The statement was not an optimistic proposition. It was disappointment the the bicycles were not used in a more “charitable” way. If it were optimistic the statement would have been.
“Woundnt it be wonderful if the bicycles were donated after the exhibition”
Charity is important. i dont dipute this, but good art is also important.
That piece will most certainly be permanent. It will probably be sold already to a large private collector or maybe a museum, if not it will certainly be for sale. Ai Weiwei’s work is seriously sort after.
Bikes, Ming vases, antique Chinese furniture - these are all material used in Weiwei’s work. In a literal sense they are often destroyed in the process. Are they a waste ? Most certainly not. Comments claiming that they are are made from a position of privilage and ignorance. Privilage, in being from a society wherein freedom of information, speech and movement are taken for granted. Ignorance, in not understanding the context out of which the work was created, and not having a knowledge of the artist’s oeurve; and more alarmingly, implying that art or other forms of self-expression are somehow pointless and unnecessary. Art like Weiwei’s is insightful and clever. He is one of a rare few voices that is able to provide a mirror to contemporary Chinese culture.