Comments on: Ai Weiwei: Dropping the Urn

By: James Carney

James Carney — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 00:26:53 +0000

aiweiwei is a fraud and a sham. go back to jail.

By: Cam

Cam — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 04:12:11 +0000

I fail to see anything new about this strategy of expression. While Weiwei is hot within the contemporary scene, I see a very stayed tradition of modernism at work in his critique of the ancient everyday. Modernism depends on the past in order to assert its “newness.” Modernism or “contemporary” always sustains, preserves, or enshrines the past in order to preserve its own “currency.” There must always be a history to vandalize! This codepency with history has been recycled so many times its becoming stagnant. What makes the past precious, is a branding by contemporary culture as such. Why don’t we see this form of neolithic ceramics as a “contemporary” alternative to mass-produced plastic identity. Yet art critics would never honor it as a relevant cultural practice for lack of irony, or because of an aesthetic preference for bright and shiny things, and an oil addiction masquerading as global cosmpolotanism. Local aesthetics and cultural practices are marginalized by a fossil fueled art world, and somehow guru’s get away with calling this democratic(!) What is so sacrelegious about vandalizing the present?

By: Olga

Olga — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 17:06:36 +0000

Very Lame…I don’t condone destruction of relics of the past to create a sensationalist act. If the outcome is powerful, it is not because he did something worthy, rather the power is from the beauty of the vases…from him, just the “original” idea to destroy beauty. Bravo! murderers do the same thing.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 18 May 2011 07:54:47 +0000

This is shameful and criminal.

By: Rationalist

Rationalist — Wed, 18 May 2011 07:04:10 +0000

Peter: “What difference is there between this and pillaging the Cairo museum?”

There are hundreds of thousands of ancient Chinese vases in existence compared to one Tutankhamen sarcophagus.

By: Rationalist

Rationalist — Wed, 18 May 2011 06:58:43 +0000

For those commenters claiming that this artist’s actions are an outrage, please consider this: market price for a “han dynasty vase” or “neolithic chinese vase” on eBay is currently about $750 – $1200 in the US. The antiques market in the US typically commands higher prices. In fact, if you check sources in the Europe or Asia, these market price of vase like this is really quite low. For a few hundred bucks, you too can get your hands on a “neolithic chinese vase”. Why? Because there’s are thousands and thousands of them in existance. Remember, China is a big place and alway has been. It has had a bustling civilization for thousands of years, and as such, it has a lot of ‘ancient’ artefacts. This guys isn’t destroying history, he’s destroying a tiny, insignificant object from history. A vase that some nobody from China used to store grain or water or whatever.

By: Alex C.

Alex C. — Mon, 16 May 2011 22:35:51 +0000

MorganLemel, you are a disgusting person.

Disagreement with Ai Weiwei’s process or artistic statement (ala John, Peter, and Henry Halem) is fine, and a legitimate reaction. MorganLemel’s comment marks him/her as a loathsome being.

By: Simon

Simon — Sat, 14 May 2011 19:31:24 +0000

If you think this is disturbing you are just not paying much attention to contemporary art. Just check out Justice Yeldham for some serious destruction and what about the Chapman brothers who got their hand son some original Hitler watercolours, desecration of heritage ?

By: MorganLemel

MorganLemel — Fri, 13 May 2011 23:05:16 +0000

I would be very violent if I was to see this jerk. Then make masks out of his bone and hair.
Thats all just had to get that out.

By: Henry Halem

Henry Halem — Wed, 04 May 2011 23:15:17 +0000

If in fact those objects are the real thing than he is nothing more than disrespectful and self centered.

By: glipona

glipona — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:59:40 +0000

Um…
You say you want a revolution. Well, you know we all want to change the world. You tell me that it’s evolution. Well, you know we all want to change the world. But when you talk about destruction, don’t you know that you can count me out? Don’t you know it’s gonna be alright? You say you’ve got a real solution. Well, you know we’d all love to see the plan. You ask me for a contribution. Well, you know we are doing what we can. But if you want money for people with minds that hate… All I can tell is, brother, you’ll have to wait. Don’t you know it’s gonna be alright?
Alright? You say you’ll change the constitution. Well, you know we all want to change your head. You tell me it’s the institution. Well, you know you’d better free your mind instead. But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow. Don’t you know it’s gonna be alright?

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 06:39:54 +0000

I completely disagree with both John and Peter. This form of art is strong because it is composed and uses something of such historical and cultural value. It is also strong because the message the artist is trying to convey could not be more true and accurate (that is in fact what China is doing right now).

The fact that you guys are both affected by this is precisely the expected effect. Affected by the destruction China is causing upon its heritage. It should hurt, and it does move you guys.

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:14:11 +0000

I fully agree with John.

What difference is there between this and pillaging the Cairo museum?
What arrogance to destroy or alter an object of cultural significance in such a distasteful manner.

I am utterly surprised that there isn’t more resistance to this kind of barbarism. Modern art lovers, stick with your own concepts and don’t touch the heritage of past generations.

-Peter

By: John

John — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 01:09:24 +0000

I think it’s lame. We (our cultures and future generations) inherit what is left of the past. Who is Bean Gilsdorf to destroy any part of an inheritance.