When I first saw these “kid’s drawing re-enactments” by Korean photo artist Yenndoo Jung, I totally crapped my pants. But I was going over some old bookmarks the other night and thinking: Some of these are kind of half-assed.
Is that mean?
Like in “Afternoon Nap.” They’re supposed to have colored track pants on, not pink and red PJs. Every one seems to have a major error in it. He got the squiggly line wrong in “Cinderella,” the suit color wrong in “Fox’s Magic Trick,” and why couldn’t he have made it six tall yellow flowers in “Giant Flowers” instead of two purple ones? If you’re going to take kids seriously you have to do it literally or the point is lost. These should have been in studios and they should have been EXACTLY the same as the drawings.
I haven’t been this down on a Jung since I realized analytical psychology was bullshit.
Leave a Reply
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
i wonder if street boners and tv carnage attribute their success(?) to scientology. i would.
05.30.08 at 12:13 pm
This art makes me feel like I’m in love or something equally amazing like the prospect that all of my childhood dreams are still a possibility. But I think the picture with the 6 hanging penises should be more literal for sure.
05.30.08 at 6:24 pm
yeah yeah donna, EVERYTHING’S bullshit. way to kill a crotch phase. listen my dad is a jungian psycho therapist and while I have witnessed that many of his colleagues are definite self absorbed bullshitters, I think he does good work and seems to have helped a lot of fuck ups alright? some of you are just too fucked up to be helped mind. I agree though these recreations should have been exact or it renders the whole thing pointless.. seeing something like this done half-assed is just depressing, kind of like VICE Magazine circa ought 6 thru 8
06.01.08 at 6:14 pm