apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

I guess I don't understand the contradiction between the disturbing, sad and tragic images and the comforting pillow/sofa involved. What would one do with these pillows? As something in a museum I guess they're thought provoking but why would anyone want them in a home?

mmepatty, I'm pretty certain that this is an art installation rather than a product.

I visited the JFK presidential library last week while in boston, so these images are very fresh for me. The idea and execution are very well done. However, I'm not sure if these images are considered commonplace, as the artist supposes. I like your commentary, though, that these images cause us to "confront our own level of comfort with violence". Very well said.

Sorry, I just don't consider this art. My gut reaction was that it was wrong, unnecessary and done for the sake of outrage...and that's kinda pathetic.

This is quite compelling work. I look forward to seeing more from this artist.

First reaction was 'how could someone make pillows like this?!' Read the artist's quote and now I have to agree that this is extremely interesting. What should be shocking is now commonplace, and seeing it in plain terms helps us to regain that shock value. Very interesting work.

it would be appropriate in a museum but in a real home, just tasteless

in bad taste... and wrong

Warhol captured this American tragedy best.

Whatever Mr. Bassett's motives in creating these pillows, using photo of a presidential assassination is still unacceptable.

I agree with Seaside--Warhol and countless others have already confronted the way in which American violence is packaged and made palatable, even beautiful (just like Marilyn or Coke or Campbell's Soup). Almost 50 years later, then, perhaps what's now "all too familiar and commonplace"--all too comfortable and comforting, even--is less violent imagery than the idea that these sorts of juxtapositions (needlepoint and assassination!) cause us to question our relationship to violence.

Maybe this is not the correct audience for this artist's work.
It's obviously going over some people's head.
Anyway... this artist is making a profound statement on how our society is desensitized to violence. These are not "decorator pillows", they are ART! I believe it's the responsibility of artists to make us think. If art doesn't make you think, then it becomes the realm of the decorator!
I also think this artist is brilliant for using on object that is in the realm of the decorator to convey his statement. Again, BRILLIANT!!!

Pathetic! I hate to upset anyone who likes this and thinks this is provocative...but I believe most people look at art as a form of the artist's self-expression and creativity and YES so many of us have found ourselves excited by an artist's willing to push a subject that would make most people squirm or uncomfortable. But Come on! Showing horrific and tragic photographs on pillows is a LAME attempt to gain attention for your art.

These pillows shows a sad lack of creativity.

Is there a blood stain behind one of the pillows?

"Using photographs collected from various media sources, imagery often deemed too upsetting for the front page, he compels us to look more closely at our own voyeurism and our response and lack of response to violence, as well as our reactions to the universal experience of death that underlies both high-profile public disasters and everyday violence."

The above quote is from a review of Andy Warhol's electric chair paintings.

Keep up the good work Richard Basset!

i dunno...
maybe these pillows are supposed to show how society is "desensitized" to violence...

...and from reading the strong reactions/responses to this post, the answer to the artist's question seems to be, "yes"

...but maybe the responses actually disproves the artist's thinking: maybe society is not as desensitized as he thought...?

The fact that people are viewing these as being in bad taste shows that they're not as desensitized to violence or so familiar with tragic images that they regard these as commonplace. The Warhol quote about a "lack of response" doesn't apply. Being appalled is a response.

Art is supposed to inspire emotion, but exploiting tragedy to do so is cheap. Who can't inspire a negative response by showing scenes from an assassination in a trivial piece of work? It's so easy that the only message it sends is the artist will exploit anything for attention.

these are horrible.

I think that this is awful! It is truly bad taste to put images of someone's death on a pillow! Just because it's an art installation doesn't make it right!

oh, it's the saddest thing ever when
an artist is desperate to be shocking and
edgy, but just takes another artist's idea (hello, andy)
and comes up with a lame version, a few decades too late.

I think it's interesting as art, however I completely disagree with the artist's thesis that images of the Kennedy assassination "now feel all too familiar and commonplace."

How come everything is so derivative now? Why don't artists have original ideas? Is it because they're too hopped up on Coca-Cola and looking at themselves in mirrors?

This is just LAME-O.

I would suggest the artist come up with something FRESH and ORIGINAL.

Until then, "This is just so yesterday." YAWN.

I totally disagree with the artist's thesis, as well. The still frame shots of Kennedy's assassination are some of the most powerful photographic images of American history. If we are so desensitized, why not go balls out and show frame-by-frames of the Twin Towers falling? Perhaps the artist doesn't believe the theory himself...

These will be perfect for the new nursery!!
I bet I can do a high resolution print to transfer paper and iron them onto some nice high thread count pillow slipcovers.

How old is the artist? We've been discussing the our desensitization to violence since the 70's so the where's the provocative? It's hackneyed. There's no argument concerning whether it's tasteful - it isn't that either.

this whole post reads like a freshman art history essay. it's far too easy to invent parallels/contradictions like this: "These bunny slippers made of actual bunnies force us at once to contemplate the comfort associated with slippers and the utter inhumanity of the bunny corpse."

Gosh, yes, it *is* tasteless to use images of death as artwork. I guess it's time for museums and churches to hide their crucifixion paintings, tapestries, and stained-glass, seeing as how death is out of style. I mean, it's just so tacky!

Just because something has been done before doesn't mean the public is being reached by the message. I'm not so sure this is derivative in any sense. Art history is comprised of common themes throughout the ages. We are still desensitized. Maybe some people aren't, there are still sacred images that scar I'd say most of us. For the most part, there are instances of violence that we hear about and even see on the news or in a movie that are at least "background noise" and there's little we can do if we stop everything and care, and at least on some levels, entertaining. There is a lot of life, that we either choose to ignore or simply can't attend to, and develop a thick skin for, just to manage our everyday lives in some manner of peace and tranquility and relative contentedness.

I'm not sure these sofa pillows deliver the message adequately. Sometimes the message is too obscure or enveloped in pretentiousness, poorly executed even, to be potent to the people who are the subject of commentary to get it, but at least a lot of the time, people already know this on an academic level, if not a gut level.

Art can be good or bad, effective or ineffective. I don't think it's the wrong thing here to create some vehicle for a message. If it's bad or ineffective, it's art. Not all art can be good art, not all messages can be original. Without artists making bad things or striving to break boundaries or mental obstacles it thinks society has, or even just become famous, nobody can be in the right place at the right time to make something most people agree is awesome and timely and original.

there's other way of getting press for art, and this isn't the route I'd choose.

class-less.

This notion that art must be "tasteful" or "classy"
is a new one for me. How boring.

These pillows evoke in me a response that I can't even describe.....part emotional, part cerebral. Isn't that the point of art, after all?

If I'd seen OJ's white bronco on a needlepoint pillow or bald Britney wielding her umbrella that would have kicked me in the gut.

The other part here is those are newsworthy instances of violence involving a celebrity, so we all recognize it. "Participating" in art, viewing it and analyzing it, we may understand what we're being provoked for without liking the actual piece. In general, I think most people can comprehend and appreciate the message, but when they go back to their lives, forget the thing that touched them. If art does its job, does it necessarily have to be well-executed? In this case, people are dwelling on how tacky something might be rather than rising above it and being reminded of something the artist was trying to remind them of.

I happen to think in this case, it's sensationalist. Violence tends to be captured on film when it's someone famous. When images like this get turned into art, if it's supposed to be commentary on how we are desensitized to violence, it overlooks the everyday violence in our neighborhoods and the kinds of brutal torture and genocide that doesn't confront us directly if we ignore most news outlets. Celebrity is the only way to capture the attention of the viewers, so it hits the intended audience in the wrong spot. Assassination of our beloved president is what it takes to outrage anyone. Needlepoint the frames of film onto pillows makes it that much more outrageous.

It really does take a lot of gore and pain to take a violent incident to the national level unless you are a celebrity. Everyday background violence doesn't really factor in unless it is on our own street, to someone we know (or think we know), or we have a loved one sent to war. Bad things are bad if they happen to anybody, but if this involves a celebrity somehow, this is what people talk about, and it becomes a different kind of conversation. It's easier to detach yourself, form opinions, and not be utterly devastated on behalf of anyone's grief. Finish your coffee break and go back to work. Keep up with the unfolding drama on CNN so you don't fall behind on the hot topic.

I guess what I'm saying is, good or bad, this piece makes me work over a lot of thoughts and observations.

No.