Today Sun Mon
It is forcast to be Partly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Partly Cloudy
22°/18°		 It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 27, 2012
Mostly Cloudy
22°/15°		 It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 28, 2012
Chance of a Thunderstorm
24°/14°

25 Comments

news

The Devil and Mr. Jonsson

By David Topping

20081217OCAD.jpg
A little over a year ago, Thorarinn Ingi Jonsson walked into the Royal Ontario Museum, left a bomb just inside its entrance, and walked out. The bomb, of course, was fake, a replica created for a class project at OCAD, but that hardly mattered: it looked just like the real thing, and when it was discovered, wrapped in a plastic bag with a note that said “this is not a bomb” on it, it shut down not only the museum and a significant stretch of Bloor Street but an AIDS fundraiser. Jonsson spoke to Torontoist before turning himself in to police; after that, he was thrown out of OCAD, charged with (and pleaded guilty to) mischief, placed on probation, and returned to Iceland, before coming back to Toronto in February and, only recently, speaking to press again.
Not too long ago, we asked Jonsson if he wanted to do something for Torontoist about his past year, now that he’s off probation and back in the city. Jonsson was interested, and he’s chosen to express himself with—appropriately—more art, though the only thing this piece might threaten is your carpal tunnel syndrome. It’s a 640 x 5184 pixel image (appropriately titled loka.jpg) that includes some familiar imagery: OCAD, Old City Hall, the ROM, explosions, planes about to crash into office buildings, etc.
Jonsson says that the image is “a narrative of my interactions with institutions and their mortal employees for the past year and a month. The underlying creed these institutions live, kiss and kill by is underlined in the coldness of their building materials.” So now you’ll surely get it! Jonsson’s piece is after the fold.


20081217jonssonrom_01.jpg20081217jonssonrom_02.jpg20081217jonssonrom_03.jpg20081217jonssonrom_04.jpg20081217jonssonrom_05.jpg20081217jonssonrom_06.jpg20081217jonssonrom_07.jpg20081217jonssonrom_08.jpg20081217jonssonrom_09.jpg20081217jonssonrom_10.jpg20081217jonssonrom_11.jpg20081217jonssonrom_12.jpg20081217jonssonrom_13.jpg20081217jonssonrom_14.jpg

Filed under: , , , , , ,

Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • dowlingm

    Who the fsck left that idiot back in the country? Oh I forgot, we don’t care unless you bring in too much booze or smokes.

  • Lands Down

    didn’t you hear, dowling? his rich parents donated some money to some poors or something and goldenboy lived to art another day
    note to other obscure artists seeking exposure – silly stunts will get you more coverage, so long as you call it recontextualization

  • davedave

    If Mr. Jonnson had left a printout Loka.jpg in front of the ROM instead if his fake bomb they still would have shut the street down so nobody would have to look at this trite piece of shit.
    I’m sure Torontoist readers would much rather hear Mr. Jonnson tell us about all the amends he has made with his volunteer work with CANFAR, whose fundraiser he selfishly destroyed.

  • ked

    what a twat

  • pamela

    I don’t think this guy deserves the attention he’s getting. :(

  • beth maher

    This is lame on every level.

  • mister j

    I think this guy is great.

  • Gauldar

    meh.hem

  • PickleToes

    The sooner his parents’ money runs dry the better. Then the lame attempts at art will stop as he switches from sticking it to the man to getting a real job.

  • Ben

    Not too long ago, we asked Jonsson if he wanted to do something for Torontoist about his past year

    This person has successfully gamed the system. By doing something newsworthy a year ago, he continues to get exposure. This happens even though his art is bollocks (see above). This city has 10000 artists who are more talented and deserve more exposure than this guy.
    To be fair, you do give a lot of exposure to these 10000.
    Back to Jonsson, his work is uninspired and lazy. I hope the original is 640 pixels wide.

  • spacejack

    Those have been Photoshopped. I know because of the pixels and because I’ve seen quite a few ‘shops in my time.

  • qviri

    Nitpicker here, since the guy is Icelandic, referring to him as “Jonsson” or “Mr Jonsson” is incorrect. Most Icelanders don’t have a “last name” as we know it, in this case Jonsson means literally “son of Jon”.
    You’re referring to him as Jon Jr when his name is Thorarinn. Use the full name or the given name.

  • davedave

    gviri
    How about I just refer to him as most Torontonians do: Mr. Talentlesshackdipshitson.

  • mister j

    yeah, art belongs in a gallery, between frames!! (sarcasm)

  • rek

    rarrr, he’s the worst person evar!!! rrrrarrrrrrr!!! kill him with sticks and stones!!! art is a weapon!!!!! rabble rabble rabble!

  • EricSmith

    Ah, audience participation. He does something stupid and pointless, we all say that it’s stupid and pointless. Call and response.
    Also, congratulations to David Topping, who, by commissioning this piece, wins the dîner de cons.

  • Karen Whaley

    I’m meh about it.

  • matt1256

    Two mirrored photos, terrible execution and just…boring. Real artist that man is. Also, I’m still failing to see how a fake bomb is art. It’s a replica. What he did with it was being a shit disturber.

  • friend68

    if this is the quality of stuff you are commissioning, maybe i won’t miss torontoist that much after all.

  • pamela

    The fake bomb is art. It was an object strategically placed to create emotion and response no matter how negative it is for whatever poetic purposes MR. Jonnson has devised. This isn’t the first time art’s created such a reaction. People are still debating the merits of Michelangelo’s David’s penis as art. Mr. Jonnson’s work is a success because it’s received publicity, was commissioned and here we are discussing it. I don’t necessarily like this guy’s work, but it’s all art.

  • fantasygoat

    Someone should submit this to Photoshop Disasters.

  • David Topping

    For what it’s worth, when we conducted a poll about the ROM piece’s artworthiness last December, 25% of respondents said it was, 75% said it wasn’t. There’s a clear victor, but it wasn’t a total blowout.
    And just so there’s no confusion about this “commissioning” thing: Torontoist did not pay Thorarinn any money for this; he volunteered it.

  • Lands Down

    Whether it was art or not isn’t at issue, it’s whether it was stupid or not, and I think most agree that it was stupid.
    Your giving him a platform to display his dreck (opinion) only rewards his stupidity.

  • andrew

    At first, I thought it was a stupid stunt pulled by a thoughtless art student. However, as the public weighed in on it, I realized that Thorannin’s piece accomplished a lot only after the vitriol began, as he must have known it would. I still don’t agree with his method for provoking public discourse around art, specifically in the realm of public security within North America [and the Canadian, and Toronto, context] after the September 11, 2001 attacks. I do not believe he is stupid. I appreciate the thought and effort put into his piece. I am still troubled by questions I cannot answer, provoked by the piece: what is art; is it only determined by the artist’s actions, or by an audiences’ perception, as art; is it only determined by a majority opinion, as art, or perhaps by experts; if the art is conceptual, and requires a public response, is there a limit to the piece; and how can I reconcile what I see as art with many people’s opinions that it is not art?
    I am unmoved by the above collage he submitted to Torontoist.

  • Madstah

    Here’s a question : if the main conceptual artistic pivot being cited (for the ROM stunt) is recontextualization, what is the original context of a fake bomb? A fake bomb has no original context. Marcel Duchamp placed a urinal, a functional worldly object invested and fashioned with human utility and design, in a context which stripped it of it’s function in order that it would be appreciated outside of common parameters and ‘re-seen’, so to speak. This is what Mr.Jonsson referenced when prompted to justify his bomb-replication art; Were we to assume that he meant the recontextualizaton of WHAT WE IMAGINE TO BE a real bomb? If so, even still, is there a typical or conventional place for a bomb? Bombs are meant to destroy any kind of thing or place. Even public places where there is an assumed safety, like at a museum. Or does he mean the context of Canada itself? Perhaps here, a bomb gong off in a public urban setting is a new context, which would make his art about the presumed security of Canada and our reactions to any tangible, immediate threat (as opposed to hypotheticals we all read about in the papers and all kinds of magazines).
    I just wanted to open that one up a little since the word ‘recontextualization’ gets thrown around a lot, and cavalierly. I think a little clarification would help the ‘is it art’ debate.
    And the collage above is, in my opinion, interesting; not the most moving piece I have ever seen, sure, but i think if you put your hatred aside for a moment and stop worrying so goddamn much about whether it’s shopped of not (since it so OBVIOUSLY!!!!!!!!! is), and actually try to examine the symbolism he is trying to get across, it’s not all that bad. Who cares if there are 1000000000000000 other artists out there who ‘deserve’ to have exhibition attention. What do you know about art if you don’t know it’s merits are subjective? What is the original context of a fake critic? Hmmmmmm.
    Anyway, I consider it conceptually interesting. it’s a first-hand, personal response to a year of violent public reaction towards a reactionary artist. oh no, i called him an artist, how sacrilegious! it’s ‘art history’ evolving in real-time.
    but most people just prefer to hate. clearly. and most people hate to be envious, so they pretend just to hate.