Lily Krakowski on wed 16 apr 03
As usual it is hard to untangle this skein of thread a tiger has gotten
into.
1. If urine and elephant dung at the Brooklyn Museum keep cropping up it
is because they have become a shorthand, a symbol of what many (me included)
consider morally wrong.
2. Government subsidies for ANYTHING are a controversial matter. I am agin
them in all areas that do not apply directly to something that benefits one
and all. When dairy farmers are helped it benefits every child in the
country. When artists are helped it affects a small, elite-selected
coterie.
3. In this country, at least, Janet, most musea are based on private
foundations. Government grants are generally on the local level.
4. It is not an old versus young issue. It is a cultural issue and age may
play a role in how one feels.
5. References to the Fauves and so on, and all the artists who outraged
their coevals are fine. Yes, art often outrages. Yes, art often shocks.
But are we to believe that anything outrageous becomes art? Are we to
believe that anything that shocks or disgusts is art? Would it be
"installation art" if every "artist" who own a dog brought his pet to some
artistically chosen spot where all the dogs could defecate at the same time?
6. We have now had several allusions to free speech and such. Vulgarity
cannot be defended as "free speech." Free speech means ONLY that the
government does not punish expression. i.e. there is no censorship. It does
NOT mean that I must permit offensive language at my dinner table! Nor does
it mean we must accept anything and everything without speaking up and
saying this is disgusting, this is vile. (What about OUR free
speech?)Mapplethorpe's work may have been shocking to many; some of it was
to me; but he certainly was not vulgar, nor coarse.
7. Pollock, and Soldner and other avant-guardists may have drawn sharp
responses; but NOT for coarseness, vulgarity, offensiveness, sacrilege etc.
8. I am not an artist and do not know if I am one. "Artist" to me is a
compliment, like "saint" and not to be stuck on oneself. I am a potter
because I make pots, and a writer because I write. And I can explain my
work, or rather it explains itself, to the people I want to address. I think
selecting an audience and speaking to it is part of the process. Whom does
"shock for shock's sake" address?
Lili Krakowski
P.O. Box #1
Constableville, N.Y.
(315) 942-5916/ 397-2389
Be of good courage....
Patrice Murtha on thu 17 apr 03
Vince's thread got me thinking about art and censorship and what
society finds troubling or not.
I work at the Art Institute of Chicago and have been there for almost
20 years....about twelve years??? ago one of the graduate students
exhibited a piece for the MFA graduate show entitled "What is the
proper way to display the flag?". The piece displayed the American
flag on the floor with a book on a shelf right above it. The public
was suppose to walk across the flag and write their opinions in the
book, now at that time those shows were not very well publicized and
very few of the public ever saw these shows but somehow the media got
a hold of it, along with veterans groups who picketed out front every
day for the entire duration of the show. Every morning when the
gallery would open the curator would roll the flag out on the floor
and every day some veteran would come in and roll the flag up off the
floor and stand guard by it.
To the veterans, displaying the flag on the floor was blasphemus, I
found it curious that many of those same peopl were wearing shirts
and jackets made out of the American flag-- was that the proper way
to display the flag? This whole notion that symbols can take on
different connotations to many people was exactly what the artist was
trying to show. This exhibit caused such a stir that alot of our
funding was cut that year.
But the most interesting thing about this whole episode was that
while this was going on here, across town the Robert Maplethorpe
exhibit opened up at the MCA , not one person became upset over that
exhibit. It opened and closed without any incident and moved on to
Cleveland where we know what happened there.
I do believe art should lift us up, make our world beautiful, make us
think, inflame us and sometimes enrage us but it should not be
censored. Only time will tell whether the piece that was
controversial will become great art, but I'm in complete agreement
with Vince that "art needs to be unfettered and uncensored.
--
Patrice Murtha
Ryerson and Burnham Libraries
The Art Institute of Chicago
111 S. Michigan Ave.
Chicago, IL 60603
312-443-3671
| |
|
