About me

Comments

• At 22:55, 17 October 2009 Sylvius wrote:

  Nice meeting you in Trafalgar Square on the project's last day albeit briefly! Great atmosphere!

  All the best for the future and see on the Facebook!

  Sylvius

  Plinthian 0686 / 2400

  http://www.oneandother.co.uk/participants/Sylvius_68

• At 14:56, 14 October 2009 N. Timothy wrote:

  Well done Kelly I think Mr Trapman has a few problems of his own that he needs to get to the bottom of before he has any grounds to start on you

  well done again x

• At 21:13, 14 August 2009 Lorraine Hasselby wrote:

  Kelly, I thought you were wonderful (as always) hunni.... not quite sure what Mr J Trapman is waffling on about in his post though!!! Good on ya gal for having the guts to get up there and do something for an hour. xxx

• At 12:58, 14 August 2009 Lee Batt wrote:

  First of all, congratulations Miss Tink!

  Secondly, a sort of response to the "empty (one sided) discussion" left by M. J Trapman, who, whilst it would appear did not like what Miss Tink did here on the plinth, certainly felt the need to watch, study and analyse before leaving some quite malignant and abhorrent comments. T

  There is your loathing of what you describe as "normal people". What is wrong with this genre of humanity? If you want to see "non-normal" people here then please feel free. I myself see nothing wrong with the celebration of ever day folk, note my own missing out of the word "normal". Who is to decide what it is? Heaven forbid we should leave it to M J Trapman to decide!

  Then there are your comments on Miss Tink choosing to transform herself before her "performance". It may have escaped your attention that this may have been the intention. One would have thought you would have been pleased. To use your words there was then a "normal" person becoming, quite clearly, a "non-normal" person right before your eyes!

  In terms of your thoughts on what art is, what is it? Who decides? Who knows? I have seen cat vomit smeared across a wall in the name of art - what would your thoughts on that be? Answers on a postcard.

  What a shame you couldn't find a nice word in your head to leave here for anybody that has chosen to give the world an insight into there lives. I pity you, I really do.

  Well done again, Miss Tink

• At 17:24, 11 August 2009 Rose_Paige wrote:

  Bless you!

• At 01:43, 11 August 2009 Rachael/Harriet wrote:

  What a wonderful hour - sorry I wasn't there to see you in the flesh!

  You shouted up at me when I was on the plinth at 1 in the morning, and I think you spoke to my jetlagged (from Hungary!) boyfriend on the ground - so here's a virtual shout back!

  Rxx

• At 18:29, 10 August 2009 Pete Curran wrote:

  Fantastic best bit of movement i've seen up there since it started. Well done

• At 16:14, 10 August 2009 gary wrote:

  bravisimo

• At 15:57, 10 August 2009 Liam Hogbin wrote:

  Super darlings x

• At 11:16, 10 August 2009 M.J. Trapman wrote:

  In fact, Miss Tink, it is rather easy to disagree on the question if this 'installation' can be categorized as 'art'. Personally I loose all interest in 'art' when defined to include this project. What I see is a non-ending number of people trying to be 'normal' and doing 'normal' things on this plinth. For some reason all spectacular, non-normal people are missing. Is this because there are rules ("any rules that Artichoke or its partners make about taking part") that prohibit to be out-of-the ordinary?

  This does not mean that the project is not interesting. So many things are interesting. 37 minutes into your hour you are applying a make-up; stage-artists would do this back-stage in order to prepare for a performance, the performance being the 'art'. 40 minutes: you find out that it is amazing how fast the time goes. Yes; there is no reason why you should not prepare yourself off-plinth (or am I wrong?) ...You spent your time asking your audience to say hello to Australia....

  Yes, now you are not happy with the state of your make-up. Of course. 15 minutes left... for what?

  You are using the frame that Mr. Gormley has created to classify the fact that you are spreading blue eye-shadow all over the plinth as 'Art'- Or, you feel that you are part of a 'collage' that on a conceptual base is 'Art'. Would you have taken part in this project if it had been classified as a summer-amusement gig by the tourist-board?

  48 minutes: "will she have time to get her hair in?" She may... but not to do whatever you would like to have been doing when finished, probably.

  Now you start to comment on the comments: "people are so intelligent...." Does this include yourself? 10 minutes left. (not even, because minutes are needed to remove you...

  We have to do without lashes.

  Enter Rose...

  The yellow t-shirt goes, the costume becomes visible. Why not enter the plinth in all this? Gloves, hat on, hat off.... 7 minutes left before curtain?

  no. a show has started. The hat needs to go....

  Glove off: we are looking at a strip-tease of about 150 years ago. Yes... you can swing your boobs. And that was the show. 4 minutes to off-plinth. the dress.

  Now what are you stating? That this show can in any way be related to an 'art performance'? or that your act in itself is art because of Mr. Gormley's conceptual frame?

  You did not range your stuff... You need to clean everything separately.

  Yes, we are human, and we are many. But why should not we hate what we truly are? Why should we be proud of it per se?

  I agree that 'Art' is a place where we seek an answer to these questions. But I disagree with the Idea that the Plinth project is more than a mirror. A distorting mirror, - I hope. You successor has just entered the stage and mutters that he really has no idea why he has taken part in this project. Another normal hour to come. Another paper airplane is going down...

  What is so special about 'Art' that it is so important to belong in this category? And why is it so important for people like Mr. Gormley to bring 'Art' down to this kind of 'concept only' activities. Granted, there must be a lot of work in the background. But that is true for the organisation of the street-cleaning activities of the square too. Had Mr. Gormley choosen to define the street-cleaning activity as an 'Art' project, it would have worked too, probably.

  Therefore, maybe this project has the function of, once again, discussing the concept of 'art'. Maybe this has to be done in every generation. Maybe not. But to empty the concept of 'Art' by filling it with the emptiness of this discussion, I think, is not a sensible way.

Leave a comment