What People Are Saying About Fairy Tales, Monsters and the Genetic Imagination



In the Pick I wrote on The Frist's new exhibit, I said, "The overlap between crowd-pleasing and thought-provoking seems slight, but it’s one of the first things that comes to mind when considering Fairy Tales, Monsters and the Genetic Imagination ... " It was interesting, then, that the guest book outside the exhibition is filled with so many comments from people who disagree.

Sure, guest books are rarely the most objective records of an exhibit. Only those who are moved to record their thoughts in a public venue do so, and most leave anonymous screeds that are comparable to a blog's comment section — a troll here, an earnest advocate there. There was plenty of positive feedback in their guest book, as well, but the faction of Frist's audience who found the exhibit disturbing and inappropriate for kids was, frankly, a little surprising to me. Jim Ridley's post from last week about creepy kids' movies got me thinking about the same dilemma — aren't kids much more resilient to weird stuff than grown-ups? Shouldn't every kid love Roald Dahl, R.L. Stine and Patricia Piccinini? Or am I just overestimating most people's desire to push boundaries?

For an exhibit I think should be an across-the-board hit, there are a few detractors fairly early on. Read through their comments below, and leave your own here.

“ … wished it had showed the positive side along with the darker side of things. … This art is more for shock value ... "

“ ... just disturbing the viewers …”

Not sure whether this is a positive or negative response: “Creepy is the only thought/emotion evoked!”

Amateurish? Really? “I am glad I did not pay to see this" ... “It was inspiring and wonderful"

"This idea of genetic experimentation is wrong and sick ... "

How's this for range? “This was the best exhibit yet ... " and the next person calls Meghan Boody annoying and Charlie White obvious.

Comments (7)

Showing 1-7 of 7

Add a comment

Add a comment