A brief article in the Gazzettino Saturday added a few details about this artefact, which I pass along.
It’s called “Castello Cube.” I hadn’t realized it had a name, it seemed such a generic object. Not that the name is any less generic.
The creator goes by the nom de guerre Niclas Castello. Now I begin to comprehend. And it is being shown in Castello! It’s almost like destiny.
His real name is Norbert Zerbs. I myself would have totally kept this name. Be proud of your heritage, Zerbs!
The cube sat on the riva Ca’ di Dio for 24 hours, it says here, so that would also explain the security guards. There were ten of them.
It weighs 186 kilos (410 pounds) of 24-carat 999.9 fine gold. I’ll admit that for some reason I didn’t want this to be true. I was telling Lino that it was probably an empty cube made of iron sheets covered with gold leaf. Nope. It is precisely what it appears to be: A block of solid gold.
Never before in history has this much gold been worked into one artwork.
The value of this mass of metal is about 12,000,000 dollars.
Zerbs’s net worth is listed at 51,000,000 dollars.
I notice how many facts about this object have to do with quantities. Don’t know why this seems to fascinate people. A man in Alaska told me that a tourist looking at Denali once asked him how much it weighed.
It was displayed in Central Park in New York City last February.
An art historian named Dieter Buchhart made the following declaration (I translate): “It is a conceptual work that seems to have arrived from another world and now is standing on the paving-stones of Venice, without a pedestal.”
I’m as keen on conceptual works as the next person, even if the concept eludes me, but here’s a concept: By all means bring us a cube of gold that seems to have arrived from another world. Just stop talking drivel.
“The artwork is exhibited in public places so that it is accessible to everyone,” said another expert, “and people have the opportunity to rediscover art in the open space.”
I’ll tell you what — you’d need 186 kilos of self-confidence to put something you call art into an open space in a city that is composed almost entirely of art. I might discern something artistic about it if it were standing, say, in an acre of alfalfa, or drifting on a raft down the Monongahela river. But placing an object purporting to be art in Venice takes nerves of tungsten carbide.
Anyway, it’s gone now, continuing its quest to find a pedestal.
12 Comments
Pity you couldn’t shave a few chunks out of it Erla!
Bravissima, dear Erla!
Frances Starn recently posted..Once Upon a Time in Kandahar
That is so wonderfully acerbic, Erla. Regarding the search for a pedestal, I noticed in your recent photos of trash that there are a couple of pedestals free in your street. Don’t trip over the security guards when you go out 😉
“By all means bring us a cube of gold that seems to have arrived from another world. Just stop talking drivel.” The best thing I’ve read this year, Erla. It’s like the drivel that wine “connoisseurs” come up with. And the people who talk about crystals and “energy” and “auras”.
Well … it could have gone back to the Pawnbrokers?
The only pedestal that comes easily to mind it a lavatory pan…..
But in many ways, it’s still “Fools Gold” as it’s not got any existence except for its price tag.
Heaven preserve us all from “Conceptual Art” if we have to have such conciets as appparent value rather than Artistic Merit – if only I could recall what that is / was?
Keep ’em coming, Erla, each biennale seems get dottier than the one(s) before!
If I’m not careful, I’ll be thinking of Damien Hirst with fondness!
“By all means bring us a cube of gold that seems to have arrived from another world. Just stop talking drivel.” The best thing I’ve read this year, Erla. It’s like the drivel that wine “connoisseurs” come up with. And the people who talk about crystals and “energy” and “auras”.
Did you hear about the (functioning) lavatory pan made of solid gold, said to be worth £4.8 million and entitled “America”, stolen from Blenheim Palace?
No, I hadn’t heard about that. Not only is it revolting that it was made, it’s kind of revolting that it was stolen. And super-revolting that it was in Blenheim Palace. Congratulations, you’ve now given me an example of something even more objectionable about art in 2021 that I never would have imagined.
Good one, I concur!
When I was a kid, my parents took me mostly to museums of modern art. When we encountered something perplexing, we’d contemplate it, then say “Interesting”; a.k.a. damning it with faint praise.
I still love modern art — and historic art — but now when I contemplate something perplexing, I’m perfectly comfortable studying it, admiring it, but also giggling at the jab in the ribs, or rolling my eyes if it’s silly, or admitting it is not “interesting” at all; it’s merely boring.
If what I see up close is no more than what I saw from a distance, without detail or texture or even patina, I generally dismiss it as boring. I’ve decided I’m old enough and informed enough to be opinionated (again).
🙂
There is nothing to see.. but there is something to think, and that is that there is a thin line between between a critical “concept” the and the abject vulgarity of product placement and the falsification of value. The Venice Biennale has for too long been the shop window where the oligarchs and their servants validate their hedge fund credibility and massage the continued “value” of their investments. There is of course still art work of genuine authenticity, genuine creativity, genuine critical intention and inclusivity to be found in the Biennale, mostly in the pavilions of the Giardini. Unfortunately you have to wade through the “stunts” of this kind pretend consumer conceptualism. It is most likely that the “work” in question was funded by a consortium who have a vested interest “ownership” of the artists works and the “sensation” of the work serves as advertising that generates increased value of their holding. This is the same market technique as used years ago by Damion Hirst`s backers with the infamous diamond studded platinum skull…. like you, I would rather more enjoy the pasta and supporting the genuine craft that brings it to the world.
Made me think of Damien Hirst, too, but more of his undersea world stuff. – But then I do try hard not to think of Damien Hirst! (Getting that way about Anish Kapoor, too) What a load of prewtentious pseudos!
It’s fascinating in a sense how the concept of art changes. When Michelangelo set David free from the block of marble he was enclosed in it was a true triumph of beauty, technique and skill, but this? The guy happens to be rich and chooses to flaunt it by making a cube of gold? Couldn’t he just display a framed bank statement?
Today artists have access to technologies and materials that the old masters could only dream about and, still, they produce a cube? No, a cube and pretentious drivel, as you and many others already pointed out. Oy vey!