10 Comments

1. 

   Robin on October 14, 2010 at 5:20 pm

   YES! amazing. i want.

   Reply
2. 

   mike on October 14, 2010 at 11:03 pm

   AMAZING….until i learned that they were made in a factory in jingdezhen. that takes all the "ooomph" out of it.

   Reply
3. 

   Robin on October 15, 2010 at 12:01 am

   you think so? I still think it is amazing….i never assumed that anyone would be so crazy as to make 1,000,000 things by hand….not and still be 'the most powerful artist in the world'. it is the mass that is awesome. but that is just me.

   Reply
4. 

   Carole Epp on October 15, 2010 at 3:17 am

   for me some of the power of the statement is due to the fact that they were made in the factory.
   "ai weiwei has manipulated the traditional methods of crafting porcelain, which has historically been
   considered to be one of china's most prized exports, to explore the 'made in china' phenomenon and
   the geo-politics of cultural and economic exchange today. "
   but above all the visual (plus tactile and audio aspect must be amazing)

   Reply
5. 

   mike on October 16, 2010 at 12:11 pm

   they're not exactly made by "hand" but rather made by "hands". i'm sure dozens, or even hundreds of people worked on this. and there is probably a factory somewhere in china where "hands" made a million cell phones, or cars, or whatevers this year. considering the complexity, that's WAY more amazing.

   for me it calls into question what hand-making actually is, and makes me think hard about the semantics of that term. does "handmade" mean the same thing if those things are made en masse by factory workers? or is that just a sweatshop? and i wonder if the artist couldn't have commented differently on the "'made-in-china' phenomenon" by subverting it rather than conceding to it's predominant modes of production.

   they are neat little objects, though, and i wouldn't mind walking across that floor barefoot.

   Reply
6. 

   Carole Epp on October 16, 2010 at 4:16 pm

   mike – the term handmade has long been a problematic for me. glad you've brought up this discussion. i'm curious about methods of subverting it. I've been making functional work lately that employs found mass produced cheap china ware in the creation of individual handmade pieces. But it's a conversation that i reckon is completely lost on the viewer. I have yet to find a way to bring it to the forefront of the work. As such it's now simply limited to being kitsch cheap handmade work. hmmm.
   btw have you heard that the tate has decided to no longer allow the audience to walk on the work? concerns were raised about the dust factor and the risk to the audience. you can now only view it from the walkway over top. why bother. the essence of the work is completely destroyed. i'm surprised the artist allowed this. i reckon a five minute walk around my studio exposes you to more dangerous dust that this exhibition would produce : )

   Reply
7. 

   Robin on October 16, 2010 at 6:30 pm

   mike: i think what you said is exactly what the artist is aiming at. i mean it is in the write up carole linked to.
   carole: do you think it is lost on the viewer? i mean, none of us have seen it in person but i can't imagine it is not mentioned in some form or another? on the Tate page it says "Sunflower Seeds invites us to look more closely at the ‘Made in China’ phenomenon and the geo-politics of cultural and economic exchange today."

   anyhow, bummer about the dust.

   Reply
8. 

   Steve Grimmer on October 19, 2010 at 2:30 pm

   Here's a link to the accompanying video

   http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid42529797001?bctid=627303062001

   Reply
9. 

   mike on October 20, 2010 at 10:21 pm

   oh my god i love the image of him opening the yellow hot kiln full of a trillion seeds! why the heck would he do that anyways?

   Reply
10. 

    Robin on October 20, 2010 at 10:54 pm

    says the guy that once started a small fire in a gallery with his 'kiln.'

    but really, that is how most kilns are open there from what i hear. cone 9/10 up and down in 24 hours.

    Reply