My first switch involved a much more subtle change of wording to the poster. After all, £30,000 may be a lot to spend on a paint job I'd have done myself for £50, but it does at least look kinda cool. Not real art cool, but still not bad. However, Innes has clearly done his homework on Ways To Ruin A Good Canvas. Davenport's contribution was no Sistine Chapel, but at least he spent a few days at it. Innes brings us the result of half a tin of paint, a spare canvas and a commercial break in The Simpsons. Under such circumstances, I couldn't let him get off as lightly as his rival Ian.
The actual switch was a lot smoother this time. Partly due to practice and partly due to the deserted nature of the top floor of the maths department where his 'painting' is situated. I took advantage of a lull just after lecture change to appropriate the original blurb, wrote up a copy that afternoon and printed off and cropped the replacement to install at the end of the day.
Here's the original: Original Poster
And my constructive criticism: My Version
Due to the more truthful nature of this poster, I don't have the same confidence in its continued presence, but I have the increased obscurity of the painting and the fact that I wasn't seen on my side, so we'll see.
I doubt I'll find another candidate quite so suitable to ridicule as this one was, but if I do, rest assured there'll be another entry here.
This is the official university page of the artwork (which, despite being published well after the switch, unfortunately doesn't use my replacement notice as the source of its information).
June 2007 Update
Due, one must assume, to the more overt nature of this particular offering, it was eventually noticed and removed. In keeping with the general disorganised state of the university administration, however, the current notice states that the artwork (which can still be clearly seen by all but the most unobservant, right next to the notice) has been moved to an exhibition for the duration of 2006. In my estimation, this is even more erroneous than the notice they removed, but perhaps less offensive.
 |
 |
| Previous | Next |
