Sunday, November 13, 2005

The power of images

For centuries, there have been tensions between art and morals and politics. It all boils down to how visual we are, how much importance we give to images (think how Semitic religions absolutely forbid idolatry, which is why Islam has no iconography). Artworks belong in the aesthetic realm, that is to say, they deal with matters of taste, rather than matters of fundamental importance in human interactions, like morality. People know that a movie is a movie, but the depiction of certain narratives can stir profound emotions to the point of violent reaction and censorship. Is it Ok to censor (or condemn) images just because they touch "difficult" subjects? Can one conflate artworks with the real thing? On the other hand, is there a limit that an artist should not trespass for fear of hurting individuals or a group? In what follows, I’ll show some images that have stirred a great deal of controversy. I commented most of these artworks in class, except Oldenburg’s "Free Stamp" and Ofili's "Virgin Mary," which was made with elephant dung. Ofili's painting was part of the 1999 Sensation exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum and was publicly attacked by Mayor Giuliani, who threatened to withhold $7 million per year from the Brooklyn Museum of Art if it didn't cancel the exhibition. Oldenburg's sculpture is one of the most controversial works of art displayed in the City of Cleveland. Free Stamp is a massive aluminum and steel sculpture with its large red handle sprawling across the lawn and metal base sinking into the ground displaying the word "FREE" in backwards letters to passersby on Lakeside Avenue. Many see it as an eyesore that is inappropriate for a location at the heart of the City’s Civic Center.

22 comments:

Dominic Halley-Roarke said...

I've already stated my opposition in previous posts to the idea that art should be subjected to any sort of censorship, including self-censorship on the part of artists, because its manner of treating a "sacred cow" offends some, or even many, or even the majority. No gets particularly offended if the advocates of the flat earth theory, or evolution by extraterrestrials, are ridiculed and their ideas made the subject of derisive commentary. But the minute it involves an established religion, there's all sorts of indignation.
I find most shock art, however, horribly boring-the Piss Christ, and the dung Virgin don't hold my attention for any longer than it takes to make some quick evaluations of their aesthetic qualities. Neither says anything analytical about the problems with beliefs systems these icons represent. And there is plenty--how about a Madonna in a straight jacket, to symbolize the limitations that this so called "role model" for women puts on them? Or better yet, since this concept that a women's obligation is life is to bear children is the center of the Virgin cult , why not depict the Madonna as a member of societies that have had a similiar restriction on the self-determination of women? How about a Madonna in traditional Islamic veils, or as a Nazi hausfrau??
In regards to Christ, perhaps we could show the Christ figure as a victim of a sacrificial rite in one of the societies we consider primitive, such as the Aztec or Mayan, to show how he is a symptom of the unquenchable human desire for sacrifice?? My point again is that there is not much useful in art that merely shocks, or offends, but says nothing about the nature of the subject. The suggestions I've made would do a good job of offending, but at the same time have some actual critical content.

amanda said...

People must remember that art is meant to make a statement that rises reactions out of the viewers. Many people uneducated in the arts are not aware of this, they see painting as only still lifes and realistic portraits that should be pleasing to the audience or something you would hang on your wall. We all know this is untrue. Censorship limits art's strongest asset to society, showing the truth about the culture. I once saw an exhibit in a contemporary musemum which displayed naked gay men having anal sex, and i was disgusted at the idea of the photos. but when i look back on it i realize the piece was reality. homosexuality is becoming more frequently portryaed to the public, it is not something we can ignore. Censoring only makes society less aware of what is going on in their culture. It is extremley important for art not to be censored because the news(viewed and read)is already so heavily edited to please viewers morals.
i see why cleveland did not like oldenburg's stamp...it is so guady and demanding of attention...yuck!

Heidi said...

Yes it’s OK to censored or condemn some pieces of art. You don’t have to be controversial; you have to be good and original. Olifi’s Virgin Mary offended a lot of people, including myself. First of all I thing there are better materials than elephant’s dung and choosing that subject was on purpose, just to create controversy. I think the artist shouldn’t hurt viewers. I like to go to an exhibit to enjoy art, not to get upset.
Heidi

Anonymous said...

Hi, I'm not a classmate, just an art lover.

Ofili's use of dung was not intended to shock; its use was based on dung's status in certain African traditional cultures as a sacred and valuable commodity (dung is used as fuel, which is essential). His usage is not unlike the usage of gold leaf in many depictions of the Virgin Mary, which, one might be able to argue, could be an offensive usage to those peoples whose nations and culture were plundered by the Europeans. Just a thought.

Josh said...

the previous statement raises a good point about the material. the piece is made in an african style of painting, and i guess there is actual significance to the use of dung other than to create trouble.

although pieces like the piss christ are offensive to me and i don't agree with them. i still feel that they should be allowed into galleries/museums/whatever. they are art in their own right and if you don't like it, then don't look at it. if it does offend you to the point it compells you to voice your opinion, state why. you have just as much right to comment on that work as the artist has to show it. it would be a travesty for an artist to show a piece to spark controversy and then not allow anyone to give them their two cents on the piece.

although an artist should have the right to display their work, they should think about why they want to show it. if it's made just for controversy, i think that's complete garbage. why produce art to piss people off? we have enough negative messages thrown at us everyday with the news and people's attitudes and other unwanted criticism. why add to that with fine art? insulting things such as religion is no better than racism. if you are an athiest or agnostic and you don't believe in christianity, islam, judaism, hinduism, etc., don't go around making art that slaps people in the face that do. some people devote their entire lives to religion, and then to completely disregard people by defacing what they hold dear. that's pitiful. you might as well be spouting out a racial slur.

if that's what you want to do, i have no interest in censoring you. but what i'm saying is, just think about it before you do it. REALLY THINK ABOUT IT.

Naomi Witt said...

We live in America the land of free seach so by all means as long as you dont hurt anyone in the production process creatae whatever you want, just undertsnad that you have the choice to say what you want and others have a right not to be subjected to things they find offensive.

sierra said...

wow, i guess im shocked that so many are offeded by piss christ. I feel like the purpose of art is to convey a feeling and evoke emotion from the viewer and any emotion is better then no emotion. Its like sometimes its better to cry because at least your feeling SOMETHING. So to me these artist did their job. We dont know all of the intentions and thats why its ok (unlike a racial slur.) That is the beauty of art, you can have all these intentions but the viewer doesnt nessesarly know them, therefor you can get away with a lot. Christ was human once and as you all know, we have to "pee." Maybe his intention was to remind us all that Christ was human too so that we can better relate to him. If not and his intentions were just to piss people off, then oh well, because it is a beautiful piece in an unconventional medium. If it wasnt titled piss christ and you didnt know what it was made out of would it still offend anyone?

Nydia said...

Wow, everyone has said so much that I find myself speechless! Just kidding! The first thing that comes to mmind though, is that I feel if people truly kow what they belive in -religiously or morally or what not-and they are stable in their beliefs, then maybe they shouldn't get too offended when an artist comes around that makes total mockery of a belief system because if one is confident in their beliefs, then they should be able to take it in stride. But to be realistic, I know that is better said than done. Myself, for example, I was rasied Catholic and taught some of the stuff in the Bible and everything but I do not totally practice my religion. I agree with some parts of it and I don;t agree with others. Maybe that is why the "Piss Christ" and the Poop Virgin Mary dom't offend as much as they would offend another individual. I look at it and say to myself "How freakin' wierd...whatever" and move on. But I understand that there will be others that will have a thousand times the reaction I did. Therefore, I believe that no artist should be censored-so long as they don't physically hurt anyone in the process-and that everyone else is allowed to bash on it if they don't like it. I just think also that if artists are going to say something controversial in their art piece, then get ready for the onslaught. I may not agree with some of the art work that is out there, but I will always defend the right for it to be viewed and created just like i will always defend the right for the viewer to react to it negatively and positively- so long as no one is physically hurt in the process.

Anonymous said...

Just passing by and really curious about your discussion. I guess art has different sides to it and we must keep an open mind. I don't find any of the work being shown offensive, but I don't know much. Good luck with your site!

anita said...

is ofili the same guy that has work at the Rubell collection?

i'm gonna make my statement short and simple.
art can offend and well, i guess tough luck for those of us who are offended.
i don't see anything wrong with making art just to piss people off.
why must there be a good reason behind doing something?
why must there be "substance" behind it?

Natalia said...

I think that art should be completely free. Through art we express our feelings, ideas, and thoughts and this should not be suppressed by morals or “laws”. I do not even think that morals apply to art. An artist can portray immoral things and show them artistically but this does not mean that it is something real. It is simply a painting or portray of that act. The line is between the abstract and the action

Dominic Halley-Roarke said...

OK to censor certain works of art? Why? Is the meaning of the word CENSOR clear? It means to suppress, including by force of law. And who will decide what gets censored?
Religious belief equivalent to a person's race? How?

Josh said...

although some people might not see it as such, a person's religion is who they are. sometimes the lines are blurred between race and religion such as people who are labeled "jewish."

many people view their religion as an unchangable aspect of their life, such as their race. although you may see it as just a decision, others do not. you have to understand that. some people don't view it as a belief, it surpasses belief to the point where it is visible to others either by actions or "garb."

you've got to put yourself in their shoes and see their world to understand its importance.

smiting a person's religion is something very serious. it's something that most people of that religion are not going to appreciate, because it's degrading a facet of their lives that they revere. you can produce whatever work you want to make fun of shiva, allah, buddha, jehovah, etc...but just consider what it honestly means to other people.

AT said...

Sure, Josh, but theocracies often on the grounds of religion, censor all sort of things (Ex. Iran now, Afghanistan under the Taliban, or Spain in the 16th century). Or the wave of fundamentalism taking over the world (us included). It's dangerous because it coerces basic civil freedoms.

Josh said...

i'm not talking about governments based on religion. i am aware of what they do, and I DON'T AGREE WITH IT. governments who use religion as their policy-maker are oppressing bodies who should not be regarded as reputable institutions.

what i am saying here is that religion, on a personal basis, is something that we should take into consideration when making art. YOU HAVE TO REALIZE (whether you agree with it or not) that a single person's religious beliefs are very important to a person. sometimes it goes to the point of being fanatical. when The Holy Virgin Mary was exhibited in australia, a christian man went into the gallery and squeezed white paint over the canvas and smeered it. once again, i don't agree with that, but you have to realize that people consider religion so important that they will risk strict judicial action to destroy a piece of art that mocks their beliefs. at a show where "piss christ" was shown, two boys went into the museum and one kicked a picture of Klansmen as a distraction while the other boy hammered at piss christ to destroy it. both acts of vandalism were described, by the boys, as reasonable. the klansmen photo was seen as an INDIRECT recruiter of australians into the KKK. the boys said that they could easily see their country becoming "taken over" with the KKK. of course, they also described piss christ as blasphemy.

now, as i am restating to make this point clear...these actions areVIOLATING FREE SPEECH. what was done to these works is vandalism and they should be prosecuted as any art vandal would be. but just understand what art like this does to people. stop thinking about just yourselves for a minute and consider others. realize that you are insulting these people in one of the harshest ways possible, and if that's what you really want to do--be my guest. but realize that people are going to react (sometimes destructively) and when do they, don't be surprised. in their minds, you are destroying the integrity of their religion, and they see it as justifiable to destroy your work. so if it happens, don't bitch about it, you asked for it.

AT said...

I understand your position Josh. But I ask shouldn’t a state --in a secular society like ours-- ensure that the rights of peoples to express themselves with artworks are protected from vandalism and/or murder? Look what happened to Van Gogh (the grandson of the painter) who was murdered in Holland for making a documentary that revealed certain misogynistic practices among some radical followers of Islam. They felt outraged, put a death sentence and stabbed the man an afternoon. Here, a film was the cause of the problem.

Lisa Schwal said...

I know this is such a late post, but when it comes to images, i feel that i'm becoming a bit apathetic to controversy, especially now since i've had to sit through cooper's presentation and accept that the symbols he uses are ART. the piss christ.. doesn't bother me. the elephant dung virgin mary.. kinda cool. Hey.. this is coming from someone who is painting an image that depicts batman as our lord and savior. will people find it sacrelige? probably.. but who cares, it's something that i want to do. I understand what these artists must go through. Yes there is the possibility that some people will not like what you do, but you're not doing it for other people, in the end, you make art for yourself. Of course there are those times when you have a commissioned piece in which you must conform to, ,but like i said.. in the end, it's all for you. People just need to get over the fact that the piece of art was most likely not intended to personally piss you off (or heck, maybe it was!) But you know what.. what's the beauty of it all.

anita said...

well said lisa!

Josh said...

triff, are you serious? do you even think for a moment that i say it's ok to hurt others for their art?

the state should completely protect everyone from harm. if someone is assaulted or murder because of art, then the assailant should be treated as any violater would be. it's against the law and the state has to take action against the criminal.

if this was an ideal society, this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion. it's nice to believe that everyone has freedom of expression. in a sense, that's true. although it may have to be taken to the supreme court, our government (today) has to accept art as long as it is not physically damaging to someone's well-being. unfortunately, everyone does not hold the same view as the government. they feel that they need to take the law into their own hands, and drastic actions are taken against artists sometimes. of course, they should pay the consequences of their actions. sadly, this is the truth. those people are out there and there's little one can do to stop them.

piss christ and the virgin were both taken down by different galleries in the middle of exhibition not because of gov pressure, but because of fear of unruly crowds. the directors/curators did not want anyone to be harmed as a result of the art pieces (bomb threats were made by crazies). innocent people, who had nothing to do with the art, and the artist could have killed by fanatics "protesting" the piece. it's sad that we live in a society of hypocrites, but that's the nature of the beast

AT said...

Josh. I take you for a smart liberal boy, with strong convictions (thank God for that). I'm just stirring the discussion into different angles, which is my job.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I've left coments before and wanted to ask if I can participate in these debates. I'm an artist from Atlanta, and just happened to find this blog by chance. I think your debates are cool and gather that this is some kind of course.
JT

Dominic Halley-Roarke said...

To say one is an advocate for the 1st Amendment while even suggesting self-censorshiop on any grounds (including "respect" for others feelings/beliefs) is absurd. There won't be much use for it if "offensive" ideas are suppressed by those who would produce expressions of them. This is essentially suggesting that the individual accept the totalitarian way of thinking and perform the mind-destroying function on themselves. (Although I do wonder where totalitarian authorities would express their sadistic impluses if this were the case.)
AT referenced the situation in Holland, and the murder of Van Gogh. This experience I think points out that there is at least one thing a tolerant society cannot tolerate, and that is intolerance. The fact that this intolerance is part of many religions, and therefore is so much a part of what some people hold most important, is all the more reason why it is extremely dangerous and has to be fought at private level, as well as the public.