Comments on: Eye Exam: Public Consumption

By: citizengomez

citizengomez — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:18:09 +0000

Sickening. My introduction to this guy’s offensive knack for stealing street art was his “safe” temporary gallery on Milwaukee last weekend. During my visit he stood with his arms across his chest and droned on and on to a couple that appeared to be impressed by his ceaseless hot air.

I am not a street artist, but anyone who is not under a rock ought to understand that street artists leave their work in the street at their own risk knowing that they become part of a public venue. That might include having the art tagged or destroyed. Lemke’s vanity is stunning. Who the hell is he to decide whose art is worthy? How does he dare to take this stuff into his home. (I doubt this egotist has many friends, so who sees it?) He needs to shrink his ego down to size and recognize that he is nothing more than one tiny little citizen with one tiny little opinion that matters only to him and his mama. You are not the great decider, Mr. Lemke. Keep your sticky fingers to yourself.

By: bullgod

bullgod — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:18:50 +0000

I’m actually really impressed by Lemke. What an ingenious idea! The only problem seems to be that he’s not really thinking big enough. There’s a big shiny bean-like installation downtown that gets etched on every so often. Maybe Lemke should take Cloud Gate home to protect it from vandals. If he’s interested, I can also direct him to some sculptures of pants, the American Gothic couple, and even a genuine Picasso. We must get all of this public art out of the public’s view and into a safe basement or studio where it can really be appreciated.

By: skoff

skoff — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:23:37 +0000

Being an artist myself who has work in the streets I have an understanding that when I set the work free there is no telling what its’ fate is or who will end up with it. That’s why I also put out work intentionally for people to find, keep and enjoy. As for what Lemke is doing is it wrong? I’m not defending him I’m just saying what he is doing should just motivate the artists to be more creative and make the work harder to remove or find spots which are harder to reach. Use Lemke as motivation to advance your art. Being creative or coming up with something new is what artists do. Think of new ways to keep your art riding for longer. Try stripping out the screws, use liquid nails, try welding pieces up, make your work seem as if it was meant to be there. I guess my best comparison of a way to turn what Lemke is doing into a positive is like what That “Masked Magician” did to other magicians and exposed all their tricks, Those Magicians had to come up with new better tricks and advance their art. Lemke, you are welcome to find and keep one of my pieces, and so is anyone else.
life is an art, make it your masterpiece…skoff

By: brian mier

brian mier — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 03:01:03 +0000

This article is another example of a journalist’s rush to simplify a complicated issue to an “either or” duality. Yes, its true that street artists know that their work will eventually dissapear when they voluntarily put it into the public domain, but it is ridiculous to treat Lemke as some kind of selfless good samaritan because he is not (currently) charging money for the public art that he appropriated for his private collection. There are many ways one can profit in the art world without actually making money on the spot. One is by generating a controversy, by accumulating cultural capital by making a name for oneself in the media, as the author of this piece helps Lemke do here by exagerating the artists’ reactions to the appropriation of their work. I would also like to point out that there is nothing original about what Lemke is doing, that taking and selling street art became popular in New York and LA several years ago. It’s become so common in New York that some “entreprenuers” are even writing information on where to purchase the pieces on the empty spaces left by the works the steal.

By: pooper

pooper — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 01:03:06 +0000

I guess I want to clarify that I am not angry. I don’t think my email responses are seething. I was just stating my opinion. I think that public art should be left in the public (whether it’s guerrilla or not).

I don’t think this is a good trend for street artists – it is hard enough as it is to keep pieces up. If everyone felt entitled to the ownership then the streets would be empty.

The point is not that we don’t have control over the work, the point is that this guy is privatizing public work.

That said, I do have pieces in private collections. But before I gave the works to the collector, I went out with her children and we posted some pieces on the street. 3 pieces went on the street, and 3 pieces will go in their house.

By: momo

momo — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:46:33 +0000

why doesn’t this person just take a photo? It will last longer.

By: get off of the streets, and into my car. « Thepodcollective

get off of the streets, and into my car. « Thepodcollective — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:40:17 +0000

[...] newcity article. [...]

By: allisonrae

allisonrae — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:40:19 +0000

@missmaam: I think the artists were doing just fine without their work being featured in Lemke’s “gallery show” or being quoted in this article as a result. The implication that they should be appreciative of this 3-day display, when their work has lasted months on the street (well over a year in the case of some of the Grocer’s work), comes across as rather condescending. Far more people see the work and enjoy it – regardless of your personal opinion as to its value – when, as in the case of the avocados, it is not unscrewed hours after its installation to live in someone’s stairwell. By comparison, Lemke’s brief public display is hardly worth owing him a debt of gratitude.

I do agree (and I think many of the artists mentioned would as well) that street art is by its very nature public, and as such subject to potential removal or destruction the moment it is installed. The idea, however, that this work is being “rescued”, where rescuing = calculated removal from public display, is what does not compute.

By: missmaam

missmaam — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:33:29 +0000

It’s funny to me that the artists want to control what happens to their artwork once they post it, illegally, in an urban landscape. Some are offended about Mr. Lemke not “paying” for it, even though he does not re-sell or make a profit on it. If payment is at the core of the problem, then perhaps seek gallery representation and confine your activities there. But trying to control what happens when you hang art in the “wild” is amusing — perhaps the artists would prefer a nice Polish grandmother who has resisted the gentrification of her neighborhood to grab these pieces for herself? I bet they’d declare that somehow more “authentic” of an act than Mr. Lemke’s actions. “Stealing” from the public? Wishing to become “part of the landscape?” The concerns for widespread “public enjoyment?” Ridiculous, really. Why look — Mr. Lemke’s actions have resulted in images of Grocer’s and Ms. Harkins’ so-so work being featured in a widely read urban newspaper, and their own gallery show this week. The self-regard here is pretty breathtaking, but that’s never been in short supply among Chicago artists, especially the civic-minded ones.