Courtesy of Michael John Muuss

The heat of summer has clearly arrived in Portland and so begins the slowing of the art season. That must be why I can’t seem to find much of interest for this week’s Weekly Web Round-up. I've got a couple of articles and a couple of activities for you to do while enjoying the lowered temperatures to come.

Something strange is happening to the role of the curator around the world. The Brooklyn Museum has just abolished curatorial deparments and instituted art by committee. Add to that the news that Sophie Calle is placing advertisements for a curator. Maybe in some bizarre twist those retiring, formerly autonomous curators from Brooklyn will become pawns in Ms. Calle’s Venice Biennale installation.

Activity Number One:
The Vision Vessel, an interactive recording booth for your civic insights, will set up shop at the Portland Building July 5-7. Check their website for other sites and dates.

Activity Number Two:
Red 76 would like you to help bring the war home by downloading an mp3 sound collage of "gunfire, explosions and voices" to be played while contemplating the fireworks during your 4th of July festivities.

Here's a bit of fun summertime reading: Damien Hirst’s shark in The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living, 1991. is falling apart.

Happy summer. Be careful when playing with fire on July 4 and for crying out loud email me if you've got something for the Weekly Web Round-up!

Sucks to be Damien Hirst. I don't see why it's such a problem for that shark to decompose in that glass box. I thought part of the attraction to that piece was that it was a dead animal. And isn't decomposing just what dead animals do? Maybe it should be plasticinated.

This makes me wonder how long a piece of artwork is supposed to last. A decade? A lifetime? As soon as it no longer matches your interior decor? Who cares? Even the Mona Lisa's falling apart.

two articles in the times came out today that address the hirst issue if you're interested in doing some further reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/arts/design/29cons.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/arts/design/29judd.html

my assumptions about the materials involved in the piece lead me to believe, as a viewer, that hirst's intention was to preserve, as if the shark were to be on view at the field museum. if hirst intended for the shark to deteriorate than that would be one thing, but clearly, it seems, he didn't. he tried to preserve the shark chemically. however, his lack of regard for proper application of the materials is information i could not have gleaned from merely looking and leads me to question his intention. is it his job to conserve his own work? if it was your own artwork and you had the opportunity, would you want to do the repairs?

well it is is signature piece and was bought for 11-12,000,000 His reputation sor of rests on it so yeah... do it right. Hirst is the master of presentation anyways.

as for te lack of news... just before the 4th it gets kinda quiet... but next week will be extra busy, with at least one large warehouse show at the Hall gallery things are just starting to get primed for the biennial at the end of the month. Everyone kinda just take the 4th weekend off (ie they are installing).