My art project: recontextualizing an idiot

As proof of my potent powers of prescience and my superior soothsaying skills, a strong new statement has been made against the tasteless and talentless ghouls who churn out contemporary art. You may recall my rant about it from some weeks back, but a Toronto-based idiot has thrown new fuel on the fire.

If you pay attention to Toronto news these days, you probably heard that the police found a fake bomb at the Royal Ontario Museum, courtesy of colossal idiot/art student Thorarinn Ingi Jonsson. His "art" project consisted of the fake bomb itself and a YouTube video showing a fake bombing of the museum.

Jonsson reportedly checked with a lawyer before carrying out the project and was told that it was fine so long as the fake bomb was identified as fake. Applause applause to the lawyer for his due diligence, but perhaps the conversation should have gone a different way, more along the lines of "How the hell is this art?" or "Can't you do something, ya know, worthwhile?" and "Get the fuck out of my office."

Jonsson defended his worthless project by calling it "recontextualization," one of the half-baked art theories created to allow worthless empty-heads to flourish in the art world. The premise of recontextualization is that placing an item in a different context changes its meaning. Or, to put it another way, it's a sophisticated-sounding pretense for really lazy people with no abilities, since it allows you to take any object, place it in an unusual context and say that it's art. For example, I might put a microwave on a church altar or Thorarinn Ingi Jonsson in a bonfire.

This explanation leaves me torn as to whether Jonsson is more lazy or just stupid. The project was obviously a simulation of a terrorist action and terrorists usually attack public places. Putting a "bomb" in a public place is not a matter of great unusual context.

Hell, he didn't even put much effort into it, hiding the package in a corner and slinking away. Let's recognize the real heroes of recontextualization: people like Matthew Murray, who brought a handgun into a church last Sunday and killed a few people. Bringing a handgun into a church… wow! What an unusual context! Or so many suicide bombers in the Middle East who bring real bombs into public markets and other unusual contexts. Now that's art!

Further complicating the "lazy or stupid" debate is this remark he made to Icelandic newspaper Fréttabladid: "This wouldn’t have been such a big deal before September 11, 2001. Everything has changed since then. The timing of the work is therefore important.”

Thorarinn Ingi Jonsson, how are you an idiot? Let me count the ways:

1. Somehow, I suspect that bomb scares were still a big deal before September 11.
2. September 11 of which year? Oh right, 2001. Six years later, Thorarinn Ingi Jonsson comes to blow the lid off everything and show us how the world has changed! Thank God, I was afraid we were unaware of the new climate of fear and terrorism. Forget that Hollywood's already had time to produce at least half a dozen movies relating to the subject, countless books have been written and rebuilding work on the site of the World Trade Centre began over a year ago. You're not late to the party at all.

Okay, maybe that's only two ways. But they're pretty big ways.

Jonsson's work is only art in the loosest sense of the word, like Carl André's stacks of bricks and wood or Christo and his idiotic wrapping. It's art because nobody can satisfactorily define art. But Jonsson's bullshit isn't really art; it doesn't make a statement, it's not interesting or compelling in any way, it isn't beautiful and it didn't take any talent.

Anyone who watches movies could probably come up with a reasonable facsimile of a pipe bomb and his crap YouTube video of the ROM "bombing" shows no effort at all. After the "explosion," the screen just goes black. With all the movie editing technology available these days, he could have done something visually interesting. Anyone could have done this garbage.

One Jonsson apologist was quoted in the National Post as saying, "It's art because it makes us think," an irredeemably lame excuse. Staring out a car window can make you think. A Toronto Maple Leafs game can make you think. Maybe it's what you think that counts. When I hear about Jonsson's trash, I think all sorts of things, like:

"What a moron."
"What the hell is wrong with OCAD that it admits this guy?"
"Was he going to blow up the ROM Crystal? Maybe he's not all bad."
"No, he's all bad. What a jackass."

Adding injury to idiocy, Jonsson's scheme also ruined a fundraising dinner for the Canadian Foundation for AIDS Research that was projected to raise $100,000.

Just in case you're not fully convinced that this guy is an utter fool, take a look at this here video. In it, he explains that the police shouldn't have taken the package seriously since he thoughtfully attached a note reading "this is not a bomb." Just as car thieves used to be thwarted by those foolproof "No radio" signs, the police should have just trusted the anonymous note and gone on their way. Why do the police have to be so goddam suspicious?

Jonsson sure as hell isn't an artist, but he might be a work of art in itself, created by the admissions people at OCAD through the magic of recontextualization. They took a trite object (him), placed it in an odd context (an art school) and changed his meaning (into an artist). Well, not really an artist.

Incidentally, the Toronto Star's Christopher Hume just wrote an inspired indictment of this sort of worthless shock art. Have a look.