rachel whiteread's house

A logical extension of her making negative space positive. She took a victorian in East London and poured concrete in it. She then peeled back the roof and exterior walls. It is now only known in documentation since it was torn down. It really is a fascanating peice with some solid theory behind it. ( ie the immgirants who used east london have left emphamrael marks. Lets consider this, solidify iy) She has not done anything even remotly good since. You can work on one idea all your life and constantly improve it but only if that idea is not a trick. The house was the last ghost. The stuff she has done since is weak . The holocaust memroial in vienna was a direct rip off of house . The fourth plinth was an optics trick and the Day bed is just tony design. I know this is full of opinons .

I liked that house a lot. Didn't it get destroyed cos of philistine avant-garde bashing antics by the local council? Not that the house was partic. avant-garde, it had an old fashioned beauty, almost.

yes it was destroyed by the council, which strikes me as rather a more a Tower Hamlets thing than a Hackney thing to do? i can't find out exactly where it stood though.

I missed the House because I didn't make it to London while it stood. But it looks fab.

I think Anthony is harsh to the point of being wrong about Whiteread's other stuff. Her recent show at the Serpentine was about 80% fantastic, strange and engaging. I particularly loved the casts of bookcases, where the ink from the books had bled onto the casts. I suppose if you insist sculpture be 'about' something (as Anthony seems to above: wasn't aware 'House' was about 'immigrants'; are you sure?) then her work is likely to disappoint. It makes me think about space and substance and absence.

The Plinth, as I've said before here, is gorgeous and is *so* much more than a 'trick of optics'. In fact, I don't really understand what 'trick of optics' Anthony thinks is involved.

It really worries me now that I never went to see the house: I think that must have also been the year I saw about two films. Anthony is so wrong about her other stuff, as well, although I didn't really go for those mattresses at the Serpentine show. The space-under-chair things are wonderful, were the best thing at Sensation. Quite like the plinth: I think it needs to be seen in lots of different stages of the day & night...

Yeah, in Hackney they wd just have nicked the wheels, set fire to it, and dumped it in clapton pond: borough policy.

I have forgot the name of the tower Hamlets "liberal" who waged war on house, but as I recall he was not above making overtures to the BNP councillor elected to a ward in his borough...

Its like i said i ass fucked the queen.

A couple of things. I do not belive that sculpture needs to be about anything. I just thought that the house could have been

I do not live in New York or London , i depend on second hand reproductions as i mentioned in my blog. That said what i have seen from her new work it seems weak. I may be wrong about the plinth. but Nauman was doing underneath chairs in the 70s. The Holocaust Memorial has been trashed by almost everyone i know who was seen it and alot of the writing i have read about it. By the reproductions i have seen it seems to be a rip off of the plinth. I admit i did not know about the bookshelves and they seem intruiging.

I find Whiteread a bit diffcult. I am not sure if she is a minimalist Beecroft ( ie a flim flam artist who know enough about theory) or a structred and intriguing formalist. As i have said in this forum repeatedly I may be wrong

And i did mention they were my opinons.

read house for plinth

Going to mention that Whiteread has a water tower in NYC, but just realized that it was taken down last year. But--where does one put a 12x9 ft resin water tower?

I saw the plinth as the sun was rising; it was quite an enjoyable sight at that time of day.

Anthony: when I saw the underneath of chairs, I didn't "my god, what I fascinating idea", which might be detracted from if Nauman did them first. I liked them because they looked great. And I think Rachel Whiteread is an artist particularly ill-served by pictures and descriptions of her work. I was certainly never excited about the idea of her work before I saw it...

I saw Whiteread's house. I made a pilgrimage with a friend to see it. It was between Roman Road and Victoria Park, near the Chisenhale Gallery. I think the Council actually let it stand longer than they had originally intended, it was always planned as a temporary structure. But the extraordinary amount of press coverage and emotional reaction it provoked made the house a de facto urban monument, like the Eiffel Tower (also intended to be temporary), and at that point the council should have made it permanent.

Okay.
i am now reconsidering whiteread.

ye sthey should have left it. WHat a waste. I bet they pu t up a real estate office or something .