"In this case, though irony is not much in my blood, I find an allure in anything that punctures the American exceptionalism lurking beneath the way we sometimes elevate September 11 above other, just as serious, attacks around the world. "

Elevating things that happen to you over things that happen to others is about as unexceptional and mundane as you get.

Art is meant to make you question and think. It matters not where those thoughts lead or what questions are asked. If it moved you in any way, it succeeds.

“I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.” Steven Wright

@2, That's a pretty low bar for success.

I have to say I loved this show. Unfortunately I did not want to bring this imagery into my home.

The 7/11 was brilliant, as was the gay orgy.

This sounds awesome.

Also, this sounds like the opposite of American exceptionalism. What I find so nauseating about hearing people talk about 9/11 is the constant exceptionalist rhetoric, where something bad finally happened to us and so we deserve the right to act like a big baby on the world stage. This is why 9/11 jokes are so tasteful, because they deflate all of that.

@4: You must not look at too many pieces. Most of it is profoundly unmoving.

Have you ever produced a piece of art that people found moving or inspiring? If so, please let us know where it can be viewed or seen, since it is so easy. Such a low bar anyone can do it right?

I stopped by Tuesday's opening with my family, and although the show was fine (it delivered everything it promised, and well), all I felt was absence. The content and crowd, the tone & approach to the theme, all taken in the context of the venue (its city, neighborhood and previous tenants), all served to remind me of how mostly absent perspectives of non-white artists are from the mainstream scene, and how mostly absent voices of color are in our ongoing national discussion of all things 9/11. Whatever the intentions of the curator, I walked away feeling that the show--like the broader national conversation in which it's situated--is not "a place for the people" like me.

And that's fine--I just wish we all had the opportunity to also see an IDEA Odyssey curated 9/11-themed show in a traditionally white venue in an overwhelmingly white neighborhood.

I liked the show/party and am glad that Derek staged it in that swanky new/temporary art space, though my main reaction to the mostly successful artwork and general atmosphere was "awkward" and "too soon?". Which, I suppose, was maybe the point?

Did you know you can now buy IHOP maple syrup?

Also, when are you going to talk about architecture again? Been noticing the changed skyline and visual impact of building edges in various non-Capitol-Hill locations where most of Seattle lives ...

you people in seattle seem not to understand a lot of things, huh?

Everything about Derek Erdman and art seems to revolve around making lazy, "ironically" crappy work without subtlety or thoughtfulness.

@12: According to your "about me" page, your response to "What's worse: Gay marriage or black people being allowed to listen to R&B?" was simply "Blacks."

In this case, I'm subtly calling you racist.

I guess Jen didn't see my thoughtful, unironic flower arrangement.

That flower arrangement made me high.

Jen Graves will defend your right to allow that flower arrangement to make you ironically high.

And she's going to do it while wearing a beret.

I cannot see thoughtful, unironic flower arrangements because I wear my beret so low!

@7, You misunderstand me. My complaint with your comment isn't that it's really easy for a work of art to induce an emotional experience or to provoke thought (it's not - though, most of the art I see here in lower Manhattan moves me to annoyance and provokes me to ponder the artist's mental capacity, so maybe it is easy), but that this annoyingly common belief about what constitutes good art misses half of the equation – the artist. Being moved emotionally and being provoked to thought are good and fine, but are you having the experience the artist intended? If not, the work of art has failed, and is quite possibly bad art.

Please Jen Graves, feel no sympathy for the woman who pulled the final block.

@18, to think that a piece art has failed if the viewer doesn't experience the art in the manner that the artist intended is baffling to me. Art that has only one interpretation is the definition of bad art.

@20, it's okay, @18 is in LOWER MANHATTAN you see, and therefore can't hear you over the din of self-importance.

@4,

I have to disagree. That's an absurdly high bar. What about art that's purely decorative? Is something that's merely pretty not art? Is it bad art?

@20,

While I agree that art doesn't have to be interpreted a particular way for it to be good (in fact I have little to no patience for artists who bitch that their work isn't interpreted "correctly"), I think your statement is even worse.

Is a beautifully done portrait of a human being "bad art" because it's not intended to make a statement? What are the myriad interpretations of Michelangelo's David? If there are no diverse "interpretations" of that work, does that make one of the best examples of sculpture in human history "bad"?

Is "bangkok revenge" a sequel to "bangkok dangerous'? is Nic Cage in this one too?

@23 I think we're more in agreement than not. And the point is moot because a single interpretation is impossible. All art is interpreted as many ways as there are viewers. One person thinks David is sublime. Another thinks his wang is obscene. Michelangelo's intent might add some interesting backstory to the piece, but ultimately comes secondary to the individuals experience.

@Keshmeshi, I share your lack of patience for artists who complain about having their work misunderstood. If an artist wants to be understood, it's their responsibility to speak a language their audience can understand.

If an artist can't speak intelligibly with their art, they are probably not a good artist.

That's my self-important LOWER MANHATTAN opinion.

@13- Never respond to your critics. Take that time working on something that doesn't look like you never learned to draw.

And I just find R&B is almost always terrible.

Don't boss me, racist.

Ooh, I left for the day and things got all spicy up in here.

@22: I am personally moved by beauty, even if it is just decorative. But of course, ideas of "beauty" are even more subjective. But if only one person finds it movingly beautiful, who is to say the piece has failed?

Perhaps a flaw in my statement is the rather general and immensely subjective idea of being "moved." But it is just a comments section after all.

@28- You like it.