Thursday, September 23, 2010
Week 5 - Controversy
THE YES MEN
Week 5 - Controversy:
1. Chris Burden and the Limits of Art, Peter Schjeldahl, New Yorker, 2007.
2. Irresistible - John Curran at the Whitney, Peter Schjeldahl, New Yorker, 2003.
3. Barbie / G.I. Joe Home Surgery Instructions, B.L.O.
4. Changing the Frequency, Jacket #27, 2005.
5. ArtAimed to Shock, Newsweek, 2008
6. Relating Controversial Contemporary Art and School Art:A Problem-Position Carol S. Jeffersand Pat Parth California State University, Los Angeles, 1996
Optional additional readings / video on the topic:
The videos linked below are not required viewing. They do however fit into the idea of "Controversial" works. (These videos are not at all suitable viewing for children...and perhaps may be offensive to some adults. They are presented for the purpose of class discussion, not to inject an uncomfortable vibe.)
1.Who Are the Great Women Artists...Now?, Art News, Landi, 2003
2.Where Are All the Women?, New York Magazine, Saltz, 2007
3a. WGG Test by Paul McCarthy
3b. Trailer Paul McCarthy at S.M.A.K.
3c. Nathalie Djurberg’s Clay Mates, Yablonsky, NYT, 2010
3d. Nathalie Djurberg: Experiment, 53e biennale de Venise 2009
4.Chris Burden, Erector Set, N.Y. Times, 2008
5.Shvarts explains her ‘repeated self-induced miscarriages,’Yale Daily News, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Brittany Enright
ReplyDeleteSeptember 27, 2010
Controversy, I get it. Some people like to do something that is outrageous just to get people’s attention. However Starving animals, putting terminally ill people in a gallery for people to gawk at, or inducing miscarriages is not art; all that this is, is some trying to be remembered as the person for nailed himself to a Volkswagen (for example).
I understand someone wanting to do something different or unique; or even being the first to do something new in the art world, but I think that it is only decent if they didn’t try to harm others in their way to “greatness” or whatever they are trying to achieve.
The Ray Johnson article could be group up this set of readings. Whats would be so different Johnson throwing himself off of a Bridge and Chris Burden who lets his friends shoot him or have him nail to a car.
Starving animals is not a artistic statement, it is cruelty. Inducing miscarriages is stupid because it is harmful to that person that is having the miscarriage and they could die. Jumping off of bridges or letting people shoot at you it’s awful and those people need/needed help.
Not always a fan of shock value.
Sophie Strachan
ReplyDeleteSo Chris Burden likes to get hurt in public. Well this really just reminds me of Jackass (TV show). I’m too desensitized to be shocked by this. It’s really kind of stupid and silly and you know I don’t really care if he wants to get shot. Other than the silliness he actually sounded like a pretty sensible guy. The Barbie/GI Joe switch was pretty funny. I was actually surprised that more consumers weren’t upset by it. I guess maybe there were those angry people and the person writing the article just ignored them. And now Art aimed to shock. Well it’s all pretty disgusting and I hate most of it. But humans are disgusting and how we treat animals and the world is disgusting. This article didn’t go into much depth, so I don’t have a great understanding of the concepts behind these pieces. But obviously the “abortion artist” did start a conversation because she is/was being talked about. And as for the starving dog, yeah that’s fucking terrible, but this article didn’t tell me any of the reasons behind it. They just focused on the dying dog. (I read about Vargas and that this was about hypocrisy and it makes complete sense. No one wants to hear a negative commentary on themselves.) I had an argument not too long ago about the woman (not an artist) who threw a basket of puppies into a river. Yeah it’s terrible because I love puppies, but at the same time people kill animals all the time. All animals are cute as hell, so what makes puppies better than cows? I don’t see anyone (except for PETA) freaking out about the excess of cows that our country kills every year (or any other animal for that matter.)
Well, where should I begin? First of all I think there's a line between controversial artists and just plain old sick people.
ReplyDeleteWhere do people get off doing the things they do and calling it art? I think of certain artists as people who are insane and need to find a way to get attention. How is it okay to keep getting pregnant and continuously induce miscarriages as work of art? At what point is that okay? An I don't give a damn what her focus is, but I take offense to that! I think as a woman we should cherish the fact that we are blessed to give life and she does this to herself and call it art, when in fact, to me it's just like she murdered her own child. There's a thin line and some of these artists are crossing it. Displaying terminally ill patients crosses that line too in a way, but that patient has a choice to participate in being part of some ridiculous freak show! To me, this isn't art.. I think by far this topic has got to be the worst I have read in my entire life. I never really care much to get upset about art but this has gone too far. And I guess the artists would consider their work successful for that matter alone: evoking emotion from the viewer!!!
I definitely agree with the others. I do not think those people are producing art, and just like Sophie, I also though of the tv show Jackass. If a man can be considered an artist for getting shot, Johnny Knoxville must be an artistic genius, because I have seen him shot with a stun gun, a taser gun, a riot gun, a .38 and perform many other acts that would lead to obvious injury. These people are getting attention from shocking them. It is like a teenager old throwing a tantrum because it gets their parents to pay attention to them and possible get what they want. There is a such thing as the wrong kind of attention. The "artist" might say they have a message of some sort, but they only to it because they know it is wrong and viewers will talk about it. It is not admiration, it is disgust. I have seen other artist have controversial work, like the piss christ, or work that has nudity, but those are not even comparable to the so called art in these articles. The dog was really sad to me. If you want to mutilate your body and hurt your self, that is your problem, but he was doing this to a defenseless animal who had no options. They should do the same thing to that person, and while he is suffering, tell him, "Don't worry, it's art." It was also sad to read about the artist who was murdered when she was trying to send a positive message. I am glad the GI Joe and Barbie article was grouped into these readings though (helped balance out the mood). I thought that was pretty hilarious. I for one would have been ecstatic if I received one for christmas as a child.
ReplyDeleteLaurel Patterson
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the article on Chris Burden a question that I asked myself is that whether or not his performance pieces art in fact art or just shocking events? I think that Burden has a very twisted sense of taste, but is he cutting edge or just crazy? His concepts are there and he definitely knows how to make people pay attention, so I think that he is an extremely dedicated and intelligent artist. What he does is definitely an art…it may just come down to a matter of taste. I heard about the incident with his student and the fake gun in the past, in no way do I feel that Burden was being hypocritical when he left that job. His art and decisions only effected his well being, no one else was ever placed in danger. He explained it best by insisting on the difference of and an act performed in a space for an audience that knew what they were getting themselves into as opposed to those forced into something with no warning. Not all of his pieces are about shock either…his sculptures are really amazing and he is a really talented engineer.
The Barbie Liberation Organization flier was pretty cool. At first I thought it was just a silly instructional flier and I really liked it more as an image (could be a nice screen print or something). The action of the BLO reminded me of Banksy when he took about 100 Paris Hilton cds out of Virgin Records, distorted their image, and put them back for the public to find.
Art Aimed to Shock…This is a very touchy subject, I can sympathize with both parties here. It is hard for me to say whose side I am really on. I agree that the banning of such work does come down to the issue of freedom of speech. On the other hand, I do think that there are certain lines that need to be drawn at some point. The radicals involved with the Protestant Reformation used to deface paintings that represented things or people that were detrimental to their cause. Was that ok? It’s freedom of speech, right? I think that if these artists want to show the work…do it Gorilla style where they cant get turned down, if Yale doesn’t want to show the work….why do they have to show everything they come across? Honestly, most of my opinion on this matter is stemming from the piece by Gregor Schneider. What he did was inhumane, that dog had no choice in that matter. Torture is not art, unless you are torturing yourself or an idea.
Controversies
ReplyDeleteI thought that the idea of ripping out toys voice boxes and exchanging them really does show how sexist the toys really are. These phrases are what kids learn to know. . I think its really funny and so did the people who got them apparently. I think it is a social commentary and serves it purpose.
It is like in this one Simpsons episode. Lisa hears what the “Malibu Stacey” doll is saying and is outraged because it is sexist; she makes a new doll with new sayings. (Also, One of her friend’s dolls has the voice of a G.I. Joe by accident)
The story about he woman hitch hiking in the name of art, who was brutally raped and murdered, was really shocking. My jaw dropped when I read that, its really scary to think about. But art can be dangerous and controversial. It is sort of ironic how she willingly took the task upon herself to make a statement about peace and harmony, and then brutally murdered by a man.
When I read about the several pending controversial exhibits including Yale's abortion artist, centering on displaying fetus’s and menstrual blood, and the dying dog attached to a rope inches away from food and the display of mentally ill patients in a museum made me sick. Those things kind of crossed the line for me. That steps into the realm of being of being inhuman and almost heartless.
Chris Burden seems like he wanted attention, and he got it. To choose to get shot is a statement. To be in direct contact with danger, death, and violence. The reason why I am so opposed to the fact that the installation artist tethered to a starving dog in reach of food is because the dog can’t say anything. It was against its will. I was talking with Sophie about this and she made a good point. That the artist was trying to make a statement, if you saw a dying or starving dog on the street would you feel the same way and try to help? It is just like the homeless people that plague our city, if they were in a gallery would they receive more pity because they are on display? The women who wanted to display her own fetus was just kind of disgusting, and would have been much worse if her blood was involved and her menstruation, it makes me feel uncomfortable, I definitely would NOT want to go see that exhibit, but this just shows that some people don’t care about anything anymore and that freedom of expression means you can say everything and anything.
I don’t know why, but when I was growing up I thought to myself, if people on death row are going to die anyway, why can’t they be used as stunt doubles or get blown up, shot, stabbed, or killed in a movie? The answer I received was it is inhumane. Its just funny how I thought that was ok. These articles have made me think a lot, and I think that’s the point, controversy.
Chris Burden fascinates me. He has dedication to his work enough to possibly die for it, and that is what makes things interesting to me. His observation that life is art and vice versa is very much my own as well. Everything is a constant performance of evolution – that beliefs make art less daunting to me. To drag yourself across a parking lot of glass reminds me that life is not too precious to do anything you want. Maybe we forget that often?
ReplyDeleteJohn Currin is a really good painter. I think it’s hilarious the way he paints so traditionally with such contemporary images. It pleases me to see artists who aren’t afraid.
IT’S ABOUT FUCKING TIME BARBIE AND GI JOE IS LIBERATED. Issues of alienation from the far left is also part of the repetition of history, as I have learned about it and experience personally. I’m still not sure of the answers about how to go away implementing great change without isolation.
In response to the article about the Yale student: I am embarrassed by the human’s seeming inability to stop repressing others when they express differing opinions or actions. I am also tired if being told by the news, art critics, politicians, strangers, friends, and professors that political art is too controversial and sometimes does not warrant a place. Personally, I have been told several times by students and professors, in response to my own work, to be weary of political art, stop being so overbearing, stop making things uncomfortable and so opinionated – because not everyone will look or listen. This is the problem – we are being taught to keep to ourselves because people are afraid to be honest. I just want to see people try.
I don’t think art schools are in touch enough with the contemporary world or events. I wish professors would push more compelling, provocative means of educating. I don’t see much relevance to the state of things right now in the work of students at Moore.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWow. A lot of controversy in the Controversy comments.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's passive of me, but I think that to the extent that anything goes in life, anything goes in art. I think the real issue is not "can I value these actions as 'art'?" but "do I value these actions?". The label "art" simply underscores an object/action/expression as up for discussion. I think art today is an institution that less changes the meaning of its subject than the force with which the subject cries for a response. Which is a good thing.
Ultimately, people of every discipline or walk of life try to communicate with other, different people through forms of expression--it is one of the most basic human needs that I witness on a daily basis. And we all can only express in the language of our unique life experiences, and hope that our words/actions/arts elicit a response from someone else signaling that both parties have some common connotation for that word/action/art. That understanding can manifest in agreement/empathy or disagreement, but either way it forces us to acknowledge and often reassess our understanding of some part of our reality. This occasional connectedness is what we strive for because IT IS WHAT ALLOWS US TO GROW.
Now, when a person sees Burden have his buddy shoot himself in the arm, or when a parent wonders who is responsible for the saccharine voice coming out of their kid's new G.I. Joe doll, they are forced into a relationship with the artist. The value in labeling actions, not just objects, as art is, in my opinion, that the audience is more likely to grope for the meaning/intention of the artist. When art goes unchallenged or uncelebrated, it becomes an expression made in a vacuum, a question to no one, worthless except to the artist, and if the artist's intention is to have a dialogue with his or her viewer, then worthless to the artist, too. Expression is less likely to be dismissed or ignored when it breaks perameters, so I'm not opposed to art with shock value and would encourage the viewer to try to see beyond their shock for richer content (not to relegate a shocking piece to the 'this artist just wants to shock' category.) I imagine that if Currin is using a cheap aesthetic to paint crude subject matter, he's trying to get his viewer to notice more than the fact that he's trying to get a viewer to notice. And if Burden nails himself to a VW to shock a person into paying attention, he's probably trying to communicate more than that he wants you to pay attention. If someone got shot in front of you and didn't call it art, wouldn't you have a few important questions to ask? Why are you allowed to dismiss those questions as irrelevant when a real human being gets shot with a real bullet in the name of art?
What are we being shocked into seeing?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMallory Lawson
ReplyDeleteArt Aimed to Shock:
I find that crude, controversial, and indecent art is always less about the “conversation” an artist is trying to provoke and more about shock value and attention.
I personally find that Guillermo Vargas’s dog piece is exceptionally inhumane and unethical. Since when is taking another living being’s life “art.” People and animals are killed everyday; do you really need to watch a dog die in a white cube to understand death?
As far as Aliza Shvartz’s miscarriage project, I think it is completely ridiculous, unnecessary and about 30-40 years too late. I am Pro-choice, I think that no child should be brought into the world unless the parents are able to bring them into a nurturing and financially secure environment. However, to induce miscarriages, that is completely unethical. She is creating human life; just to destroy it (if this is even what she actually did). What is the conversation that she is trying create? Abortion was legalized over 30 years ago? We get it, women have the option to terminate their pregnancies now, what’s her point? I’m not sure.
Shvart’s whole concept reminds me of girls that lie about getting pregnant to get attention from a guy, this is the same thing (if she is lying) but she wants to get attention from the art world. I don’t see the value in this project or any conversation it could possibly create. I feel like this project would have been a more relevant conversation in 1973 when Roe vs. Wade was still an issue in the Supreme Court.
Irresistible: John Currin at the Whitney:
I don’t really find John Currin’s work to be extremely controversial. I had never seen his work before and I really love it. His work is so beautifully and meticulously painted, full of so much contemporary symbolism.
SHAWNDA T.BEATTIE
ReplyDeleteChris Burden
“Shoot” survives in desultory black-and-white photographs
with this description: “At 7:45 P.M. I was shot in the left arm by a friend. The
bullet was a copper jacket .22 long rifle. My friend was standing about fifteen
feet from me.” Why do such things? “I wanted to be taken seriously as an
artist,”
In the article, when it describes the young life of Chris at the age of 12 this is actually says that he was hurt very badly but not put on anesthesia, at that point I realized the self-injurious behaviors to seek attention began at a young age. Furthermore I want to comment on his “want” to be taken seriously all artist want to be taken seriously. This is inhuman for public attention. It’s in my opinion, ridiculous. His photographic productions was no longer identified as art when he had his friend shoot him, or when he put a clock up at midnight and lye on the floor for forty five hr. until a museum rep brings water. None of that BEHAVIOR is appropriate to be taken “seriously.” It’s a matter of psychiatric help.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don’t really care if an artist wants to paint sexist portraits of women or shoot himself in the arm. I find joy in the subversive acts of the Barbie Liberation Organization and the Yes Men, but neither shock or offend me.
ReplyDeleteJennie Yabroff’s Newsweek article “Art Aimed to Shock,” reminds all of us that sometimes there are more efficient ways of communicating than shock value. Controversy doesn’t bother me (at least I’d like to think it doesn’t bother me); what does bother me is abuse of power. I read this article, was reminded of Vargas' piece and the swarm of controversy that surrounded it, got mad and wrote this:
That is exactly what Guillermo Vargas’ starvation of a dog is—as a human and an artist. Taking the life of a creature without necessity. Subjecting any animal, homo sapien or otherwise, to a torturous, meaningless death is a. stupid, b. completely unnecessary and especially in Vargas' case, c. counterproductive to the artist's intentions. Vargas said in an interview that he did this to call attention to apathy, the disregard the public has for the welfare of stray animals, and most of all, as a reaction to a man who was killed by two dogs as police and others watched. The only way it brings these issues to my attention is in the artist himself. If he really wanted to counteract the public's apathy, he could have saved this dog that, "would have died anyways." (Even if that compassion meant missing out on a totally shocking, great, amazing spectacle of irony in a slick gallery). If he seems bent on ending a life in the name of art, he should do so with a consenting individual. It pisses me off that this could be done in the name of art--it seems both full of pride and cowardice.
Then I cooled down, did some research and found that much of the information offered about the fate of the dog (that it indeed died) was misconstrued, that in fact the dog had actually escaped. Vargas himself provided the press with contradicting statements, even saying that the internet blowup, the petition, everything, was all part of his work. Then I just got mad for a different reason. Partially because I fell for it, and partially because I still don't know what the truth is. And where does this work end?
There are pieces that are controversial and ineffective, and there are pieces effective and uncontroversial. I'm not a hell raiser, I just want people to remember that they're alive, and for a finite amount of time.
I find it incredibly disturbing how some people think. Exhibiting sickly animals, people in cages, trying to impregnate yourself so you can induce a miscarriage, and getting shot at is in no way shape or form ARTISTIC!!! YOU ARE NOT AN ARTIST! That is sick and wrong and these people have a sick mind and need help! It is cruel to hurt animals, people, yourself, and especially an unborn child. i felt sick to my stomach reading these two articles about Shavrts and about Chris Burden.
ReplyDeleteIts great when an artist wants to do something different, something no one has ever accomplished or even done before, but hurting yourself and others is NOT the way to go. In the article about Shvarts, she didn't even want to talk to the media about it, because I'm sure deep down she even knew it was sick and wrong! Reading how she did a painting that could have been the blood from her period or her inducing a miscarriage is by far disgusting, there are other types of material you can use to represent blood. There are other ways you can represent controversy. There is no need to express your artistic ability in this manner!! The way I see it Chris Burden and Shvarts are no artists!
Courtney Coolbaugh
ReplyDeleteControversy – a prerequisite for membership in the contemporary world of the Avant-garde.
There is great relevance in the schism between school art and contemporary art – it creates a paradigm. School art cannot teach or advocate opposition to a society of which it is an appendage for its indoctrination. Hence, the precipitation of the schism. Currently, school art focuses on four approaches to art – history, aesthetics, criticism, and production. This is where art students split into two supplementary parts – the artists and the audience. On one side of the palette, we all know what academic or classical (and determinably acceptable) art is and has always been (art history and art aesthetics). On the other side, we are given tools to take those conventions into our own hands and manipulate our sculptures into weapons for change, expression, and/or exhibition (art production and art criticism). Teaching non-controversial art creates a ready audience prepared to be appalled by the Avant-garde, while simultaneously creating future artists invested in becoming part of the pandemonium.
Chris Burden defined art as “a free spot in society, where you can do anything.” We’ve come to expect an obscurity disguised as being intellectual and declared Avant-garde. I think the danger with doing anything (shooting yourself, masturbating in public, displaying sick people in a gallery, smearing shit on a diaper, painting a canvas white) and calling it art, is the consequential breakdown in the parameters of the definition of art, which will effectively destroy the role of its audience – to respond.
Historically speaking, we often read about the mavericks of society and we learn that non-conformity begets celebrity. To quote Joseph Leroux, a brand-new Moore faculty member, “The idea of being famous without having anything to say is relatively new.” Regarding Aliza Shvarts’s induced-miscarriage exhibit, the initial conversation was moot – the point was catalyst for conversation. The progression of the story highlights the equation for becoming a card-carrying member of the Avant-garde: an aspiring artist creates something offensive that gets admonished by society, which propagates a conversation about a controversial issue, which then leads to her name in the paper (and maybe a video on youTube), which ultimately validates the merit of her work.