5/9/2002: Performance artist nails own arm to wall

From Sydney's Artspace comes this shot of Mike Parr, and his own arm nailed into the wall.

Parr was born with only one arm, which makes it more, um, meaningful that his one remaining arm would be nailed into a gallery wall for 30 hours. 30 hours was his goal and he met it. Many precautions were taken and the guy is reportedly fine, his remaining arm still OK.

The name of the performance was Malevich (A political arm). From Artspace's own site: Performance for as long as possible was an endurance work. The artist had set himself a goal of 30 hours, which he reached at 6pm. A video projection of the performance takes the artist's place in the gallery. An important element of the performance was the choice the artist had in deciding when to end the performance. This intentionally opposes the lack of freedom refugees currently have in Australia.

Well, you certainly want to give this guy a hand...
Can we photo-shop this one to make it a Canadarm?
So, first I was thinking: since this guy has only one arm, someone else got to do the honors. Then, I was thinking, even if he had two arms, someone else would have to either hold the nail or hit it with a hammer, as hammering a nails is really a two-arm job. Then, I was thinking, what an idiot. Then, I was thinking, he probably hacked his arm off for his recent show, titled "Idiot with chain saw."

Originally posted by hairdog

Can we photo-shop this one to make it a Canadarm?

You asked for it.

Originally posted by hairdog
Then, I was thinking, he probably hacked his arm off for his recent show, titled "Idiot with chain saw."

Now that's something I'd pay to see!

Reminds me of a headline I once saw in the b&w tabloid, The Weekly World, in a supermarket checkout. Something like "Man cuts of arm with a chainsaw to get handicaped parking status" He was quoted as saying it was the best descision he had made in his life and there was a picture of him smiling and holding up the chainsaw next to his car in the handicaped space.

Originally posted by hairdog
since this guy has only one arm, someone else got to do the honors

I just realized.. in light of your statement, Undertoad's subject for this thread now seems misleadingly inaccurate. :)

Yeah, but "Performance artists commisions helper to nail said performance artist's arm to wall" sounds lame :)

I know it's leaving it a bit late to reply, but this particular artist HAS actually cut off (or at least pretended to) his other arm as a performance. he had some sort of prosthetic hand and a sleeve stuffed with meat etc. recently he stitched up his face in response to asylum seekers in detention centres sewing up their mouths. he did this for a few days.
as you do.....
:confused: :rolleyes:

He should have nailed his head to the wall.

What a dumbass.

The only attention he is going to get is from the people who are already on the side he's nailing for.

Anybody else is going to continue to disregard the problem.

Originally posted by on-a-study-break
I know it's leaving it a bit late to reply, but this particular artist HAS actually cut off (or at least pretended to) his other arm as a performance. he had some sort of prosthetic hand and a sleeve stuffed with meat etc. recently he stitched up his face in response to asylum seekers in detention centres sewing up their mouths. he did this for a few days.
as you do.....
:confused: :rolleyes:

Why do artists all tend to be insane these days?

Maybe he could have let people walk by and use a nail gun to add to the art.

Now that would have been performance art!

Originally posted by YellowBolt
Why do artists all tend to be insane these days?

"Artist Paints Impressively Realistic Painting" isn't quite an eye-grabbing headline.

Originally posted by YellowBolt
Why do artists all tend to be insane these days?

OK, now that's a really good question. The state of art in the world since 1950 has been puzzling to me. Is there an intent to art? I don't mean a political intent or a communicative intent, i mean any intent at all. Asthetic? Emotive?

If so, is that intent to be understood by the viewer, or is it enough that the artist have some view as to their purposes? Is intentionalism still even a valid starting point for understanding art?

I get the sense that the art community is become a more and more tightly drawn circle, and that they don't have much interest in anyone outside the group.

-sm

what's that thing on his eyes? is it so that he doesnt see his arm nailed to the wall?

Originally posted by smoothmoniker


snip

I get the sense that the art community is become a more and more tightly drawn circle, and that they don't have much interest in anyone outside the group.

-sm

And the people that hand out the money.;)

Originally posted by smoothmoniker


OK, now that's a really good question. The state of art in the world since 1950 has been puzzling to me. Is there an intent to art? I don't mean a political intent or a communicative intent, i mean any intent at all. Asthetic? Emotive?

If so, is that intent to be understood by the viewer, or is it enough that the artist have some view as to their purposes? Is intentionalism still even a valid starting point for understanding art?

-sm

:confused: huh?

why the huh? what part was confusing?

-sm