I don't know what to make of this. I can't even think that it's cool or interesting or arty.
This is from a show last year by artist Theresa Honeywell and was displayed at the Georgia Museum of Art. The blurb goes "Honeywell's work explores the cool tough male world with her pieces like the knit tool belt, knit jackammer, as well as embroidery work of tattoo designs."
All I can think of is that there are two objects here that are not fulfilling their purpose. The bike cannot be ridden. And what a phenomenal waste of time and yarn, that could be better used to create things like preemie wear for hospitals, blankets for animal shelters, and warm hats/scarves/mitts for the homeless.
Is there a statement here that I'm missing? I mean, I get the statement in this one:
And it was made by many, with scraps from other projects. And I believe the modular pieces were recycled after as scarves.
I really don't know where I'm going with this post. It got me thinking about why one irritates me and the other doesn't.
Sure beats thinking about poker right now.
This is from a show last year by artist Theresa Honeywell and was displayed at the Georgia Museum of Art. The blurb goes "Honeywell's work explores the cool tough male world with her pieces like the knit tool belt, knit jackammer, as well as embroidery work of tattoo designs."
All I can think of is that there are two objects here that are not fulfilling their purpose. The bike cannot be ridden. And what a phenomenal waste of time and yarn, that could be better used to create things like preemie wear for hospitals, blankets for animal shelters, and warm hats/scarves/mitts for the homeless.
Is there a statement here that I'm missing? I mean, I get the statement in this one:
And it was made by many, with scraps from other projects. And I believe the modular pieces were recycled after as scarves.
I really don't know where I'm going with this post. It got me thinking about why one irritates me and the other doesn't.
Sure beats thinking about poker right now.
Art isn't meant to be useful. While I don't necessarily understand the need to knit a variety of stereotypically "male" objects, since I find it sexist and ignorant, I don't see it as any less worthwhile than countless other forms of art.
Especially in the case when (a) a bike is a commercial good and can be used for whatever purpose the owner deems and (b) yarn isn't exactly in scarce supply or a non-renewable resource. Do you feel bad about the never-ending sweater from hell because you could have made 4 caps for bald toddlers instead?
Point being, I don't think it's worth getting worked up about. It does, however, touch on two of your passions - bikes and knitting. Neither of which is an inexpensive hobby if you're dedicated to them. You automatically see the raw value of these aspects and it strikes a chord with you. If she had macraméd an ATV, would you feel the same way?