Museum Security Guard Fired For Changing Yoko Ono Artwork Posted: 2 months ago by jasontho
An off duty security at the Seattle Art Museum named Amanda Mae was fired when she removed papers museum visitors had put on a work by Yoko Ono. It is a public participation piece entitled, "Painting to Hammer a Nail." After working for about a half hour, the museum's curator came into the gallery and told her to stop. She was fired the following day when she came in to work. The museum's spokeswoman, said, "The intent of the piece does not include taking things away, only adding things."
Amanda called her intervention, "Yoko Ono Excavation Survey" (Y.E.S.}.
Comments: 5 Score: [-] 198 [+].
< 1 >
Posted: 2 months ago by 2manyusernames:
sounds like a very reasonable firing offense. She knew damn well that such actions were not allowed.
Score: [-] 17 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by abandonedcouch:
Bottom line here is that she was being paid to guard the piece, not interact with it.
If she felt a desire to contribute to the piece (especially in such a time-consuming fashion), she should've done so on her own time. I don't agree that she was committing an act of vandalism as the piece encourages participation, but I don't buy her "higher calling" excuse either.
Score: [-] 17 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by suebe:
Just because she considers herself an artist, doesn't mean she should interfere with another's work.
Great that Yoko had a laugh over it.
Score: [-] 71 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by foxmajik:
« 2manyusernames:sounds like a very reasonable firing offense. She knew damn well that such actions were not allowed. I believe the question is whether the person's actions should be interpreted as integral to the piece.
The piece doesn't state that you are only allowed to add to it, so taking away from it could expand the message the piece delivers.
As such it's possible the employee should be commended rather than fired.
Score: [-] 17 [+].
Posted: 2 months ago by jasontho:
« foxmajik : I believe the question is whether the person's actions should be interpreted as integral to the piece.
The piece doesn't state that you are only allowed to add to it, so taking away from it could expand the message the piece delivers.
As such it's possible the employee should be commended rather than fired. I agree with you fox. The only instructions given were to pound in a nail. Yet people are adding papers, and it was obviously ok with everyone. so that lends credence to the assumption that participation is the key to the piece, not the piece itself. All she did was participate, although from a different angle than most. But, isn't that why we love artists anyway?
Score: [-] 4 [+].
< 1 >