I can’t decide if this Japanese game show asking contestants to strike poses so that they fit through cut out spaces in a moving pink wall more closely resembles a people-sized Operation board game , or a live version of Tetris. There’s probably some performative Keith Haring inverse-sculpture reference to be made, but frankly, I think the show does better without the frame of art. Via SS (Metafilter)
{ 10 comments }
I love this show, I’ve always been a HUGE fan…does that make me a geek?
I love this show, I’ve always been a HUGE fan…does that make me a geek?
This made me think of that Cube movie… minus the blood. Its like a happy version of The Cube.
This made me think of that Cube movie… minus the blood. Its like a happy version of The Cube.
This made me think of that Cube movie… minus the blood. Its like a happy version of The Cube.
They’re making a U.S. version of this… I saw a promo for it on TV just the other day.
They’re making a U.S. version of this… I saw a promo for it on TV just the other day.
Yeah, the show is too good to need an art frame.
But…if you wanted one, you could do worse than Michael Fried’s “Art and Objecthood”:
“[T]hat the beholder is confronted by literalist work within a situation that he experiences as *his* means that there is an important sense in which the work exists for him *alone*, even if he is not actually alone with the work at the time. […] Someone has merely to enter a room in which a literalist work has been placed to *become* that beholder, that audience of one–almost as though the work in question has been *waiting for* him. And inasmuch as literalist work *depends on* the beholder, is *incomplete* without him, it *has* been waiting for him. And once he is in the room the work refuses, obstinately, to let him alone…”
Yeah, the show is too good to need an art frame.
But…if you wanted one, you could do worse than Michael Fried’s “Art and Objecthood”:
“[T]hat the beholder is confronted by literalist work within a situation that he experiences as *his* means that there is an important sense in which the work exists for him *alone*, even if he is not actually alone with the work at the time. […] Someone has merely to enter a room in which a literalist work has been placed to *become* that beholder, that audience of one–almost as though the work in question has been *waiting for* him. And inasmuch as literalist work *depends on* the beholder, is *incomplete* without him, it *has* been waiting for him. And once he is in the room the work refuses, obstinately, to let him alone…”
Yeah, the show is too good to need an art frame.
But…if you wanted one, you could do worse than Michael Fried’s “Art and Objecthood”:
“[T]hat the beholder is confronted by literalist work within a situation that he experiences as *his* means that there is an important sense in which the work exists for him *alone*, even if he is not actually alone with the work at the time. […] Someone has merely to enter a room in which a literalist work has been placed to *become* that beholder, that audience of one–almost as though the work in question has been *waiting for* him. And inasmuch as literalist work *depends on* the beholder, is *incomplete* without him, it *has* been waiting for him. And once he is in the room the work refuses, obstinately, to let him alone…”
Comments on this entry are closed.