comScore
Uncategorized Thursday, May 12th 2011 at 4:36 pm

Man Steps in Peanut Butter, Destroys Art

The man pictured above has just stepped in Wim T. Schippers’ Peanut Butter Platform, on display at the Rotterdam Boijmans van Beuningen museum. The work, which consists of 1,100 litres of delicious sandwich spread over a 14m x 4m expanse, probably sprang from Schippers’ belief that, “in principle everything is meaningless and absurd, but is therefore worth the effort nevertheless.”

That has not stopped three people from accidentally blundering into the work. The museum, for their part, has remained unmovable on the matter. Yes, they say that the patrons should have to pay for the damages they have caused the art. No, they won’t erect a guardrail around it. Why? Because of aesthetic concerns. According to the Google translation of this Dutch page, “Peanut butter is no floor to the fence because a fence is not beautiful found.”

While their position is understandable, and the work quite striking, it seems silly that the museum has refused to respond to how their space is being used and put up a guard rail. Furthermore, it is a bit harsh to charge patrons for damaging a precariously placed work of art that has to be re-made every time it goes on display anyway. Unless it’s all just a dastardly plot to fleece unsuspecting patrons. Hopefully, this will be the last of the embarrassed art-goers to fall victim to Schippers’ work. If you’re in Rotterdam, watch your step.

Read on after the break to see museum workers assembling the work, comprised over 2,000 normal jars of peanut butter.

(ADNL, news.com.au, via Neatorama, construction image via Juxtapose)

Filed Under |
  • http://twitter.com/darrenmason Darren Mason

    OK children, if you paint with peanut butter on the floor – even in a museum, you should expect and enjoy that people will step on it as part of the process. Someone should go do a peanut butter angel…

  • http://profiles.google.com/leftlaneglass Claire Harris

    Pay for damages?!

  • http://profiles.google.com/leftlaneglass Claire Harris

    Pay for damages?!

  • Anonymous

    I mean it’s peanut butter. Damages would probably be like 3 dollars.

  • Darren Wilkin

    My response to a claim for damages would consist of two words – the second one would be ‘off’!

  • Anon

    Pay for damages? Kiss this. That’s what property insurance taken out by the museum is for. The museum ought to be held liable for dry cleaning bills though.

  • Filthyike2001

    Art is dead.

  • Redneckotaku

    Just wait til the ants show up. >:^D

  • Anonymous

    THIS is art? That’s it, I’m photographing my floor the next time my kid throws food on it. Pay up, suckas. WHY do I bother creating REAL art??!

  • Citizen

     What a bunch of pretentious frakwads.

    They smeared peanut butter on a floor and called it art. Seriously. 

  • Connormccleary

     DO YOU WANT ANTS? BECAUSE THIS IS HOW YOU GET ANTS.

  • Connormccleary

     DO YOU WANT ANTS? BECAUSE THIS IS HOW YOU GET ANTS.

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, not everything one CAN do is WORTH doing. Oy.

  • http://twitter.com/Gauldar Rob

    This is one spot where I would want my toast to fall butter side down. 

  • Max

    This is the dumbest piece of work i’ve seen. I remember when are was a way to display talent. Somebody should spit on this sort of useless work. Not because it’s art, but because it’s not art!

  • Archietectureismusic

     waste of food, some people in Africa cant find anything to eat and theas guys are wasting food on a floor i think its a descrace to humanity not an art work  cant find anything to eat and theas guys are wasting food on a floor i think its a descrace to humanity not an art work 

  • steve

     its probably no good anyways

  • steve

    good point. good point.

  • Gino

    I would go back to the museum, walk again on that “piece of art”, slip and fall down to the floor, then sue the museum for such a dangerous thing not adequately marked

  • Juliano

    it is a load of crap that NEEDS people stamping on it

  • Tidiios

     what do you call real art? do you mean CRAFT?! illustrations for comic books or video games? cute landscapes or fruit paintings? black and white cheesy photographies?  nothing very offensive, easy art for uneducated people that things anything they do is art, and their kids make better art than people that have been studyinand working for 20 years. Peanut butter floor might not be good, but you silly comment is worse! and ignorant. Go read and study a little more about contemporary art, conceptual art, art 21 artists, venice (& others) biennales prizes, etc… It is not about the material, or the facture, contemporary art is about process, concept and theory.

  • Anonymous

    Huh, funny, I sell an awful lot of it…

  • Anonymous

    I seem to have hit a nerve with the pretentious people up in here.  Firstly, illustration is no less of an art than any other.  Secondly, I’m calling bullsh*t on this guy’s work. I think it means nothing.  I think he saw an opportunity to make people ooh and ahh over crap.  I think the joke is on you. Yep, I don’t like it, and I’m entitled to that opinion.  Get over it.

  • Kichi

    As an aspiring artist this honestly gives me so much mixed feelings, and not really good ones either. For all i know i could just take a nice sh*t in a bowl put it on a pedestal and say some frilly pretty artsy words and suddenly ART. I would have rather that floor of peanut butter be made into better use in the culinary art… at least you’d be able to stare and eat it… * shrug*

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000071970602 El Torsalo

    Not to start a fight, but rather, to start a discussion, I propose that art is a way of seeing and being in the world. It is pointless to talk about art without accepting that it varies for each viewer/beholder. Beauty was once a defining characteristic of art, but no longer. Perhaps that is troubling, but art in our age has been about “shocking the middle-class” since the Fauves started painting in vivid tones and hues in the late 19th century. Wim Schippers work serves to illustrate the point explicitly. Aside from the color, texture and size of the work, it rests on a notion of nihilistic ethics and resolves this by doing an absurd act anyway. It can be understood, but one has to be willing to (sorry) enter into the work and into the artists rationale. Not being willing to do so does not make the work less art. It makes the viewer less artful. No dodge intended…