Thanks for pointing the way to that article; maybe I should read October more often.

Speaking of which, I think a clarification is in order: It’s hardly as though I’ve never seen a picture in Juxtapoz that I’ve liked or read an article in October that I thought was interesting; my beef generally is with the agendas those magazines represent.

Whether or not it’s “cheerful”, the famous pile-of-candy-that-refers-to-AIDS isn’t much more interesting when you look at it then when you just hear about it.

Plus it takes up valuable museum space that could be given over to a Sean McCarthy drawing. (Which you do have to actually see to enjoy.)

Claire Bishop makes a similar point to that of McCarthy in her October article “Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics” in which she also brings up the piles of candy and spends a good deal of time talking about Tiravanija’s meals. She does note that the piles of candy add up to the weight of his partner at the time of his death from AIDS so in that sense that artwork isn’t entirely cheerful.

One section of her article goes like this: “The feel-good positions adopted by Tiravanija and Gillick arereflected in their ubiquitous presence on the international art scene, and their status as perennial favorites of a few curators who have become known for promoting their preferred selection of artists (and thereby becoming touring stars in their own right). In such a cozy situation, art does not feel the need to defend itself, and it collapses into compensatory (and self-congratulatory) entertainment.”