5 ms·

I find it grotesque. It could have been a park, a farm, a forest. It could have been left as an interesting ruin for humans to explore and nature to reclaim. B

by Tronno 3y ago

I find it grotesque. It could have been a park, a farm, a forest. It could have been left as an interesting ruin for humans to explore and nature to reclaim. But in the name of some selfish artistic vision, this person built a vast concrete wasteland. Good art triggers strong emotions, I suppose. I feel horror and revulsion.

zemvpferreira 3y ago
I mean, you're entitled to your emotional response, but let's not pretend that's an impactful amount of concrete or land. Might as well be outraged about a supermarket. I find it irrelevant myself.
- Tronno 3y ago
  There's lots I find objectionable about our built environment, but at least it has a purpose. Between butchering an animal for food, vs doing it for fun, this artwork is the latter.
  - zemvpferreira 3y ago
    Fair enough, that's a good analogy. I find both morally equal but that's my own problem of course.
zoeysmithe 3y ago
200 people died there, 1000+ were injured, and 100k left homeless. This art is a monument and tombstone. This is perfectly respectful. I think most communities wouldn't build a supermarket or park over a recent human disaster site like this. Its really a memorial, not modern art: "I told him immediately, ‘let’s go see the old town’. It was almost 20 km away and I was just shocked. I almost felt like crying and then this idea came to me: here I could do something… This is what I would do: we compact the ruins — which are a problem for everyone — we reinforce them well, and with concrete, we create an immense white crack as a permanent symbol of what happened here,” Burri described on first seeing the ruins of Gibellina.
- Tronno 3y ago
  A fair interpretation, but consider the work the artist is known for: https://www.maggioregam.com/artists/42-alberto-burri/biography/ https://www.maggioregam.com/artists/42-alberto-burri/biograp... Did he see the disaster as an opportunity to ply his trade at an even greater scale? Sixteen years after the earthquake, he was asked not to build a memorial, but to help reconstruct the new city. He declined and created this piece instead. Your quote in context: > mayor Ludovico Corrao called upon numerous architects and artists to help with reconstruction efforts. [...] “We went to Gibellina [...] When we finally arrived to visit the place, the new city was nearly complete and full of new pieces. ‘I can’t do anything here,’ I told him immediately, ‘let’s go see the old town’. It was almost 20 km away [...]
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    > Did he see the disaster as an opportunity to ply his trade at an even greater scale? So what? The artist had a style of art in which he was an expert and known for. I totally get and respect that his art is not your cup of tea, but I don't see any negatives in the fact that he did see the opportunity to build this as a opportunity to "ply his trade" as you put it. Would you rather have him build something in a style he's totally unfamiliar with and bad at?
jjk166 3y ago
I, for one, think it's sublime. Art is not a waste of land.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Totally agree. I never previously knew this existed and I think it's not only visually stunning, but an incredibly impactful instantiation of the tragedy it's meant to represent. Most importantly, given that globalization and technology have resulted in a "homogenization" of a lot of art and culture, this piece feels truly unique to me (I also thought it was just a glitch in Google Maps when I first saw it) in a way that's very rare these days.
more_corn 3y ago
Horror and revulsion are proper things to feel about a monument to tragedy. Perhaps some additional feelings of solemnity and timelessness would come if you visited.

by Tronno 3y ago

zemvpferreira 3y ago

I mean, you're entitled to your emotional response, but let's not pretend that's an impactful amount of concrete or land. Might as well be outraged about a supermarket. I find it irrelevant myself.

Tronno 3y ago
There's lots I find objectionable about our built environment, but at least it has a purpose. Between butchering an animal for food, vs doing it for fun, this artwork is the latter.
- zemvpferreira 3y ago
  Fair enough, that's a good analogy. I find both morally equal but that's my own problem of course.

zoeysmithe 3y ago

200 people died there, 1000+ were injured, and 100k left homeless. This art is a monument and tombstone. This is perfectly respectful. I think most communities wouldn't build a supermarket or park over a recent human disaster site like this. Its really a memorial, not modern art: "I told him immediately, ‘let’s go see the old town’. It was almost 20 km away and I was just shocked. I almost felt like crying and then this idea came to me: here I could do something… This is what I would do: we compact the ruins — which are a problem for everyone — we reinforce them well, and with concrete, we create an immense white crack as a permanent symbol of what happened here,” Burri described on first seeing the ruins of Gibellina.

Tronno 3y ago
A fair interpretation, but consider the work the artist is known for: https://www.maggioregam.com/artists/42-alberto-burri/biography/ https://www.maggioregam.com/artists/42-alberto-burri/biograp... Did he see the disaster as an opportunity to ply his trade at an even greater scale? Sixteen years after the earthquake, he was asked not to build a memorial, but to help reconstruct the new city. He declined and created this piece instead. Your quote in context: > mayor Ludovico Corrao called upon numerous architects and artists to help with reconstruction efforts. [...] “We went to Gibellina [...] When we finally arrived to visit the place, the new city was nearly complete and full of new pieces. ‘I can’t do anything here,’ I told him immediately, ‘let’s go see the old town’. It was almost 20 km away [...]
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > Did he see the disaster as an opportunity to ply his trade at an even greater scale? So what? The artist had a style of art in which he was an expert and known for. I totally get and respect that his art is not your cup of tea, but I don't see any negatives in the fact that he did see the opportunity to build this as a opportunity to "ply his trade" as you put it. Would you rather have him build something in a style he's totally unfamiliar with and bad at?

jjk166 3y ago

I, for one, think it's sublime. Art is not a waste of land.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Totally agree. I never previously knew this existed and I think it's not only visually stunning, but an incredibly impactful instantiation of the tragedy it's meant to represent. Most importantly, given that globalization and technology have resulted in a "homogenization" of a lot of art and culture, this piece feels truly unique to me (I also thought it was just a glitch in Google Maps when I first saw it) in a way that's very rare these days.

more_corn 3y ago

Horror and revulsion are proper things to feel about a monument to tragedy. Perhaps some additional feelings of solemnity and timelessness would come if you visited.