The Munch Museum is still closed and has this depressing press release on its website. It finally appeared, it only took them 4 months to actually acknowledge that the crime had already occurred. And of course, no amount of security will bring those paintings back.


Press release 05.11.2004
The Munch museum will remain closed until June 2005

On August 22 armed robbers stole the iconic Edvard Munch paintings "The Scream" and "Madonna" from the Munch Museum. The robbery represents a new threat -situation for Norwegian museums. "Det norske Veritas" was engaged to perform a comprehensive security analysis for the Munch museum, and was asked to review aspects of security related to robbery, break-ins and fire. The report is now completed, and the analyses include several suggestions involving concrete measures for improvements. The suggestions will be followed up, and the necessary work to upgrade security will commence immediately.

The rebuilding of parts of the museum makes it necessary for the museum to remaint closed until the summer of 2005. The planned exhibitions for autumn 2004 and spring 2005, a comprehensive presentation of Munch's drawings, and "The Years of Vitalism", will be on display at a later time. The museum's library will be open, but the coffee shop and museum-shop will also be closed.

People will probably loose their jobs over this, the museum may even be discredited and be refused future loans. But in the end, no one seems to care. It also makes you think about whether or not a work of art really needs to be around. I never really planned on going to that museum to see the work. So does that mean my experience of the Madonna is diminished or invalid? And think of all the other art you only see as a picture. I do all the time and that sort of realization really affects my approach to art making.

THE THREE TRIES RULE

confused
Originally uploaded by Art or Idiocy?.

This rule was formulated in response to essays about art & theory, but can be applied to all types of writing. It has mainly been devised as a tool to help the hapless reader who stumbles into a mire of dense critical theory and is caught unawares. It is a means of escape without having to feel too guilty.

If you are trying to read a review or an essay and keep finding your mind is wondering, you might want to apply The Three Tries Rule.

This is assuming your environment and personal conditions are not hindering your ability to read and comprehend the text you are faced with. Go back to the point where you remember reading and understanding and continue.

If you find that once again you've zoned out, go once again to the last point of comprehension and try again.

If this happens a third time, you may invoke The Three Tries Rule.

You just say, "fuck it, I've tried three fucking times to read this boring, impenetrable piece of shit, I quit!" Then you throw down the book or magazine on the bathroom floor in such a way that it makes a loud SLAP!

You can choose to come back to the offending text at a later time, but only if you want to. This phenomenon usually occurs when reading Voyage on the North Sea or something written by Hal Foster.

Personally, I am interested in writing which is insightful, clever and entertaining. I like to read for pleasure. Why else would you read? Are you a Goth S&M-ist? "I read for pain."

So, yes, I read and write about art for pleasure. Most writing about art suck because it isn't written for pleasure. The writers have no idea that anyone could enjoy reading about art. Most of what is written about art isn't really even intended to be read. Think of exhibition catalogues or Artforum. Artforum is like Playboy, it's porn and no one reads the articles.

Fart Sterae

Fart Sterae
Originally uploaded by Art or Idiocy?.