Arts
OCAD Student Granted Discharge After Fake Bomb Incident at the ROM
As reported in The Globe and Mail today, Thorarinn Ingi Jonsson, the OCAD student responsible for planting a fake pipe bomb outside the Royal Ontario Museum and passing it off as an art project last November, was given a discharge in a Toronto courtroom yesterday.
Jonsson is reported to be remorseful - he has made an apology, done a great deal of community service and had his parents contribute funds to the ROM and the Canadian Foundation for AIDS Research for his part in disrupting the AIDS fundraiser that had to be cancelled as a result that night.
Is justice served by issuing Jonsson a conditional discharge and nine months probation, or was the judge too lenient?
Do you think that Johsson is a potentially bright young talent, albeit with controversial ideas of what is art? Or should Toronto be pleased to be rid of this young upstart from our arts scene?
Photo by Roger Cullman.
Discussion
26 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
I'm thinking the community service wasn't done out of guilt, but as a preemptive measure to help his cause in the upcoming trial.
What we should gravely be concerned about is not Jonsson's artistic act from which no physical harm ensued, rather, we should be concerned about those bogus war theatre acts such as we're committing in Afghanistan, where we're actually killing real people and our soldiers are really dying in some insane script written south of the border. THOSE are the actual crimes, and who is getting punished for them???!
Clayton Ruby's a prominent lawyer. Is Jonsson loaded or did Ruby take this case on pro bono? I hope the judge didn't take the parents donations into consideration when coming up with this result.
Maybe he should be billed for that amount of money and
that requirement--repayment of squandered taxypayers'
dollars become a standard fixture in sentencing.
Throwing ones arms up in victory after leaving a courtroom most definitely is not the actions of someone who had remorse for what they did.
I think he received fair punishment. And by that I don't mean the community service, but more the fact that he'll likely never be respected as a serious artist after this incident.
The very essence of experimental art IS intended to push boundaries. So I have no doubt that pushing them the way he did, he was more than pleased. ( I am assuming he was not aware of the event taking place @ ROM that evening.)
As an artist I can tell you FOR SURE his career is not over, au contraire. Did Jonsson feel genuine remorse, I don't know, maybe he just decided to play the game. But bottom line no real crime was committed except for the potential money lost from the ROM event.
.....
my additional comment - analogy however is that we see these acts of art - installation art/peformance art making- as 'crimes' - yet although Jonsson didn't make the direct analogy through this act - I am making it - we do not sufficiently protest the true crimes being created in the bogus war Canada is fighting....
@Daria: Um... no crime? He made a very convincing item resembling an explosive device, even if that isn't his or its intention, it certainly came off as that, and that in itself if mischief. Not to mention all that panic he created. And that money lost was supposed to go to HIV/AIDS support/research.
i'm sure his reputation is no where close to going down the toilet.
this guy is a poor artist. it's easy to get attention by acting irresponsibly. nothing clever or innovative here, just that which demonstrates a real disregard for the plight of others.
Sooo... created by an OCAD artist, it was art - And art can and in this instance has provoked discussion as good art can.
Let's zoom out from this context for a minute:
What was occurring @ the ROM that evening, a shi shi dinner/dance to raise
funds for AIDS - hmmm kind of a curious juxtaposition, the 'donors' wined and dined *among art* so they'll donate? I mean why not just donate if you care about the problems of AIDS? Kind of smacks of a Diane Arbus photograph.
And.
my other point...what about the REAL BOMBS - in the bogus wars - who is protesting - THEM?
While your points about ACTUAL conflict vs. SIMULATED terrorism are valid they aren't going to lead anywhere as far as this discussion goes. Why not talk about class warfare while were at it?
Obliquely, I am sympathetic to Ingi Jonsson's project. Although I think it was in bad taste.. kind of like Istvan Kantor for this current socio-political climate. What I really find entertaining is how people use stunts like this as a touchstone to demonstrate their hatred/ignorance towards the art in general. I'm sure the comments posted here will be very entertaining! I'm going to make some popcorn now..
I agree that it's far fetched to equate Jonsson 'this is not a bomb' (art symbol) with the fake terrorism of Afghanistan, or did you mean us westerners being the terrorists there, hmmm?...
However, I could see how Jonsson art installation PROVOKED associations and numerous possibilities for discussion and reflection - as provocative art can:
such as -
- why are we as citizens reacting to this fake art/bomb and not sufficiently reacting to the warfare our country is waging..again with *real bombs*?? I mean how many dead Canadian soldiers do we have to see until it's truly enough already (not to say as well Afghani ones).
then -
- why did the wealthy patrons of the ROM AIDS event not realize that they 'were in a performance art piece' - and go with the flow .. instead of fleeing? There was no danger to them after all, was there. Too much realism perhaps?
- do we need such splendiferus parties to attract donations for AIDS? (nothing wrong with great parties of course) but that's not my point - and good to keep this in mind too
- was some money not donated - to AIDS - by these patrons - because of a missed party?
and on an on. and on...
oh and Terry
NO you can't come into the school with a toy gun and and consider yourself an avant garde artist!! The work in question here was created by Jonsson, an artist with an artistic intention and this intention/idea comes from a lengthy context of art history of art created in this or these genre/s.. while at the same time, possibly breaking some new ground..or at least opening up conversations...
.. now I'm out for a few hours :) .. before the :::::::::::::: rains come
Daria
I respect that it may be difficult to understand this, and see it as a mere misguided prank. To assist you I'd have to summarize the entire history of 'conceptual', 'performance' and 'installation' art, and alas I can't to that here.
But it you're truly interested, next time you're in a book store look at some
books on the art genres I mention and it will give you an idea... from where
to begin.
all the best,
Daria
I definitely believe the latter is the case here. None of Thor's explanations have made sense. He says this is about recontexualization [I probably butchered that spelling, so please forgive me], but I've seen his sculpture. It looks like a pipe bomb in every possible way. There is no such thing as recontextualization when something only ever has one context. That 'sculpture' would have elicted the same reaction anywhere, post OR pre 9-11.
Him calling in a bomb-threat only has one context. Whether it is 2008 or 1998. I recall a bomb threat called into my elementary school in the early 90s (pre 9-11 and post cold war) and the reaction was quite the same. They understood that the chance of it being a real threat were slim to nil, but regardless they evacuated the school and had gotten the police department and bomb squad involved. 9-11 didn't -ever- change the context of something that looks exactly like a bomb (or even the context of a non-existant one).
Like someone had said on an earlier discussion, if he had used a jello mold or something instead of a very realistic looking sculpture, he could get away with using his recontextualization BS.
I really wish people like Daria would stop coming to the defense of people who give their hobby/profession a bad name. I understand the importantance of pushing boundaries, but there really needs to be a distinction between those who do it for a reason and those who do it just for the sake of doing it.
If TIJ thought this sort of thing is considered as art, then perhaps he should try strapping fake bombs on his body on the city streets and face the possibility of being snipered by the police. Don't try to push the boundaries of art by being a coward and getting bailed out by mommy and daddy.
Isn't this considered as a misdemeanor or threat of causing harm? If you want to voice your opinions by use of art, try sticking with paint brushes and canvas.
It was a stunt masquerading as art from a misguided artist who obviously did not think about the possible repurcusssions of his project that seem obvious to most. Half a million dollars to cancer research gone... what a shame.
Daria, I doubt you'd be so earnest in your regard that art is meant to push boundaries if you've lost anyone to AIDS or any type of vigilante bombing.
Art or not, it was irresponsible beyond belief and the fact his intentions were artistic has zero merit as a defense of his actions. Just plain childish stupidity.