Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Jan 2000 09:17:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1739 times
|
| |
|
|
"Scott E. Sanburn" wrote:
> Dave Schuler wrote:
> Dave & All,
>
> > Guilianni (sp?) made an interesting observation during the whole obscenity
> > debacle last year when he noted that, had the work slandered a Star of David
> > or a rendition of Muhammed, it would likely have been reviled as Hate Speech,
> > followed by public outcry for its removal.
>
> I think the biggest thing in regards to this was that the art in
> question (Madonna, elephant dung, etc.), in which Guliani was referring
> to, was paid for with taxpayers money. As an advocate of eliminating the
> NEA (National Endowment for the Arts), this is another example of
> government waste. We can go on and on in terms of what art is and isn't,
> in which I agree with both of you, but I don't think public funding for
> any projects like this are needed. If you want to make it, fine, but
> don't expect me to pay for the tab.
>
> Scott S.
>
> P.S. I think we are all artists in some ways. Our medium? The brick! :)
<crassness>
Incidentally, I had some bird dung on a brick once (don't ask, I left it out overnight in the
yard accidentally). Does that make it art? :)
</crassness>
I'll say the same thing about the "shock art" displays that I said about the Catholic Church
excoriating "Dogma": It's great publicity, and far from vitiating the target, it's
extolled. Artistic endeavours (which those are, whether or not you agree that it's "art",
because that's how they've been categorized in the professional world) die most quickly when
blasted by the critics--which parts of this "shocking" art show were in London--and ignored
by the population and by the politicians. (I believe it was the same show--except they hung
a stuffed, dead horse from the ceiling, and this was the most notable part for the UK. The
British response was for scions to deem it pedestrian and then ignore it as best they could.)
On the other hand, I absolutely don't want to see Jesse Helms deciding what art is and
isn't. As to the comparison with Jewish and Islamic symbols' defacement, there are other
issues operant there which *aren't* operating when you talk about Christian symbols or the
"Caucasian image," because the latter two are considered the majority in this country. We've
been taught that majority/minority status shouldn't matter and that all is equal, but it does
and it isn't by dint of our perceptions. Shock also works best when it's directed at the
majority group, and it certainly seems to have done its job in Brooklyn.
By the way, I believe there is at least one piece in the Met that depicts Mohammed being
tormented in Hell (from 14th or 15th century France, I think). I'll ask what piece that is,
but I think it's part of a panel---but nobody complains about that.
Had the fellow who created the "Virgin Mary" piece not been Christian, or not had any ties to
the Catholic Church, then you could possibly make that analogy despite the above. But he's
both (just as Kevin Smith, who wrote/etc "Dogma," is devoutly Catholic), so again, the rules
change.
I'll go out on a limb here and say that these "shock art" exhibits *have* contributed
positively--by forcing us to address them, whether to defend or assail. Art is supposed to
find the edges of expression, and this has definitely done that. For my $1.50 that goes to
the NEA and NEH each year, that's worthwhile, even if (as in this case) I personally find the
exhibits in poor taste. (I live in NJ, and my girlfriend--an art historian--and I have
absolutely no interest in going, except possibly for the Schadenfreude value.)
best,
Lindsay
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| Lindsay: Thanks for some great insights on the topic, in the following quotes and elsewhere: (...) Just to dispel some of my own ignorance here, how "Christian" is the artist in question? And what kind of ties to Catholicism does he have? I mean, my (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| Dave Schuler wrote: Dave & All, (...) I think the biggest thing in regards to this was that the art in question (Madonna, elephant dung, etc.), in which Guliani was referring to, was paid for with taxpayers money. As an advocate of eliminating the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
