yoko has friends?

I agree that there is a wide grey area about whether Mae's actions would be considered ok or not in terms of the artwork, but her own statements about it do little to make me want to take her side. She comes across as someone who deliberately did something provocative that would result in a negative response (seriously - otherwise she'd have done it when she wasn't on the clock), to bask in the glow of attention generated from someone else's work.

"She chose to be an artist rather than to be a guard ('for me it was a higher calling,' she said)..." Yeesh, how freakin pretentious can you get.

yes pretentious. but she'll probably get alot more attention for her action after having been fired. and then she'll do a whole show about it, and jen will cover it in the stranger, and the whole tedious and self-referential circle jerk will continue, and everyone can pat themselves on the back...

p.s. good luck finding a job in this economy. i hear the "higher calling" sector has been particularly hard-hit by the recession...

She should have just set them on fire and used the now-wet ashes after the sprinklers came on to write Yoko's name on the wall with.

She's a regular Blaine Patnode, she is.

Ohmygoodness! Amanda talked to me about this at a party last week -- she invited several of us to come out and watch her "performance piece". I would have come if I hadn't been working.

Wow.

@6 - Amanda was not on duty during this; she was doing it specifically as a patron of the museum, not as an employee.

Did she do this on the clock or not? That makes a bit of a difference to me in what I think about this. If not, I don't see how firing her makes any sense. If so, I think it's a little grayer... maybe firing her on the grounds that she wasn't doing her actual job at the time, sure.

But, regardless, what a bunch of bullshit this statement is: "altering a work of art hanging on the wall of a museum is never really an okay thing to do." I mean, for crying out loud, the whole point of what you're doing with that piece is to break museum "norms" and have it be interactive. You can either make rules about the interaction or not. This museum did not (e.g., they could have put up a sign that said "feel free to add your contribution, but please don't remove anything).

Sorry I was not clearer about this: Mae's performance was *not* while she was on the clock. She came in on her day off, as a patron.

I just spoke to her again. Her termination letter reads, "It is inappropriate for staff, especially for security staff, to do anything with the art other than protect the art, and to protect the intent of the art. You took it upon yourself to dismantle a piece of art, which is not your prerogative. It is for these reasons that you are being let go from your employment with the museum."

I asked whether she wanted to be fired.

"I didn't want to be fired, no, I wanted to engage with the piece of art, but it should be noted that I had given my notice recently—but I hadn't finished my shift yet," she said. "I wasn't trying to be fired, for the record. I was just surprised that they misinterpreted the effort so much that it became this other thing."

If she wasn't working (the post make it sound like she was on duty), that makes a difference, I guess. But I do think it's fair to hold employees to a standard of behavior when they're the 'customer'. I mean, if a server comes into a restaurant and does a dine + dash, would anyone be surprised if they got canned the next time they showed up to work?

Like I said before, she clearly meant this to provoke, not just other attendees but her employers. Not saying she shouldn't have done it, but if her intent was to still have a job afterwards, one would think she'd have checked in with SAM about whether what she wanted to do was kosher or not.

Not to join into the "circle jerk" but my brief artist statement about this performance is available on my website: ninethermidor.com under the "projects" page.

Here's an idea: don't fuck with shit that isn't yours.

Here's another: don't put Yoko Ono in your museum. She was an interesting sidelight in the giddy 60s London art world, but that was forty years ago. Her stuff is impossibly dated and lame today. Just another dead end. It didn't get better with heroin, either.

I am a Landmark Member of SAM and we went with the kids a week or so ago and added our own scrap to the piece with the provided hammer and a nail (a ferry schedule since we came in to the city that way). It was packed with interesting things and we saw some stuff falling off and figured it would be left that way to the end of the show. I don't think the employee should have messed with it - very poor judgment - and I agree with SAM's decision here.

The fact that she was "creating" her own installation seems like a firing offense to me, but I guess I'm just sick of artists who won't create their own work.

wait - you gave your notice, and then they fired you? unemployment check bonus!

Wow. This is kind of unbelievable and makes me wonder if there was some other reason why she was fired.

It is key that she did not violate the rules. Nowhere on the title card does it say "Take out the trash in your pocket and nail it to the wall." Nowhere does it say that nothing should be removed. The premise for the interaction with this piece was totally random, which makes SAM's reaction absurd. Does Michael Darling know the career boost he gave Amanda Mae by firing her for this?

Museum Studies?
All that awaits her is unemployment or a job with poor pay and no future. Although, I must admit, pulling off this stunt after having already resigned was quite clever. I wonder what she has planned for the Museology faculty.

A) She was fired on her last day.
B) She lied and told people (other guards/her boss) That she had permission.
C) Yoko wanted to keep the piece intact so it could be photographed and documented.

Its to bad that Ms. Mae hadn't gotten permission and done her piece on the last day of the show after Yoko got her documentation. It would of made for a thought provoking close to the show as opposed to an attention spectacle.

@11 - But a dine + dash is clearly illegal. A better analogy would be, what if a server came in and was a rude customer. To me, it would depend on exactly how rude and exactly what was said/done as to whether it would be appropriate to fire the off-duty server.

I have no comment on the value of her actions as art. But, it seems like, the museum wouldn't want just a regular person dismantling the work (which is fine by me). But, I wonder what would the repercussions be if a regular patron did it? Would they just be asked to stop? Would they be kicked out? Would they be arrested?

The action wasn't explicitly prohibited and to me it falls into a gray area of what might or might not be appropriate. The piece was interactive and there were no explicit rules vs. her actions violated the spirit of the piece. There's no clear answer, which is why firing her seems like not a proportionate response.

@21 - That's additional context (#2 and #3, anyways), which, if true, changes my opinion. She should have been fired.

And @18 - typically you don't get unemployment if you're fired for cause.

This girl wants attention, we're all giving it to her. Guess who wins?

Happy fame, Amanda Mae.

Another good reason to boycott this 3rd rate museum.

Jen,

Isn't the overarching issue here the line between conceptual art and the market or institution? In other words, conceptual art is about an idea, not an object. I look forward to Ono's reply because the idea that Amanda Mae is suggesting has to do with the role of museum curator (remember all our fun experiences during the NEA IAJI)? In the end, I've never quite been able to grasp the idea of art wholly and purely as concept, because museums collect and display and galleries sell. Every scrap of paper is now a part of this art and Mae's response is equally a part of the art. It is no longer just a concept but an object. There's a reason artists like Donald Judd took matters into their own hands and created their own personal spaces--interference from curators and museums.

Leanne Goebel
http://leannegoebel.com
http://adobeairstream.com

I can't imagine Yoko Ono having a problem with what Amanda Mae did; I would think that she'd find it mildly amusing at worst (or best). Maybe she'll have another laugh with her friends and forget about it.

It's interesting that the curator didn't let the public in on the real intent for the piece: that the debris-posting was started by a museum employee; that a decision was made to allow it; that other decisions were made regarding what was not to be allowed; that the fallen "notes" (more like gum wrappers) were being meticulously saved for Ono; that it was to be documented at the end.

That Mae was privy to this information as a museum guard makes it clear that it was the curatorial work she intended to offend; not the artist's.

This "installation" of Mae's failed NOT because she took advantage of a platform that wasn't hers to get attention and serve her own interests. Artists do that all the time. It failed because she was ethically clumsy, letting her "higher" efforts get tangled up with her responsibilities as an employee, even though she was not working at the time. She was quitting her job anyway. By getting herself fired -- as opposed to simply quitting -- she'll be eligible for unemployment benefits. That's manipulative and sloppy.

Doesn't make a difference if she was on the clock or not. The museum admin's fucking anal and pretentious and deserves a swift kick up the ass.
ART IS SERIOUS BUSINESS!

REEED BOOKZ. MORR OF DEM.

THEN MEBS I WILL DEIGN TO IGNOR U.

I think I'd like to ADD about 2 yards of concrete and incase the entire piece. Or how about ADD twenty feet of razor wire around it? The statement by S.A.M., that it's an "Add Only" piece, is a lame excuse and a frail attempt to protct themselves from litigation. If it was "Add Only" then state that next to the piece, in big bold letters: "PLEASE ADD TO THIS MOCKERY AND DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING FROM IT OR YOU WILL BE SHOT ON SITE!".

Darling and his cohorts should be removed from S.A.M. immediately and not be given ANY authority when it comes to ART!

Everybody comes off looking like a jerk here: Amanda Mae, SAM, and Yoko Ono.

It's unfortunate that this peice evolved the way it did, in the least organic way possible. SAM gave everybody the pacifier that they would have cryed about by removing the nail that was driven through the chain connected to the hammer. This nail in effect crippled the peice and made it very difficult to get any momentum when swinging the hammer. Somebody at SAM decided that the people of Seattle deserved to to feel important and removed this nail. This action alone extended the life of the peice and enabled the giant tribute to garbage and nothingness that exists on the gallery wall today. I'm sure Yoko Ono would be very pleased to see the droves of fannypack wearing rednecks that come into the museum just because they have air conditioning, rifle through their wallets and nail whatever reciepts they have to wall. Amanda Mae is pretentious and boring in her her attempts at subversion. SAM is an amusement park and everybody loves that stupid ride with the hammer and nails.

Interesting story and well reported, thanks Jen!

Ridiculous, it's obviously abuse of power of the manager, that's why I hate managers. Good for Mae, I bet she has a better future ahead of her, stay away from the museum! Best, Max.