Also, I find it so richly ironic to hear the Strut, of all places, argue over the merits of "good" vs. "bad" art and whether it should be funded. Replace "modern art" with "music" and I think people would suddenly be rethinking their position.
I don't think anyone here is arguing over whether or not they personally think art should be funded. I also don't think it's remotely ironic that a bunch of people who regularly bash corny or pretentious music should switch their focus to modern art.
Offensive garbage is offensive garbage, even moreso when it's pretentious.
Also, I find it so richly ironic to hear the Strut, of all places, argue over the merits of "good" vs. "bad" art and whether it should be funded. Replace "modern art" with "music" and I think people would suddenly be rethinking their position.
I don't think anyone here is arguing over whether or not they personally think art should be funded. I also don't think it's remotely ironic that a bunch of people who regularly bash corny or pretentious music should switch their focus to modern art.
Actually, now that I think about it, you're exactly right.
I think strutters would find much of modern art to be "good" (whatever that means around here) vs. contemporary art.
All I can say is I'm constantly amazed at my wife's ability to evaluate art. Provided, it's partly her living but she's more artistically open-minded to be sure.
Also, I find it so richly ironic to hear the Strut, of all places, argue over the merits of "good" vs. "bad" art and whether it should be funded. Replace "modern art" with "music" and I think people would suddenly be rethinking their position.
I don't think anyone here is arguing over whether or not they personally think art should be funded. I also don't think it's remotely ironic that a bunch of people who regularly bash corny or pretentious music should switch their focus to modern art.
Actually, now that I think about it, you're exactly right.
well, now that we have that cleared up---i have nothing against modern or contemporary art in the least--but the perception that the latter is a hoax is out there and it has been disastrous for public financing (remeber the dung virgin mary in ny?).
but the perception that the latter is a hoax is out there and it has been disastrous for public financing (remeber the dung virgin mary in ny?).
Chris Ofili art career is doin fine despite Guliani ordering the MTA to re-route certain trains to prevent folks from seeing the Elephant Dung/Virgin Mary.
If folks wanna call those works a "HOAX", fusk them. The media spun that shit and the dummies took the bait. Dude wasnt even tryin to "offend".
That was far from the Serrano Piss-Christ.
Even then...to stand behind the whole "general consensus" is suspect IMO.
I'd like to understand how "Controversial to the General Public" Art stifles Public AND Private Funding?
Moreover, I don't know how far these controversies damaged public arts funding - I think that would have been the product of a more conservative administration regardless of the works actually being put out. A controversial exhibit provides a scapegoat but even without it, programs like the NEA would likely have been endangered.
Chris Ofili is good art tho. and the use of dung is just to support the painting for something to stand on, and he's been using that trope for years before he painted the Virgin Mary. poor example.
I'd like to understand how "Controversial to the General Public" Art stifles Public and Private Funding?
i can;t speak to the private art market; what you said previously about the ever-shifting tide of ballers and shot-callers in that world is probably correct.
in terms of public funding i think it's important for the government to foster the arts (visual, musical,etc..) but, there is a sector of the public who do not want their tax dollars spent on what they may perceive to be frivolous, offensive garbage. unfortunately, that sentiment makes it easier for politicians and administrators to strip arts funding from their budgets.
i have nothing against controversial art per-se.
btw didn;t guliani also pull public funds from the brooklyn museum and threaten to kick them out of the building they have been in for the past 100 years?
in terms of public funding i think it's important for the government to foster the arts (visual, musical,etc..) but, there is a sector of the public who do not want their tax dollars spent on what they may perceive to be frivolous, offensive garbage. unfortunately, that sentiment makes it easier for politicians and administrators to strip arts funding from their budgets.
But again - I think people have this backwards. If you don't think the arts should be funded with public money it would be incredibly easy to spin any number of exhibits or works as "frivolous, offensive garbage." It's not the controversy that manufactures the de-funding; I think it's the ideological desire to de-fund that manufactures the controversy or at the very least, spins controversy into a justification when, really, all they wanted was an excuse.
But can you imagine an art world that lacked controversy? Is that even desirable?
The guy next to me said, "my kid could paint that".
Naturally I launched into a defense of modern art, explaining the discipline and concept required and on and on.
Until finally he stopped me and said, "I'll have you know that my kid has a degree from the Rhode Island School of Art and Design, she did her graduate work ??coles d'art en France. Her work has been shown at the Brooklyn Museum of Art and she has a piece in the Guggenhiem collection..."
The guy next to me said, "my kid could paint that".
Naturally I launched into a defense of modern art, explaining the discipline and concept required and on and on.
Until finally he stopped me and said, "I'll have you know that my kid has a degree from the Rhode Island School of Art and Design, she did her graduate work ??coles d'art en France. Her work has been shown at the Brooklyn Museum of Art and she has a piece in the Guggenhiem collection..."
in terms of public funding i think it's important for the government to foster the arts (visual, musical,etc..) but, there is a sector of the public who do not want their tax dollars spent on what they may perceive to be frivolous, offensive garbage. unfortunately, that sentiment makes it easier for politicians and administrators to strip arts funding from their budgets.
But again - I think people have this backwards. If you don't think the arts should be funded with public money it would be incredibly easy to spin any number of exhibits or works as "frivolous, offensive garbage." It's not the controversy that manufactures the de-funding; I think it's the ideological desire to de-fund that manufactures the controversy or at the very least, spins controversy into a justification when, really, all they wanted was an excuse.
But can you imagine an art world that lacked controversy? Is that even desirable?
these are chicken and egg distinctions and i'm not doubting that what you you say is entirely possible (especially as it relates to the fox news demographic).
sapping art of its ability to arouse controversy would certainly be undesirable but it seems the avant garde ran out of steam about 30-40 years ago.
writing on the dung-virigin mary, prof. paglia had this to say:
But here's the bad news: the avant-garde is dead. It was killed over forty years ago by Pop Art and by one of my heroes, Andy Warhol, a decadent Catholic. The era of vigorous oppositional art inaugurated two hundred years ago by Romanticism is long gone. The controversies over Andres Serrano, Robert Mapplethorpe, and Chris Ofili were just fading sparks of an old cause. It is presumptuous and even delusional to imagine that goading a squawk out of the Catholic League permits anyone to borrow the glory of the great avant-garde rebels of the past, whose transgressions were personally costly. It's time to move on.
I guess one's belief in the death of "the avant garde" depends on whether "avant garde" is treated as a noun or an adjective. Paglia's argument that Pop Art killed the avant garde is common enough but to me, it just seems like yet another iteration of "[fill in name of artistic, musical, literary movement here] is dead."
The core issue was whether or not controversial art is bad for public funding and I think there's a convincing proof that would link the two. Public funding for the art is more of an ideological issue around government policy and spending priorities than it is, in my opinion, about the worth or purpose of art. There might be blowback over a specific piece but only on a small scale. The large scale defunding of public art programs seem more about a philosophy of government than a philosophy of art.
Ofili's Painting w/ the Elephant Dung foot-supports is not controversial.
Its a mis-interpretation that the media ran w/.
Saying: it's so easy to spin controversy from any piece of art given its inherent subjectivity.
"How dare he put doo-doo w/ The Virgin Mary?"
It was just a few years ago. I'm sure we all remember people, who had never seen and knew nothing about his work, weighed in to say that it was a disgusting sacrilege and should be banned and we should stop public funding of the arts until artist start doing great work again, like statues of generals on horses.
Guide to statues with generals on horses in DC: All four feet on the ground, never wounded. Three feet on the ground, wounded. Two feet on the ground, killed in battle.
I don't know if this is true, but it is what we believed as kids.
Ofili's Painting w/ the Elephant Dung foot-supports is not controversial.
Its a mis-interpretation that the media ran w/.
Saying: it's so easy to spin controversy from any piece of art given its inherent subjectivity.
"How dare he put doo-doo w/ The Virgin Mary?"
It was just a few years ago. I'm sure we all remember people, who had never seen and knew nothing about his work, weighed in to say that it was a disgusting sacrilege and should be banned and we should stop public funding of the arts until artist start doing great work again, like statues of generals on horses.
Guide to statues with generals on horses in DC: All four feet on the ground, never wounded. Three feet on the ground, wounded. Two feet on the ground, killed in battle.
I don't know if this is true, but it is what we believed as kids.
uh-huh I walked around for a couple of hours trying to find their studio in Brick Lane...and finally to be told I had missed them moving out by a week. What I was going to do if I found them, I have no idea....maybe ask for a mannequin lol
I have to agree with the comments from above. You're talking about the assassination of the first black president and this is what you come up with? Giant penises and retitling his autobiography? I think he took the easy road. Shaking his finger, saying "look at all those bad people who hate". This got me thinking about moments when I have actually experienced art that confronts you directly with the hatred that American racism derives from and inflicts upon its victims by placing you inside it.
I think these guys took a much more interesting approach. I was at this show in '91. When Perry made his little "joke", it was one of the most uncomfortable public moments I have ever experienced. You could feel 30,000 white nut sacks tightening in the rain. When Ice came out, you knew what they were doing but then Perry just went f*cking crazy with the seig heils and n-bombs. In the words of Woody Allen, it attained "heavyosity" without allowing for any catharsis like we have come to expect. You didn't feel better about the world when it was over despite the hugs and goofy mugging by Farrell and Ice-T at the end. You felt covered in crap, which was the point I suppose. If you want to be provocative (in the thoughtfulness sense), you had better be willing to go there as an artist.
It helps to remember that this was the height of gangsta rap media hysteria and Ice-T was being publicly run over the coals about Cop Killer, which he sang earlier in the show with Body Count.
Comments
Offensive garbage is offensive garbage, even moreso when it's pretentious.
Actually, now that I think about it, you're exactly right.
TRUE.
I think strutters would find much of modern art to be "good" (whatever that means around here) vs. contemporary art.
All I can say is I'm constantly amazed at my wife's ability to evaluate art. Provided, it's partly her living but she's more artistically open-minded to be sure.
well, now that we have that cleared up---i have nothing against modern or contemporary art in the least--but the perception that the latter is a hoax is out there and it has been disastrous for public financing (remeber the dung virgin mary in ny?).
Chris Ofili art career is doin fine despite Guliani ordering the MTA to re-route certain trains to prevent folks from seeing the Elephant Dung/Virgin Mary.
If folks wanna call those works a "HOAX", fusk them. The media spun that shit and the dummies took the bait. Dude wasnt even tryin to "offend".
That was far from the Serrano Piss-Christ.
Even then...to stand behind the whole "general consensus" is suspect IMO.
I'd like to understand how "Controversial to the General Public" Art stifles Public AND Private Funding?
i can;t speak to the private art market; what you said previously about the ever-shifting tide of ballers and shot-callers in that world is probably correct.
in terms of public funding i think it's important for the government to foster the arts (visual, musical,etc..) but, there is a sector of the public who do not want their tax dollars spent on what they may perceive to be frivolous, offensive garbage. unfortunately, that sentiment makes it easier for politicians and administrators to strip arts funding from their budgets.
i have nothing against controversial art per-se.
btw didn;t guliani also pull public funds from the brooklyn museum and threaten to kick them out of the building they have been in for the past 100 years?
But again - I think people have this backwards. If you don't think the arts should be funded with public money it would be incredibly easy to spin any number of exhibits or works as "frivolous, offensive garbage." It's not the controversy that manufactures the de-funding; I think it's the ideological desire to de-fund that manufactures the controversy or at the very least, spins controversy into a justification when, really, all they wanted was an excuse.
But can you imagine an art world that lacked controversy? Is that even desirable?
The guy next to me said, "my kid could paint that".
Naturally I launched into a defense of modern art, explaining the discipline and concept required and on and on.
Until finally he stopped me and said, "I'll have you know that my kid has a degree from the Rhode Island School of Art and Design, she did her graduate work ??coles d'art en France. Her work has been shown at the Brooklyn Museum of Art and she has a piece in the Guggenhiem collection..."
I bet his kid is doing Mixed Media.
these are chicken and egg distinctions and i'm not doubting that what you you say is entirely possible (especially as it relates to the fox news demographic).
sapping art of its ability to arouse controversy would certainly be undesirable but it seems the avant garde ran out of steam about 30-40 years ago.
writing on the dung-virigin mary, prof. paglia had this to say:
http://www.bu.edu/arion/Paglia.htm
The core issue was whether or not controversial art is bad for public funding and I think there's a convincing proof that would link the two. Public funding for the art is more of an ideological issue around government policy and spending priorities than it is, in my opinion, about the worth or purpose of art. There might be blowback over a specific piece but only on a small scale. The large scale defunding of public art programs seem more about a philosophy of government than a philosophy of art.
Its a mis-interpretation that the media ran w/.
Saying: it's so easy to spin controversy from any piece of art given its inherent subjectivity.
"How dare he put doo-doo w/ The Virgin Mary?"
It was just a few years ago. I'm sure we all remember people, who had never seen and knew nothing about his work, weighed in to say that it was a disgusting sacrilege and should be banned and we should stop public funding of the arts until artist start doing great work again, like statues of generals on horses.
Guide to statues with generals on horses in DC:
All four feet on the ground, never wounded.
Three feet on the ground, wounded.
Two feet on the ground, killed in battle.
I don't know if this is true, but it is what we believed as kids.
Da'Equine Code!
soul strut
lol and somehow the Chapman Brothers' kid mannequins with anuses for mouths and penises for noses passed under the radar...
That was a great show by the way.
Chapman Bros. is my shit.
I walked around for a couple of hours trying to find their studio in Brick Lane...and finally to be told I had missed them moving out by a week. What I was going to do if I found them, I have no idea....maybe ask for a mannequin lol
I think these guys took a much more interesting approach. I was at this show in '91. When Perry made his little "joke", it was one of the most uncomfortable public moments I have ever experienced. You could feel 30,000 white nut sacks tightening in the rain. When Ice came out, you knew what they were doing but then Perry just went f*cking crazy with the seig heils and n-bombs. In the words of Woody Allen, it attained "heavyosity" without allowing for any catharsis like we have come to expect. You didn't feel better about the world when it was over despite the hugs and goofy mugging by Farrell and Ice-T at the end. You felt covered in crap, which was the point I suppose. If you want to be provocative (in the thoughtfulness sense), you had better be willing to go there as an artist.
It helps to remember that this was the height of gangsta rap media hysteria and Ice-T was being publicly run over the coals about Cop Killer, which he sang earlier in the show with Body Count.