Christopher Martin Creed Analysis

5 Things about him:
° I like the materials he uses
° I like the placement of his work
° I like the way his work deals with and creates limitations
° I dislike elements of simplicity in his work
° I like the titles he uses in association with the work

I like the materials he uses:
Martin Creed uses materials from the everyday world to create his art. He will often use office supplies such as clean white paper, blue tack, polystyrene and cardboard. What interests me about using such materials is that he places these common supplies, used in a common way in an elitist arena such as a gallery. He is using materials which are considered ‘low art' materials and places them in a ‘high art' environment. I enjoy the way he uses such commonly
79: Some Blu-tack kneaded, rolled into a ball, and depressed against a wall' which consist of quite literally a small amount of blu-tack pushed into the wall show the extreme simplicity which is often seen in Creed's work. I feel that this work lacks. That's it, the work is so (almost ridiculously) simple, and so is my response. It lacks in aesthetic qualities, in evoking an emotional response other than ‘huh?!' and in depth of meaning. I find it quite simply to be lacking. Creed would go on to talk about this particular work as a creation of things. But what has been created? He bought some blu-tack and pasted in on a wall in an art gallery. In one positive note he is possibly looking at the power of the gallery by seeing how far he can take his ‘art'. Questioning what art is in relation to a gallery. But one thing remains the same, Creed still considers thumbing up blu-tack on a wall art. I feel I am liberal to a certain extent when looking at art, but this simplicity bugs me. To me it is the same as getting a bit of tape, sticking it to a gallery wall, titling it and saying its art. I don't buy it. I like a lot of Creed's work, and the issues discussed around it. But I have difficulties believing this work is for real. Is he taking the piss? Laughing in the face of the critics and audience who say they ‘enjoy', even praise this work? I am suspicious of his intentions when creating such works. Maybe this is the point, for me, as a viewer to question his intentions. Thus, creating this uneasy tension between the work and the viewer. I this work stresses me out, for example; how is it moved? Does it always remain exactly the same? These question I find perplexing and confusing, and without an answer. How can this work even remain authentic? It is in part these questions that bug me and allow me to doubt the intentions of the artist. It is works such as these that are considered ‘popular' and ‘extreme' in art at the moment. Thus, we reach