On March 21, 2009, artist Paola Pivi flew 84 fish by plane over the Tasman Sea as a work of art. Each flying fish was enclosed in a glass bowl and sat on a seat protected with a seat belt. The fish traveled a total of three hours until touch down in Auckland, New Zealand where they were greeted by an audience. A film of the flight and the landing will be played in Central City Park for mass consumption.
Aside from the pilot and crew members, Paola and her assistants were the only passengers that flew with the 84 fish. The work was commissioned by Auckland Art Gallery curator Natasha Conland for the New Zealand-wide One Day Sculpture series of temporary public art works. Paola Pivi gained exposure with her 2003 piece which featured a donkey floating in a small boat.
I chose this piece of performance art because it was certainly striking at first glance. It seemed like such an interesting idea, considering its play on words, "flying fish." I still haven't decided how I feel about it, however. In one aspect, I don't really see the point. Although Paola would not disclose how much this project cost her, it was reasonably inferred that it was tens of thousands of her own dollars. It's hard for me to understand why someone would spend that kind of money to fly 84 fish in a plane for three hours.
In another aspect, however, it's a very delightful image. It's very ironic. So much so, that it makes it that much more interesting. I also see it as no coincidence that she flew them over the sea. To think that fish can only survive in water, and now they're being flown in the air over the sea, is just very thought-provoking. And because of this, I think it is a successful piece because I feel like people will remember it.
I'm usually not a fan of performance art because it's often more rooted in concept or the artist's ego rather than being aesthetically pleasing or even aesthetically interesting. I do agree with you here though.. It certainly is a striking image. At the same time though, as an act or performance, it seems kind of silly. Wouldn't a set up photo or a painting have sufficed?
ReplyDeleteI found interesting, too. "Flying Fish" sounds very romantic. I can imagine some kinda children fairy tale from this phrase. However, in the reality, fish has to fly in glass balls filled with water. It is kinda sad, but I think it is a very interesting idea and nice done (with lots of money). I was wondering why 84 fish... are they all different kinds? Or to see the different reaction (sounds like science experiment). I guess 84 is the number of the seats on the plane???
ReplyDeletewell, I'm guessing more interesting if all fish was different kinds.