« The Realities of Genocidal Destruction | Main | Spot the Five »

October 11, 2007



M.H.; sorry, I'm not clear on something. Is the crack a real fault in the floor ie a construction flaw? Or did the artist paint a fairly realistic impression of one?
If the former it sure as hell ain't art and more to the point, most definitely not hers. By her reckoning (assuming the former condition)that which separates my right cheek from my left is a work of art...my ass.

Mick H

No. it's not an impression, it's a real crack - though not a big one. It's not clear how it's been done. I think in places the rest of the floor's been raised; elsewhere I imagine they drilled down. Certainly not a construction flaw.


I certainly hope the "Artist" compensates the gallery for restoring the floor to it's original condition; sort of an exploration of realism. ;)


I'm waiting for Rindy Sam to kiss the floor next to the crack and smear some lipstick on it. Hey DaninVan, maybe she can do the same for your work of art.


I don't understand what she means by "a fracture in Modernity". Hasn't Modernity already been ruptured, broken into pieces, re-arranged, re-constructed and deconstructed? Maybe she means Modernity as in Enlightenment, in which case the real fracture was done in the gas chambers, 60 years ago. It's an uninspiring artefact, a clever gimmick, at best, which needs the words of a verbose onlooker to fill it with pseudo-meaning.


Noqa; wisecracks...love 'em ;)

Dutch Canuck

Gallery visitors have already been injured by tripping over or stepping into the crack:


Some people mistakenly believe it's painted on the floor...


Ok, so here's the thing, if it's a REAL crack you break your ankle stepping into it, and if it's a $600K 'painting' you step ON it why?
Do modern art galleries have IQ prerequisites for their patrons?


I've always worked on the principle that the more they have to explain to you what a piece of art 'means', the worse it is. Frankly, if a work of art cannot speak for itself it's worse than useless. The trouble is Sir Nicholas Serota - and how my fingers clench when I see that name - and all the hundreds of minor versions of him, have built a lucrative career out of this pompous verbiage.


The Times critic says "Salcedo is a fundamentally political artist. A Colombian, she grew up witnessing the atrocities that occurred in her country during the undeclared civil war."

What does "witnessing the atrocities" actually mean? Did she witness them up close through her involvement in the medical services or her membership of FARC? Or does it just mean she was a middle-class art student studying in Colombia while the atrocities were occurring?

And what's a "fundamentally political artist"? Is that just a way of saying she can't draw?

The comments to this entry are closed.