Lies, damned lies, and Darwin tours

[imomus]

[Error: unknown template video]

As lawyers, bankers and lots of other professionals know, lying for a living is nice work if you can get it. Here's a clip of my unreliable tour yesterday of the Schirn Kunsthalle's Darwin exhibition -- part of the Playing the City programme.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

"Do you watch Reeves and Mortimer and find yourself saying, 'I can see the Robert Filliou influence coming through'?"

No, I watch Reeves and Mortimer and think how on earth did they get a TV show. Besides I like to distinguish my Artists from my comedians although I might love both in equal measures.

[(Anonymous)]

I apologise for the adversarial tone of my last comment, and I think that there is an interesting discussion here.

This isn't a loaded question; but why is it that you distinguish your artists from your comedians? What is the value of that boundary for you?

[(Anonymous)]

The boundary is there, I merely acknowledge it. Some people may choose not to acknowledge it, that is their choice. How many people do you see rolling around on the floor laughing in front of a Picasso? I haven't seen any, so far. Comedians are out to make us laugh that is how they measure their success. An Artist scope is far wider encompassing all emotions, it can sometimes make us smile but not really laugh out loud.

[(Anonymous)]

I think the boundary is a construct, along with the term 'comedian' and 'artist'; ways of categorizing experience. It is worth, once in a while, questioning these terms, if for no other reason than to avoid becoming mindless to their use. They can, after all, significantly affect the way we view our world.

Comedians can also stimulate our imagination (i'm thinking Vic & Bob again), show us ways of living, of interacting; they can politicize us (Charlie Brooker, and his thinly veiled rants); amongst other things.

It excites me when these boundaries (which mother Earth didn't place there for us) become blurred, especially when it comes to comedy and art.

By the way, which Picasso? And under what circumstances?

[(Anonymous)]

All experience is categorized that is human nature. Otherwise we venture into madness. I think rather than worrying about it we should except the terms for what they are and enjoy the "comedy" or 'Art" for what it is without tedious distractions. It's only life after all. I can honestly say I've never seen any blurred boundary between a piece of Art that could be comedy or vice versa. Comedy can achieve all the things you mention I don't dispute that but it's eventual aim is to make you laugh.

Any Picasso, we're never likely to see one outside a gallery environment unless you have very rich friends, I don't.

[(Anonymous)]

And what if making you laugh is the secondary aim? What if the comedian himself isn't aware of his real 'aim'?