Greedy anglerfish sculpture for a banker

"Avaritia" is a new mixed-media assemblage from Jud Turner: "The name is taken from the Latin term for 'greed' and the bait this mechanized angler fish is using is a coin from 1799. Heightening my enjoyment of the subject (greed) it's a commission for a German financier!"



  1. That rocks hard, very well done Mr. Turner.

    (This is the same person who did the repurposed-parts goat, right?)

  2. I thought the symbol for mindless capitalism should be a snake devouring it’s own tail, but this works, too.

  3. I’m always interested in artists who use up precious irreplaceable things.  A historical coin isn’t that great of an example, but it’s still something that is somewhat rare and precious – and yeah yeah, it’s probably $4 on eBay but that’s not the point.  Sometimes the consumption of the unique and interesting can be positive and productive, other times the things being permanently repurposed were better than the sculpture/collage/art that comes out of it.  I think the most heartbreaking example was watching an artist cut up 100+ year old hand-drawn piano part schematics for a collage/sculpture thing, though watching someone break apart a working Burroughs adding machine runs a close second. 

    1.  That coin doesn’t look particularly “used up”…  I understand your point but I don’t see how it applies to this particular piece.

      1. Maybe it’s welded or bolted in place?  Maybe not.  I’m assuming the artwork is meant to last forever, therefore the coin is forever locked in the artwork.  It’s one thing if the artist is going to break the sculpture apart in a year and that the coin was just an actor on a stage of many pieces, it’s another if it’s committed until the end of time. 

        1.  It seems like you’re objecting to the Mona Lisa’s frame.  If this object has value, securing it non-destructively (I see no signs of damage) can only increase its chances both of survival and of being seen and appreciated.

          Like I said, I see your point when someone irrevocably destroys an intriguing artifact to make something of questionable artistic merit, but that just doesn’t seem to be the case here.  The art’s market value is already more than that of the coin, and the artifact has gained increased visibility instead of corroding away in a coin collection nobody ever shares with the world.  If all other examples of this coin perish, but this one survives due to the quality of its “framing”, antiquarians may be grateful.  Committing it “until the end of time” is only a problem if it’s destroyed in the process.

          1. I don’t think the frame reference applies.  The frame was built to, ur, frame the canvas.  This sculpture thing doesn’t frame the coin.  You can remove the frame from the Mona Lisa and still have a Mona Lisa, as has happened in the past, but traditional sculpture can’t sacrifice a piece of the sculpture and still be a sculpture – the “magic” is broken or something like that. 

            Like I said, my argument assumes the coin is bonded to the sculpture in some way.  It is consumed.  And like I also said, I don’t know if this is actually the case in this particular piece.  

        2.  The coin is forever locked into the art, by design. I was waiting for someone to bring up the destruction of something old for the sake of new art. It’s an interesting tug of war and you and Ito both articulated way better than I could have. While you’re discussing it, I”ll be in the studio abusing any material necessary to visually communicate the things that burn inside me.

          1.  Thanks for taking the time to share, Jud.  You chop your gomi up more than I do, but the results are visually quite arresting.  I like this one particularly; I just wish the coin was free to spin (everybody’s a critic, eh?  It’s excellent as it is).

            Did the movie adaptation of James and the Giant Peach influence you at all?  If not, you should watch it!

  4. Very cool. The re-purposing of hardware/scrap metal into sealife reminds me of “The Deep” (2010), a stop-motion short by the animator PES: 

  5. Well done Mr Turner (why do I feel like Johnny Depp as I type this ;) This reminds me of a sculpture I saw at Google – I think it was a series of fish – big fish devour small fish, in turn to be devoured by bigger fish… rather an apt symbol of this tech eat tech world.

Comments are closed.