Martin Creed
Conceptual artist? Poet? Musician? Choreographer? Or simply a bloke who produces things that he hopes will make a connection with people. He'd say the latter, and I'd say he succeeds. I'm talking about the Glaswegian Martin Creed, who made his name by winning the .
Since then he has created a musical instrument out of some stairs in Edinburgh and turned .
On Friday he in London and to coincide with it he has released his first ever single Thinking / Not Thinking. Check it (and him) out.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit µþµþ°äÌý°Â±ð²ú·É¾±²õ±ð for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Comment number 1.
At 20th Jan 2011, L A Odicean wrote:This is simply appalling. A top artist so radical that he fails to accept the equal importance of fathers. No wonder society is in such a mess. Absent fathers.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 21st Jan 2011, Kit Green wrote:What a vacuous a***!
Will, why do you give these people the time of day?
What a contrast to Sir Anthony Caro.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 22nd Jan 2011, Wutburger wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 22nd Jan 2011, brautigan wrote:Can we look at what he is trying to express, rather than what we think he is ignoring? He made a comment about mothers running around/or revolving/or something like that in the interview, isn't that what he is conveying with the work?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 24th Jan 2011, L A Odicean wrote:>>Can we look at what he is trying to express, rather than what we think he is ignoring?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 24th Jan 2011, inkers wrote:I must stand up for Martin Creed here because I went to a talk he gave a couple of years ago in which he explained his art very well in a manner which made a lot of sense to me and made me appreciate it, instead of fear it. However, this piece has not been introduced or explained well in this short interview. Maybe he wasn't asked the right questions. I still have faith that there's a reason for the spinning and the word, more than just because 'mothers are important'. I will have to look elsewhere to find it though. Based on this conversation, this piece is not impressing me in the way his previous works have and I can understand the negative reaction here.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 25th Jan 2011, L A Odicean wrote:#6"... instead of fear it"..." I still have faith that there's a reason for the spinning and the word"
--------
I do not 'fear' this or any piece of art (other than the fear that it might knock my block off as it spins). Nor do I believe that there has to be a REASON for it which must be explained verbally by the artist.
In the end there is something a tad too predictable about this piece. Once again the only impressive thing about it is its size. If it had simply said MOTHER in the singular it would have impressed me rather more. But hell, we are talking about it, and that is something.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 25th Jan 2011, inkers wrote:I think in the case of an artist like Creed it is important for some explanation of the work. His form of minimalism can be quite baffling if you have no context for it or indication of what's happening (at least I feel like this, maybe I'm not very clever!) How would anyone get what he was trying to achieve with his ball of paper, or lights on and off or people being sick on the floor? I would argue that works like this which are so far removed from initial understanding are quite scary and inaccessible until the artist has started off the discussion by some initial explanation of his aims at least. So I suppose even in Creed giving a poor explanation, that's what's happened here, you're right, it is good to be talking about it!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 25th Jan 2011, Kit Green wrote:8. At 10:02am on 25th Jan 2011, inkers wrote:
I would argue that works like this which are so far removed from initial understanding are quite scary and inaccessible until the artist has started off the discussion by some initial explanation of his aims...
----------------------------------------------------------------
Are you trying to say that things like this are just a "sophisticated" expression of panem et circenses to keep those that consider themselves more clever than the masses (who think this sort of art is bizarre junk) so self absorbed that they fail to question what ir really happening in the world around them?
Look at real life, don't hide behind an artist.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 25th Jan 2011, inkers wrote:No, I don't think it's about being sophisticated or about intellectual back slapping. I just think its impossible to really engage with his art without some thinking being involved and a little explanation to start that off. You can't play the game unless you know the rules. In this instance you do have to invest a lot in concepts, which are framed, in a lot of his works in ideas about minimalism. I don't see why his work can't be considered a response to the world around us. A lot of it comes from just wanting to think about simple beauty and potential in things we often overlook.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 25th Jan 2011, L A Odicean wrote:I'm always suspicious when an artist resorts to including a word in this way. It's a bit of a shortcut to adding intellectual value to the work.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)