NationStates Jolt Archive

£42,500 bottle of water snatched (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4718573.stm)

A thirsty thief is being blamed for downing a bottle of water, valued at £42,500, at a literary festival.
The two-litre clear plastic bottle containing melted ice from the Antarctic was devised to highlight global warming by artist Wayne Hill.

But the warm weather is thought to have got the better of someone who snatched it at the Ways with Words festival at Dartington Hall in south Devon.

American-born Mr Hill said the bottle was clearly a work of art.

He said: "It looked like an ordinary bottle of water. But it was on a plinth, labelled, described and in the programme of the whole festival."

The piece, entitled Weapon of Mass Destruction, vanished half way through the festival. Mr Hill fears the bottle was taken and then drunk.

"It was there and then it was gone," he said.

"You do not expect people that come to the festival to be grand theft type of people and security at Dartington is very good, so it is a mystery."

He added: "It is a strong piece and I would like to get my hands on it. It was scheduled for further exhibitions later on in the year, and it was getting around and gaining a small reputation for itself."

Mr Hill, of Week, near Dartington, created the work earlier this year after asking a friend who was visiting the Antarctic to bring back some melted ice water.

Its value was worked out by the artist from the damage worldwide of the entire ice sheet melting - he estimates between £6 trillion and £9 trillion - and the relative amount of damage from two litres of water.

He said: "The concept is to take something as dangerous as that and to bring it immediately into somebody's presence."



Must have been a REALLY "strong" piece if it was easily mistaken for a common water bottle :rolleyes:

It's not art unless it includes urine or feces and some sacred image.

The piece, entitled Weapon of Mass Destruction
That has to be the most uncreative topical name I've ever heard..... It doesn't even make sense metaphorically; is bottled water a WMD, or perhaps antarctica is one? Should we liberate the oppressed penguins?

I think a cool piece of modern art would be a bust of Bush's head made of dollar bills or coins, with oil pumping over it like a slow fountain. That would be a pretty good piece to apply that title to.

So yeah F- for that artist, if it had been walrus urine that was stolen and drank, this could have been cool.

The person who stole it is either mentally retarded or an asshole. I don't think it would be too difficult to determine that a bottle of water was some weird ass piece of hippie art if it were "on a plinth, labelled, described and in the programme of the whole festival." They were either too stupid to realize they were at an art festival or a complete prick.

I should buy some clear 2-liters and fill them with water; I could make a few hundred thousand dollars by claiming they're from the Antarctic.

Its value was worked out by the artist from the damage worldwide of the entire ice sheet melting - he estimates between £6 trillion and £9 trillion - and the relative amount of damage from two litres of water.


Also, the artist is a moron. That's not how value is determined. To suggest it's worth 42,500 pounds is angersome.

Oh good! I just need to jet over to Antarctica, fill a case of water bottles with some ice, and all my problems will be solved!

I should buy some clear 2-liters and fill them with water; I could make a few hundred thousand dollars by claiming they're from the Antarctic.

I've already sold 20 on eBay for $600 each. :D

It was a piece of dubious merit artisticly, UNTIL someone drank it. The fact that some wise-ass quenched his thirst with it turns this into a Masterpiece of Absurdist comedy far beyond the imagination or capabilites of the poseur who came up with the idea of calling a bottle of water a work of art.

I'd love to meet Wayne Hill in person, so I can laugh in his face at his idiotic and lame attempt at "Art" blowing up in his face like it did. Idiot.

Sadly, the fucktard that drank the water will give this artist and his "work" far more recognition than he ever truly earned.

Oh good! I just need to jet over to Antarctica, fill a case of water bottles with some ice, and all my problems will be solved!
You can only call a can of soup art once.

It's not the piece, it's the decision to put a frame on it that is the art. So if one guy puts arctic ice water in a bottle to make a point, his is art and if you decide to haul off and do the exact same thing, yours is just a bunch of bottles of hard to obtain ice water. Just like your painting of someone with a demure smile is not the Mona Lisa...

Whoa
Whoa
Now THAT is stupidity, on everyones part.

Dumbass thirsty person, dumbass artist, dumbass security, dumbass patrons mistakeing that for art, need i go on?

The person who stole it is either mentally retarded or an asshole. I don't think it would be too difficult to determine that a bottle of water was some weird ass piece of hippie art if it were "on a plinth, labelled, described and in the programme of the whole festival." They were either too stupid to realize they were at an art festival or a complete prick.


Dude, I make my living as an artist and I would have taken that bottle and drank its contents expressly because some fucking hippy space-cadet poseur had put the damn thing on plinth and called it "Art". Wayne Hill is widely known as total fucktard anyway, its not first time this kind of thing has happened to him, IIRC. I'll have to go Google and Wiki him for more examples of his complete and total lack of artistic ability and arch-lameness.

Dude, I make my living as an artist and I would have taken that bottle and drank its contents expressly because some fucking hippy space-cadet poseur had put the damn thing on plinth and called it "Art". Wayne Hill is widely known as total fucktard anyway, its not first time this kind of thing has happened to him, IIRC. I'll have to go Google and Wiki him for more examples of his complete and total lack of artistic ability and arch-lameness.

That would make you an ass, though. I'm not necessarily saying it wasn't a good idea, but you can't deny the fact that knowingly drinking a piece of art is a pretty dick thing to do.

Dude, I make my living as an artist and I would have taken that bottle and drank its contents expressly because some fucking hippy space-cadet poseur had put the damn thing on plinth and called it "Art". Wayne Hill is widely known as total fucktard anyway, its not first time this kind of thing has happened to him, IIRC. I'll have to go Google and Wiki him for more examples of his complete and total lack of artistic ability and arch-lameness.
Don't use Google, there are a fuckload of Wayne Hills (one is works in water purification or something, threw me off...)

Well if you were dehydrated, and you saw a bottle of water just sitting there, at a literary festival, what would you do? And it was a Literary Festival. it was about books, not 'art' all over the place. Though one COULD consider books art, as I sometimes do.

Well if you were dehydrated, and you saw a bottle of water just sitting there, at a literary festival, what would you do? And it was a Literary Festival. it was about books, not 'art' all over the place. Though one COULD consider books art, as I sometimes do.

I consider books and music art more than the garbage passed off as "modern" art.

What the hell is this? I could do that in 15 minutes:

http://teachers.westport.k12.ct.us/artsmarts/Projects/Polloc16.jpg

I'm not Jackson Pollack, however, so it wouldn't be art. :rolleyes:

That would make you an ass, though. I'm not necessarily saying it wasn't a good idea, but you can't deny the fact that knowingly drinking a piece of art is a pretty dick thing to do.


Yeah, it would be a pretty dick thing to do, but calling a bottle of water Art, putting it on a plinth, writing some huge statement of intent and then placing a price tag worth more than a family car is a pretty dick thing to do. I think more artists should question the merits of this kind of "concept art" rather than going down the hackneyed "live and let live" path of the past 60 years in the art community.

BTW, IF I did such a thing, I'd own up and claim full responsibilty, along with not contesting any penalties imposed upon me for my actions. I wouldn't just anonymously swipe it because then I would just be a total asshole, rather than smart-ass doing a "critique" of the piece.

I consider books and music art more than the garbage passed off as "modern" art.

What the hell is this? I could do that in 15 minutes:

http://teachers.westport.k12.ct.us/artsmarts/Projects/Polloc16.jpg

I'm not Jackson Pollack, however, so it wouldn't be art. :rolleyes:

I looked at that, and saw dancing people for some reason. But that's probably just a coincidence.

I looked at that, and saw dancing people for some reason. But that's probably just a coincidence.

I saw paint splatters, but then again, I find it easier to imagine images in musical works than in abstract art.

I saw paint splatters, but then again, I find it easier to imagine images in musical works than in abstract art.

I just looked at it, and dancing people just popped into my mind, but I'm random like that.

I consider books and music art more than the garbage passed off as "modern" art.

What the hell is this? I could do that in 15 minutes:

http://teachers.westport.k12.ct.us/artsmarts/Projects/Polloc16.jpg

I'm not Jackson Pollack, however, so it wouldn't be art. :rolleyes:
Actually, if you watch the way Pollock does it, it takes much longer than 15 minutes.

Not really the point, though, is it?

The value of art is not rated on its difficulty to do. Again, a whole lot of people can paint the Mona Lisa, but none of them could paint the Mona Lisa.

Actually, if you watch the way Pollock does it, it takes much longer than 15 minutes.

Not really the point, though, is it?

The value of art is not rated on its difficulty to do. Again, a whole lot of people can paint the Mona Lisa, but none of them could paint the Mona Lisa.


^^^what he said^^^^

SO I'm not crazy for seeing something in that?

Actually, if you watch the way Pollock does it, it takes much longer than 15 minutes.

The value of art is not rated on its difficulty to do. Again, a whole lot of people can paint the Mona Lisa, but none of them could paint the Mona Lisa.

The point is, I could do it in that timeframe. :p

But that would mean it is the person, not the art itself, that determines its merit. there could be hundreds of great works languishing in obscurity because they don't have the "name factor".

Other arts, like music or literature, stand for themselves. Their merit is determined by the quality of the writing or sound of the work, not the person doing it.

SO I'm not crazy for seeing something in that?
No, he was putting something in there for you to see. But it isn't "A cat licking its paw." You're supposed to work at it, create connections. Do something your brain doesn't do when it sees a painting of 'A cat licking its paw.'

This is not to say, not by a long shot, that you have to like the art. Or agree with it, or anything. But-if you rate the art on how long you think it would take you to replicate it, well, then you are missing the point of art all together.

The point is, I could do it in that timeframe. :p

But that would mean it is the person, not the art itself, that determines its merit. there could be hundreds of great works languishing in obscurity because they don't have the "name factor".

Other arts, like music or literature, stand for themselves. Their merit is determined by the quality of the writing or sound of the work, not the person doing it.
Your premise is flawed in a chicken and egg kinda way.

Pollack didn't have a name and then made spatter paintings. He made splatter paintings which made him a name. It wasn't as if he was born with the notion that whatever he did was art, so 'Fuck it, I'll just sprinkle some paint on a bigass canvas and retire...'

So, on a subconcious level, my brain is connecting the jumble of colors to colors dancing, and therefore people dancing? I still think it's because I'm crazy.

Ah, so once again a Weapon of Mass Destruction can't be found!

What a twerp though ... even I fail to see the art in a simple bottle of water.

Your premise is flawed in a chicken and egg kinda way. Pollack didn't have a name and then made spatter paintings. He made splatter paintings which made him a name. It wasn't as if he was born with the notion that whatever he did was art, so 'Fuck it, I'll just sprinkle some paint on a bigass canvas and retire...'

Well, he made his name in more realistic forms, which springboarded him in to the later work. That means he already had a reputation before he did his action-paintings, so it was his reputation that gave him the credibility, as did the prevalence of his style amongst many other artists of the time. Had he simply done the paintings at a different time without the reputation, they would have likely been forgotten.

It was only after 1947 that he began doing action-painting, which was in fact only 9 years before his death; he didn't even really pioneer it but worked in a genre with many others.

The person who stole it is either mentally retarded or an asshole. I don't think it would be too difficult to determine that a bottle of water was some weird ass piece of hippie art if it were "on a plinth, labelled, described and in the programme of the whole festival." They were either too stupid to realize they were at an art festival or a complete prick.



Or thirsty....he can just go buy a bottle of water from the local store or have someone in Antarctica deliver him another one. Is not a thirsty person worth more than a bottle of water? Seriously, this water was better off inside of a person who needed it than on a pedestal. It's not like it was some holy relic from ages past :rolleyes:

So, on a subconcious level, my brain is connecting the jumble of colors to colors dancing, and therefore people dancing? I still think it's because I'm crazy.

Could be both. :p

Generally, I believe creativity and insanity aren't really that separated. Sever depression actually results in a deeper sense of creative thought; many great artists were also greatly depressed and their works peaked with their melancholy.

I get some weird images from listening to classical music (like the "Heroic" Polonaise from Chopin, or the Planets by Holst).

Ah, so once again a Weapon of Mass Destruction can't be found!

What a twerp though ... even I fail to see the art in a simple bottle of water.
I can see the art (but then, I like Dadaists and thier off shoots)-

It is a physical and present sample of what is and not supposed to be-it is artic water that is supposed to be ice. It is a demonstration of what is occuring-the destruction is mass, the whole of the world, and of greater importance than the WMDs that we where willing to send men to die for.

That's pretty easy, don't really have to work that hard to figure it out (but again, not the point). So it's not a bad piece of art because it's water in a bottle or because someone could drink it, no more than Duchamp's Fountain is less art if someone peed in it (Fountain is an upturned urinal)

It is bad, in my estimation however, because it is trite. It is an easy statement that doesn't neccisarily force a perception or volumne to the situation. The artist placed the ridiculous value as part of the commentary, that the damage to one bottle of the water is worth so much and so much more of the ice is turning into water everyday. That is actually the only part that works for me because it provides a visual scale of the issue, much more than quoting me gallons or square miles.

But in a lot of ways he has made the same mistake some of you have stumbled on-it's kinda been done. It's funny in two movies in a row about the NY art scene pretentious art shows utilized "Shock and Awe." It is not uncommon for protest art to appropriate the tools (in this case language) of war, but like I said earlier-you can only call a soup can art once.

It's not the simplicity of the art that bothers me, it just doesn't cause me to look at it too differently. (though from the begining of the post to the end I've had a slight change of heart as it occoured to me that scale was an important part of the work (the price thing), but that still makes it 'huh' art to me more than something I feel puts me on my heels.)

Could be both. :p

Generally, I believe creativity and insanity aren't really that separated. Sever depression actually results in a deeper sense of creative thought; many great artists were also greatly depressed and their works peaked with their melancholy.

I get some weird images from listening to classical music (like the "Heroic" Polonaise from Chopin, or the Planets by Holst).


I forget who said this, but he summed it up very nicely: "Creativiet and Mental Illness are opposite sides of the same coin."

As both an artist AND a sufferer of Manic-Depression, I couldn't agree more. Some of my best ideas have come to me in moments that could only be described as pure madness by your average person.

I forget who said this, but he summed it up very nicely: "Creativiet and Mental Illness are opposite sides of the same coin."

As both an artist AND a sufferer of Manic-Depression, I couldn't agree more. Some of my best ideas have come to me in moments that could only be described as pure madness by your average person.

Does Insomnia count as 'Mental illness'? Because most of my great ideas come when I'm half asleep at the middle of the night or in the early morning.

I forget who said this, but he summed it up very nicely: "Creativiet and Mental Illness are opposite sides of the same coin."
As both an artist AND a sufferer of Manic-Depression, I couldn't agree more. Some of my best ideas have come to me in moments that could only be described as pure madness by your average person.

Anton Ehrenzweig said it.

I agree, because during those periods of depression and mania, there are undobutedly rushes of chemical signals to the brain that go beyond normal human levels, and these trigger new heights of creative energy.

At least it was much more creative than Martin Creed's Turner Prize winning work "No. 227" (The lights blinking on and off).

Does Insomnia count as 'Mental illness'? Because most of my great ideas come when I'm half asleep at the middle of the night or in the early morning.

Possibly, if there are other symptoms. :confused:

Still, I think your example makes sense because when we are that close to sleep, in darkness and quiet, we have turned off all of the external stimuli and are in a state of totally personal introspection. I tend to also have more ideas and deeper thoughts at those times.

Well, he made his name in more realistic forms, which springboarded him in to the later work. That means he already had a reputation before he did his action-paintings, so it was his reputation that gave him the credibility, as did the prevalence of his style amongst many other artists of the time. Had he simply done the paintings at a different time without the reputation, they would have likely been forgotten.

It was only after 1947 that he began doing action-painting, which was in fact only 9 years before his death; he didn't even really pioneer it but worked in a genre with many others.
This (http://www.jasonvoos.com/The_Moon_Woman__1942Jackson_Pollock.gif) 1942 painting does not seem so realistic to me, and further I think that this (http://www.jasonvoos.com/Lavender_Mist.gif) 1950 painting seems honestly like an natural extension.

But I'll be honest and say I am likely to get pwned in a detailed debate about Pollacks career, I come to him by way of film and theater contributions (not films he made or made about him, per se (though I did study a film of him doing a piece) but his tangential connection to moving art from representation etc. You know, midterm upper-division and graduate paper kinda stuff...)

Even with some more 'recognizable' figures-that's not what people talk about with Pollack and the earlier works aren't the ones that people 'want.' Which means that it is the splatter paintings that made him far more than the recongnizable ones.

Lost track or what I was saying, but there is something in there so I'll post it anyway...

Probably drank by a janitor that was tired of picking up drop cloths that the painters had left behind.

Yet another good reason to end the Nat'l Endowment for the Arts.

This (http://www.jasonvoos.com/The_Moon_Woman__1942Jackson_Pollock.gif) 1942 painting does not seem so realistic to me, and further I think that this (http://www.jasonvoos.com/Lavender_Mist.gif) 1950 painting seems honestly like an natural extension.

Even with some more 'recognizable' figures-that's not what people talk about with Pollack and the earlier works aren't the ones that people 'want.' Which means that it is the splatter paintings that made him far more than the recongnizable ones.
Lost track or what I was saying, but there is something in there so I'll post it anyway...

I considered The Moon Woman to be more of a Surrealist painting (looks more like a Picasso work to me), and would probably fit more as a precursor to his later abstract expressionist work, and so not really a total transition to his action paintings (the name of your second picture eludes me). That being said, the Surrealist works were also heavily influenced by those around him and so aren't really a developed, "unique" style. They play an important role, but the later work was still considerably separated from the earlier and so it wasn't so much a transition as a phase.

I actually like the Surrealist works more than the later action-paintings, but that's probably more personal taste than based on actual merit.

Grad papers...fun times there. :p

I consider books and music art more than the garbage passed off as "modern" art.

What the hell is this? I could do that in 15 minutes:

http://teachers.westport.k12.ct.us/artsmarts/Projects/Polloc16.jpg

I'm not Jackson Pollack, however, so it wouldn't be art. :rolleyes:



That's...umm.....a forest floor in autumn? Abstract art can be too many things >.<

That's...umm.....a forest floor in autumn? Abstract art can be too many things >.<
I call it colorful grunge photoshop brush

Ihatevacations']I call it colorful grunge photoshop brush
I call it your mom! ICE BURN!

art is art no mater waht form it is in.

art is art no mater waht form it is in.


I hereby declare the heart-shaped chocolate stain on the kitchen counter as art then. I accidentally created that, therefore I am an artist!

I put my fingerprint on my desk, it is art!