You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
2014: 'Anti-homeless' spikes were erected outside a luxury block of flats in Southwark, London. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/09/boris-johnson-calls-removal-anti-homeless-spikes … Other cities also use 'defensive architecture' to punish the homeless, to gatekeep the poor, to deter youth from enjoying public spaces https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/jun/12/anti-homeless-spikes-latest-defensive-urban-architecture …
So back to the OP 'Is this art installation protesting public use of spaces by the disadvantaged "a good idea"?' Question is highly misguided. It presents critique of capitalism as neutral, removing the original position which was critiquing taken-for-granted norms about place
also art: how ppl already started arguing with you without having even read all like 4 tweets in your thread about context
I'm curious as to where the money that's being made from this installation is going, because it definitely influences the impact of the message. If it's only going straight to the artist, could that be interpreted as them participating/benefitting in the system they're against?
Thank you Dr. Z.
Similar to the history of the board game that became Monopoly
Thank you. I’m homeless and angry because Them *will* take this idea and run with it. But context helps.
This is why many develop a resistance to physical pain; emotional pain however would be greater, having to sleep on the spike bed again.
Finally I understand the distinct purpose of the miserably redundant (so I thought) verb "to critique"! It means "to warn solemnly of the imminent occurrence of something everyone knows has already happened", eg. new speculative fiction predicting the rise of the automobile.
Sounds like the general critique that this was a naive-at-best artist opening the door for even poorer treatment of the homeless ... was spot on. Artists are not absolved of their responsibility to communities bc they are "making art."
Yes, because the artist was clearly the first person ever and the only person who would ever think of installing spikes in a public space.
Bud did you gloss over the artist's intent or just not understand what you read? When someone says "Wouldn't it be monstrous if cities implemented pay benches" And a city says "That's a great idea let's do this monstrous thing" It's not the first person's moral failure.
I said he was naive for creating the very thing he didn't want to see in the world. It didn't have to actually work for him to get his point across but he wanted to show off.
Please pay attention to the intent and the effect - Fabian's was to critique, the city's was to pay-gate benches to make homeless people's lives harder. I cannot understand why you're assigning blame in such a backwards fashion. Intent and effect.
Talk to Nobel. Artists need to understand and consider how their work will be used. Particularly when their disciplines involve forms of making that could be repurposed.
That's a false equivalency, Nobel wasn't an artist nor was dynamite intended as a hyperbolic critique. Furthermore, there is no indication that Brunsing didn't consider that it might be used sincerely. And finally, even if he didn't, creating the art wasn't an immoral act.
you get this problem with almost all satire- people think it's actually praising the activity it criticizes (like the idiots who watch Fight Club and want to start one)
When I first had this shard to my timeline it was with the comment that regardless of its intent as art, this design would absolutely be taken used by cities for the very thing it purports to critique. And your thread indicates that was a correct analysis.
Right, so, from here on out, no artist should ever create a work of art that exaggerates the perils of a certain system because that's just to make things worse, right?
Right, so, from here on out, I should feel obligated to engage in bad faith arguments and misinterpretations of provably correct critiques by overly privileged trolls, right?
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
