http://www.yatzer.com/1004_jan_vormann..dispatchwork
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39219355@N07/3625754121/
This is a project I’ve come accross a few times on the internet, and upon reading the assignment I think it applies perfectly to the category of transgressive semiotics. I am a huge Lego fan and have been for as long as I can remember. As an architect, they’ve inspired me and I still see them as a great way to model projects and express in a unique medium.
This project was done by Jan Vormann, an artist from Berlin, and the project was done in Bocchignano, Italy. She filled in pieces of missing brick and stone with Lego bricks, some of the stones dating back to Roman times. This, to me, is a prime example of something being transgressive because not only does it break the boundaries of the accepted canvas (like the BLF and the Banksy), but also breaks the borders of the accepted medium (Lego, rather than paint). She created the pieces to contrast with the old, dust-covered gray and brown stones and intrudes upon them with bright, shiny plastic. Though the pieces are more of a temporary medium due to the nature of plastic materiality, they emphasize the difference between the “serious” foundation of the old town and the new, modern styles of today. She created the installments in part to introduce the “sleepy” town of Bocchignano to the present.
Though it is considered by some to be art (like any modern art), it is considered a disrespectful intrusion by others. After the work was displayed on the internet, some of her supporters in Berlin then responded by “dispatching” Legos of their own between broken bricks in her hometown of Berlin. (http://www.yatzer.com/feed_1696_dispatchwork_in_berlin) The exhibition (as can be seen in the comments section of the previous link) was applauded by some for being innovative and unique, but lauded by others as being childish and irreverant. Personally, I think that these are valuable pieces of art, and, though temporary, can remind the old world and its art of what the new world has to offer.
I think the most interesting part of transgressive semiotics is who is considered the one to judge it as being transgressive. Even in the case I introduced, there were multiple sets of viewers: those passing it on the street, those participating in Berlin, and those commenting on the images on the internet. Each has a different standard, and each has a different definition of transgression, further perpetuating the graffiti vs. art debate.
I think this is interesting because at Disney, near where I live, they have built 20 ft. high monsters and Disney characters completely out of legos. While the medium used is the same, the meaning behind them, and thus whether they are transgressive or not, is completely different. In Disney, you are made to expect the unexpected, so encountering a lego creature the size of a house is not very abnormal. In Italy, however, especially in one of the ‘sleepy’ country towns, seeing legos used in any type of structure is completely unexpected. In this way, the use of legos in Italy is transgressive, where the use of legos in Disney is not. At the same time, I find myself struggling with whether to define what she is doing as transgressive or simply art. In her case, her work is very pronounced as art, more so than the Billboard Liberation Front, for example. But at the same time, she is presenting it in a location that goes against the expectations of society by placing them on a building with historical and cultural significance. This is one of those examples where defining transgressive can be tricky and is on a person by person basis. I think that I would lean more towards this being an initial transgression that then got its meaning through art. Since other people are replicating what she has done, it has almost turned into an art movement, especially in Berlin where most of her followers reside. I almost wonder if she got permission from the owner of the building, which would solidify the work’s standing as art. I think the only people who would consider this to be a pure transgressive piece would be those concerned with the sanctity of cultural and historical Italy.
Hi Michael. Thanks for turning me on to this work; it is wonderful! I just purchased my nephew his first set of Leggos for his 6th birthday. He loves pirates, so I broke down and bought him a whole set that could build a fort, boat, soldiers, etc. I think I am more excited to play with the leggos than he his.
At any rate…this work really pushes the inquiry about the difference between graffiti and public art because unlike the work of Banksy and BLF, the “political” content is minimal, although it is a social and aesthetic comment as well, which makes it political. The lack of heated political commentary attached to the project thus makes it more difficult to gauge whether this transformation of public space is acceptable.
What is interesting to note is that something initially deemed transgressive can become art as it is taken up by the public. Therefore, the stability of the sign’s meaning is unstable and dependent on audience perception. Also, this project is evidence that we live in an age of remix–where the public is constantly appropriating various art forms for their own purposes–and thus during a time where art is constantly undergoing transformation. Under such circumstance, the question of ownership certainly becomes complicated…
I love this artists use of legos and also the mirror. It really does bring a sense of the new art to the old art of these buildings. I agree that both of these works are transgressive in that they do not belong and you don’t expect to find them their, but I wonder how the people who own the buildings feel about the new additions to their buildings. I think that its interesting that people commented on how this was childish and irreverent and I wonder what connection if any they have to art. It really is hard to judge how this is viewed by the people that see it every day because the only comment I found was from a person that had found the picture and had not seen it in real life. I’d like to ask them what they thought and if they saw the art in these legos or if they found it childish. I wonder if the reception to this would be different in another location, maybe a bigger city, or somewhere in the US.
I have to say, I loved playing with Lego as a child so I think that this is really cool. You can build pretty much anything out of those little blocks, so it was fun to see someone fix up the cracks on the building. True, that really shouldn’t happen, but it’s an interesting idea. I would never really think to look at the cracks of an old building as to where something transgressive could be found, but looking at this it seems to have opened the entire world up. Transgressive work can be in practically every imaginable space.