art? I'm not being flippant or anti-intellectual, but I was there and what I saw seemed to me to be art on the most shallow, banal level. For example, the top photo: Catholic school zombies, right? Was the artist trying to say parochial school makes you brain dead? That might be clever if you're sixteen and trying to be edgy, but it seems lacking in substance for an art parade in New York City, which loudly proclaims itself to be a world center of art and culture. Is that really the best we can do (naked-looking women on bikes? Ironic Wal-Mart supporters?), or am I completely missing the point? Artists of New York please explain!

rdc

Sun, 10 Sep 2006 19:52:04 -0500

The performances at the very end of the route were pretty cool, also.

simon

Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:36:15 -0500

i think the last float in that parade was Fischerspooner

try reading a little deeper

Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:44:45 -0500

More New York retards that hate Wal-mart. Funny how the same people think George Bush oversimplifies every issue into good and evil. These people do the same thing. The fact is that the entire retail industry pays poorly and offers little benefits. Wal-mart Watch, the group that everyone loves to quote, doesn't actually want Wal-mart to improve their benefits. They want Wal-mart to get fed up with the harrassment and use their huge size to bully the government into paying for healthcare. Of course, the avergage Wal-mart basher is too stupid to see this.

simon

Sun, 10 Sep 2006 12:18:50 -0500

the "act" of the women dressed in all green with umbrellas was fantastic, if only because the women in it were GORGEOUS