For the most part, it was for me like a wake attended by strangers. I know those houses very well, having lived near them for over 26 years. I knew people who lived in each of them as well, I was glad to have a chance to be in them all once again, but found the works made of them to be superficial. Like the horrible Bellagio Condo, down the street, most of the works lacked any real contextual relaltionship to the houses. I found the rooms covered in clothing to make sense since they at least spoke to the erstwhile inhabitants of the houses. Most of the work left me unmoved, it could have been anywhere.

"Hype is the awkward and desperate attempt to convince journalists that what you've made is worth the misery of having to review it."- Federico Fellini

I haven't gone inside the homes yet- I live within a literal stones throw- but since it came up I wanted to agree that yes, the Bellagio Condos are a FUCKING HORRIBLE EYESORE.

I lived in the Bellagio. It was superb.

I thought the art was ok, but mostly I marvelled at the lovely houses themselves, suffering a final indignity (at least in the case of the Allan Packer house being spliced up) before their needless destruction. It's not the most successful installation - the environment retains its own strong identity in most of the houses, rather than being incorporated - but there are moments of real beauty and decay.

Pales in comparison to the art blowout that was the Bridge Motel pre-destruction art installation(s).

I think it depends on what you think the exhibit is trying to do. I've also lived within a few blocks of those houses for 26 years. Historically, their destruction represents another step in an ongoing process of destroying our past as we move into our present and future. These houses have a particular cultural relevance because they appear recursively in our cultural history; things (houses, cars, furniture) that were built prior to 1940 feature heavily in the junk-art aesthetic of Baby Boomer pop culture; hippies lived in cities abandoned during white flight, and furnished their homes with "garbage" that didn't fit into the "modern" aesthetic of the suburban middle class. So the destruction of these houses represents the destruction of several layers of urban history and culture.

On the other hand, insisting that the destruction of every old thing must refer to its larger historical context is an attempt on the part of the old to force the young to acknowledge our importance. It's arrogant, and while I think history is important, and should be understood and acknowledged in a general sense, young artists shouldn't be bound by it. The houses are just houses, and it's fair to use them to speak to other metaphors -- "house = home" or the loss of private space as society becomes more transparent, etc.

at the risk of repeating myself....
This is a well written, constructive, realistic, and UNBIASED piece on this mess you ALL should read. It is SO REFRESHING to see someone who actually knows how to stay out of the shit generated by the heavy associations of "the klatch", the "intellectual" hipster art gestapo (you all know who your are-black horn rim glasses, vintage flannel, skinny jeans, greasy hair in askew ponytails, and variations on retro facial hair) and the unabashed insecure desire to be part of the "clique" and write something realistic, smart, focused, fair, and balanced about a tragic regional half baked attempt at "changing the game" UNFORTUNATELY for you Miss Graves- THERE IS CLEARLY a new sheriff in town and you better watch your back-they're coming for ya! No, if we can JUST get her hired at The Stranger...

ahhhhhhhh, smell that? that breath of fresh air???

Art requires sheriffs?

i hate to say it, but i've seen better deconstructive art from architecture undergrads. the rubber tent was pretty sweet but i wish it had been better situated and enter-able. but none of it seemed to connect with the homes particularly.

Agree both with Klenow and a couple of others here. I spent a lot of time in one of those houses several years ago, and found the complete lack of engagement with both the houses' histories and the houses themselves to be verging on disrespect.

Worse, by subsuming the houses into the kind of high-art context that these artists inhabit, the memories of years and years of amazing creativity that took place in these places, totally under the radar of Seattle's established-art scene, seemed as destructive an act of gentrification as when the bulldozers will come for the homes themselves.

And seriously, shrink-wrap and put a barcode on it? Seriously?

I really wanted MadHomes to be spectacular and was completely underwhelmed ... the concept has so much potential. I wanted there to be some reference to the history of the houses, even a manufactured history or perhaps a look at destruction and revitalization. Something smart, conceptual ... something that made us think about urbanization &/or loss. So, yeah Jen I think you were way to easy on this project. Seattle is a “be nice” town but critics have an obligation to be well, critics. MadArts is 3 years in now and it’s time they upped the ante and produced projects that actually say something.

For the record, I am not anti-growth or change. I understand that in order to foster density and create living spaces in the city core which reduces car use, requires that many older buildings and single-family houses have to be replaced. My reaction to Mad Houses, while colored by my experience of those houses is not based on knee-jerk emotion. The houses were certainly used but were not necessarily inherent in much of the work. I hope the proposed building is in keeping with the feel of the neighborhood and allows for light and space, something houses with yards afford. We need that in the city.

A bunch of homes in a seattle neighborhood are being used by artists to make art with before they are destroyed and replaced with condos.

The idea here (by a curator, Alison Milliman) is to use artists in a way that is akin to the relationship art/artist have had to urban decay for, like, decades. This usually means artist create studios in places where nobobdy wants to live or work. Traditionally this is a very long process and artist can settle in and actually do things that are swell. Anyway, the point is, you can't really bottle that sort of thing, light it on fire and throw it at "MAD HOMES" and expect anything amazing. If the artists had been given the homes for 7 years, then, awesome. I'm certain the impact of a 7 year residence by this group of artists would have made for very very significant results. The other challenge facing these artist would likely have been financial. How much of a budget were the MAD HOMES artist given to work with? Should it not matter? Working with/around/within a large house and expecting to "reframe" it to overcome/challenge the existing house-image is a daunting task, to say nothing of doing it without a budget.

It is nice to see somebody not play the game.

That magazine looks really half assed, hipster, trust fund bad.
Mad Art is good.
Fuck that whiny, pretentious reviewer/ magazine.

I, like northwestmystic, threw my hat into the art-gument over on the Monarch Review and will repeat myself here:

As a non-Seattle resident, and someone that visited the city and Mad Homes last month, I can speak personally to the fact that the project has generated a great deal of conversation both locally and nationally and did not fail to catch the attention of the greater art world/market. I also find the following points to be problematic:

• This project is a complete missed opportunity, by the artists and curators alike
• [The spaces] would function just as well in a white walled gallery as they do in these abandoned rooms
• Parked in front of the houses are a few large sculptural works whose placement reduces them to glorified lawn ornamentation
• Other works such as Troy Gua’s shrink-wrapped house, and SuttonBeresCuller’s strapping and ratcheting installation are impressive for their scale but are ultimately redundant and don’t offer any deeper discovery.

These are your personal, non-objective opinions, yet you present them as if they are facts – in an attempt to support of your thesis that this show failed to generate a larger conversation? I am a little unclear about that.

I lived in Seattle for 3 years. I love the city with all of my art-heart and will always champion the arts and culture community there. Sierra, I agree. If we all ‘liked’ everything and challenged nothing, the world would be a boring place and progress would not be possible. I do think the tone of this conversation should be more supportive and pragmatic. Lauren, instead of pointing out what you didn’t like about this project, why not plan and execute something more aligned with your personal vision?

ErinT sounds hot. wanna come over? my parents pay my rent.

Troy Gua shrink wrapped a house and put a shipping label in front of it. He did this in part as a response to being told these houses might be moved, in whole, to make way for the controversial development project.

SBC's straps create and comment on the tension of these old houses, they are slowly pulling them apart and together; weeks before the houses will be torn apart.

Both works are funny and poignant; the exhibition overall feels very playful (not that I intended my work to be playful), even with the pieces that have a serious nature to them. And clearly, it has managed to hit a few nerves. Will you forget it anytime soon?

Hopefully for all the interesting points that Lauren and others brought up, and her insight is valuable, the art community in this town can continue to work together to build from projects like this, make 'em better and bigger and get more money behind them so artists have time and energy to create with the freedom they need.