********************************************************
PRADA'S FUTURE AT RISK AFTER PLAYBOY PLAYS COPY BUNNY CAT!!!
"it's an art statement.
And it's on private property."
-Boyd Elder (Smart Person Representative)
THE famous Prada Marfa "shop" may be closed down after
being classified as an "illegal outdoor advertising sign" by the
Texas Department of Transportation. The shop - which isn't actually a working
store but is, in fact, an installation by British-based Scandinavian artists
Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset - has fallen foul of federal law by
displaying the Prada logo on a highway without permission.
THE BACKSTORY? The invasion of Playboy Marfa. The name parallels Prada Marfa - a move, it would seem, meant to
attract the magnitude of attention enjoyed by the original Prada installation.
Like some BITCH CONCENTRATE, this stupid
Playboy stunt has has got the local authorities reassessing what belongs
on the roadside, and a fake Prada shop created eight years ago may no longer
make the cut.
This Catalyst, consisting of a 1972 Dodge
Charger on top of a box in front of a 40ft neon Playboy bunny sign, designed by
the artist Richard Phillips for Playboy has been given a 60 day
lifespan after breaching the 1965 "Highway Beautification Act"
that all display signage must have a permit.
 |
| Installation BITCH CONCENTRATE |
Neither Prada nor Playboy have the Beauty Permit.
 |
| Installation PRADA JOY |
"I would have thought the statute of
limitations had expired,"
Boyd Elder, a local artist and the smart person site representative for Prada Marfa, told
The New York Times. "If it really is against the regulations, they
should have found out in 2005 when it was erected."
Um - crystal DER clear obvious DER difference between the two?!?! ..
Prada Marfa = legitimate art installation designed as a
critique of the luxury goods industry.
It has NO commercial relationship with the
company it portrays AND IS NOT FUNDED BY PRADA, only sanctioned by it, and in
turn critiques it. DER.
The artists refused to gain permission for the
piece, erected eight years ago, because they do not interpret it as
advertising. Although Madame Prada gave the logo-go-ahead,
and provided the shoes and bags that dress the interior of the "shop",
there is "no commercial relationship" between the artists
and Prada.
Playboy Marfa = absolute sales pitch AND EXPLICITLY PAID FOR BY
PLAYBOY, positioning the publication as something "cool" enough for
the kind of people who check out wry, absurdist art installations in the middle
of the desert. Cheap, Cheesy, and reaking of crass consumerism. And what's with
the Dodge on top? Ew!
Prada, however, is never open. Its riddled
with bullets and isn't maintained: its designed to be gradually destroyed by
the desert - or aliens.
Says the Prada artists Elmgreen and Dragset, "If they want to remove it because of bureaucracy, we tear it down," Elmgreen told the New York Times earlier this month.
"And then we can say that one of the quite well-known permanent artworks — that hasn't cost taxpayers anything and that has been elected one of the most-worth-seeing roadside attractions in the States — is no longer."
Both these installations need an olive branch – a legal one. Prada VS
Playboy, Art Vs Advertising. Kinda like a Simpsons episode of Chief Wiggiums
beloved donut sign Vs Andy Warhols soup cans…if that exists?
But then there is silver lining in Prada
Marfa's potentially short life. Maybe this (transport department decision) is
the ultimate reaction to the art itself ?
 |
| While the department decides what do re the “1965 beauty law” I am rescheduling my road trip across the states to duty PRONTO. |
