Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

t1_j74dmck wrote

The people who are mining for clicks about how much they hate this need to pull their head out of their asses.

Whether you or I like it or not, I guarantee you this will be a successful piece of public art. And who do I say that? People will seek it out and take pictures in front of it. Any piece of public art that garners sustained public attention is a success.

I think part of the reason the Professional Art Critics dislike it is because they know it'll be popular and remembered. If something is too accessible it becomes an issue for a very loud subset of snobs.

Just let people enjoy the stupid bean.

106

t1_j74eezz wrote

A lot of artists have beef with him cause of the whole exclusivity deal with Vanta Black. I'm sure that's got something to do with the hate boner in this article.

45

t1_j74ivo7 wrote

A lot of those artists either don't understand how Vantablack is produced or don't care and want to rage just to rage.

5

t1_j7h9ocz wrote

Singularity Black is on par with vantablack and is available to all, not just the whiny bean boy. The issue with Vanta is his stupid trademark on it so only he or people he licenses it out to can use it.

1

t1_j7hargd wrote

I always thought it was because of the toxicity factor of it pre-application that limited its export potential, but im happy we have alternatives now!

1

t1_j7hbyo2 wrote

There's also black 3.0 as others have mentioned. That one is a super pigmented acrylic paint, $30 for a 150mL bottle, made in Kentucky.

For Singularity, it's $125 for a sample size 20cm^2 coverage area. Made in Massachusetts and you pay for hazmat shipping. You have to heat it to 100C to activate, it's highly highly recommended to use in a well ventilated area with full PPE as the nature of aerosolized carbon nanotubes aren't fully known yet.

1

t1_j767pv1 wrote

Cheaper than going to Chicago.

15

t1_j75e8dk wrote

Yeah, I hate Kapoor for other reasons, but the shiney bean is fine.

8

t1_j77j3kb wrote

yeah I'm definitely picking up on that elitism. there's nothing wrong with a big piece of art that just looks neat. it doesn't have to mean anything

5

t1_j77lmf9 wrote

Exactly. For stuff like this, the meaning is really just in the reflection. Letting people interact with art (and see themselves in it) is a good thing. You want people to do that.

I hate the "Fearless Girl" statue (I think it's ugly as hell), but it's incredibly successful public art. I think that's because of people's desire to pose next to her in the same stance, whatever that defiant pose means for them. There's nothing a well read art critic can say to change that.

4

t1_j787uqn wrote

I'm a little divided on the fearless girl one bc it sort of interferes with the preexisting bull statue in a way that seems a little unfair, but other than that yeah it's a great example. it doesn't have to be like an abstract representation of some deep tragedy to be worthwhile art. it's ok to have art that just looks cool jfc

1

t1_j75aeu7 wrote

> Whether you or I like it or not, I guarantee you this will be a successful piece of public art.

It won't be, and I'll tell you why:

It's been open for a few weeks. I passed right by this building when I had dinner with a friend almost a month ago, noted "huh, looks like the chicago bean" and kept walking. I didn't blog about it. I didn't post about it on twitter. I, and millions of other New Yorkers, didn't give a shit. It's in the news now for some reason or another, but once the novelty wears off no one will care, again.

−4

t1_j776efw wrote

Oh well you didn't blog about it so obviously it's a failure.

Okie dokie.

3

t1_j75lnoa wrote

Just because you didn’t like it doesn’t mean others won’t. New Yorkers don’t take photos in front of the fucking vessel yet it’s still a popular tourist sculpture

1

t1_j75ls51 wrote

The vessel is in a big open air mall. This is on a soho side-street.

5

t1_j76fj4c wrote

TriBeCa

2

t1_j777f04 wrote

Tribeca is a marketing term invented by real estate brokers in the 90s, it means as much as "Corinthian Leather" or "Crunchtastic."

0

t1_j7n2lbe wrote

Soho is exactly that as well; it was just created a bit earlier than tribeca.

Also, the neighborhood never extended south of canal st, so it was never correct to call anything on Leonard St soho.

1

t1_j777z45 wrote

Yes. You are the elected representative of all of us. Your experience and opinion is ours. Take care with this honor and responsibility you've chosen for yourself. It's a tough job being the chosen anecdote to represent millions.

1

t1_j74c3fd wrote

Tl;dr he thinks it's for rich people, there are tourists in NYC taking pictures of things, the one in Chicago is better, this one is the devil, it's for rich people.

93

t1_j749646 wrote

Can we just cover it in yellow and paint it as an M&M?

40

t1_j76pby6 wrote

yea but then they would need to stop Tucker Carlson from trying to fuck it

20

t1_j76z6eg wrote

Don’t forget the high heels so Republicans can fantasize about fucking it.

1

t1_j77042d wrote

More likely the homeless that congregate WTC/Cortlandt stops.

I mean… That’s why they call it “Rector street” no?

Amirite???! 🥹

−2

t1_j74vsam wrote

Someone should paint it Black 2.0

26

t1_j7584ou wrote

Her: hey let's meet at the bean

Him: the where?

Her: [block user]

23

t1_j74dm7y wrote

Isn't this the "vanta black" dude? He's got a lot of ill will in the artist community, not surprised artists are mad at him. Personally I don't care, the more random art the better.

18

t1_j74kplu wrote

>not surprised artists are mad at him.

I am. Vantablack isnt a simple paint, it's legit carbon nanotubes and its highly toxic before application - to my knowledge that prevents it from being exported out of the UK, at least the last time I checked, and as much as I don't like Kapoor, he *is* UK based

8

t1_j75edit wrote

There is a guy that makes a blacker black than Varnta black, called “Black 3.0”

It’s like .001% darker, and he refuses to sell it to Anish Kapoor, so that’s also fun.

22

OP t1_j746gwl wrote

I think the Jenga Building is wonderful and haven't yet seen the mini-bean in person without scaffolding around it.

Was surprised by harshness of this ARTnews review.

15

t1_j76fr8o wrote

This is the problem with artnet. The amount of public art that has gone up in the last few years in this city and they choose the bean to dislike with an article. They’re just being edgelords looking for clicks. There’s nothing to review.

5

t1_j749glm wrote

Does that writer/publication have some beef with that artist? That's pretty harsh for ART.
Holy shit, vulture real estate developers destroying classic architecture and erecting soulless mile-high intrusive garbage in it's place, no one ASKED for that either but we all have to suffer those eyesores.
No one asked for Jeff Koons either but there he is.

8

t1_j75os4y wrote

It’s just lazy. “Oh I did a bean. Let me do another bean somewhere else, but smaller.”

Also, fuck that guy for vanta black.

15

t1_j76l0dy wrote

Have you never read criticism of bad art before? The guy makes valid points. This one is built like shit, it's covered in dirt, and it's not really accessible for viewing except from an awkward angle where you are below most of the sculpture.

5

t1_j776o4g wrote

You mean an outdoor public artwork is covered in dirt from being outside? No way! Burn it!

0

t1_j77nzcj wrote

Read the article. It's got a cleaning crew. They just can't get it clean because it's not made as well as the one in Chicago.

1

t1_j749z89 wrote

I wonder what the reviewer thinks of 'The Alamo', at Astor Place?

(I can't think of any other similar pieces around the city at the moment)

5

t1_j76rp6f wrote

anish kapoor is a bad person and nyc should feel bad about supporting him

3

t1_j76vu7j wrote

Private developer paid for this... I don't like what he did with Vantablack and I think this piece is significantly worse than Chicago's, but the city broadly isn't supporting him - the building owner is, and I do applaud building owners spending private money on public art, even if in this instance I'm not a fan

2

t1_j76x1xn wrote

Anish Kapoor is a bad person and the property owner should feel bad about supporting him

0

t1_j7796s6 wrote

It’s ugly because there is no greenery/landscaping anywhere nearby, just a large, plain concrete sidewalk surrounding it.

2

t1_j77gqfa wrote

almost every piece of manhattan public art is an eyesore

1

t1_j77uo41 wrote

That shit should deserves a scratch tag you see on the 1 and 3 trains.

1

t1_j78k0v1 wrote

It must suck because it doesn't look like scribbles done with stuff found at a hardware store, that's real art

1

t1_j79p6t0 wrote

I completely thought this was only put here to distract potential buyers from the cfo of bed bath and beyond jumping from this building

But, apparently this has been in construction for longer than that.

1

t1_j7ldydl wrote

I think it's kind of cool, like the one on the Chicago Waterfront! People hated the Eiffel Tower too and wanted it gone...it's still standing.

I guess New Yorkers don't really like or understand art especially when it's interactive? It's not an eye sore...not everyone hates.

1

t1_j74kh0d wrote

Doesn’t bother me as much as the monstrosity of a building behind it.

−5