Chris White,
I was basically acknowledging that shock, offensiveness, and censorship-worthiness (for lack of a better term) are three different categories, but there is some overlap involved.

Shock understood physiologically and psychologically is an extreme reaction to sudden change. Physiological shock involves the body sort of "going to sleep" in a protective mode, a conservational mode, if I recall correctly. Psychological shock can result in the mind numbing or compartmentalizing in order to protect itself; I think of the dissociative disorders and also post-traumatic stress disorder.

My take is that what we call "shocking" in common speech is usually something far less radical than clinical shock. For how often do we find that a person reporting to have been shocked by x, y, or z actually went into shock either physiologically or psychologically or both? Not nearly as often as the term is employed. I am reminded of older film and cartoons in which a common gag was having a person faint when confronted by something surprising or inappropriate. I keep thinking of the Three Stooges entering high class surroundings and causing haughty socialites to faint. It seems like that occurred more than once. But how many can say that they've actually witnessed such a thing as fainting due to social impropriety (that doesn't extend to antisocial/criminal acts)? How many citizens uptight about an artwork faint before it? Many seem to have quite the reverse response and become energized with zeal.

So it seems that when we speak of shocking art or "a shocking development" we don't mean it to such extremes that it takes over our bodies entirely. Do we intend something more along the lines of electrical shock perhaps? I think this would be getting closer, although I'm not sure that people enjoy being electrically shocked quite as much we may enjoy being shocked at for instance a twist in a mystery thriller. Yes the term masochism does suggest itself here as I gather that some do enjoy being mildly electrically shocked, and many more seem to take great delight in reveling in their having been shocked by some immoral misdeed.

And this is what I think a lot of contemporary American attempts at censorship or quasi-censorship are based upon - that a viewer is consumed with titillation - either denial of his/her own, or by the possiblity of its occuring in others. Thus the object of alleged revulsion becomes narrowly fetishized. A drama may be seen not as a drama but rather as a moment of nudity. A complex sculpture may be seen entirely as a penis. A dialogue may be heard not as such but rather as entirely consisting in that portion of it in which a character utters an expletive or "off-color" word. After all, this seems to be how the movie ratings system operates. The work taken as a whole scarcely counts, but rather it is atomized and scanned for "hits" of nudity, profanity, violence, and so on.
I'll let this fun page speak for itself: http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/fcs_mosaic/
-----------------------
In response to BTM, I would offer that one the reasons why we encourage activities such as free speech, academic freedom, and the public funding of education and the arts, is that it constitutes an admission by each that his/her views are inadequate to the whole. Therefore it is wise counsel to support the expression of even such arts and education as may not immediately fit into one's (or the many's for that matter) current perspective.

It's a bit like that show called "Who Wants To Be a Millionare?" (or whatever the title was) when a person uses a lifeline. The opinions and views of others are sought in an act of admitted inadequacy. Not only that, the use of lifelines is treasured and limited - ideally the contestant would have unlimited lifelines.

In public life, our limits aren't so narrowly prescribed as in the TV show (so far). So in the case of public funding of the arts and education, we admit our shortcomings in advance and provide means by which we intend that together we may educate each other. Not unlike a Twelve Step group now that I've written it that way. The old show "Northern Exposure" seemed to have this as a theme - folks enter from various walks of life and learn from each other, not without conflict however. Even the Walton's did this a lot with whatever the technique might be called whereby an outsider visits Walton's Mountain and by the end of the show has left, usually having made some kind of impression upon John Boy. Perspectives are shared even though they may compete.

In the Socratic paradox, ignorance is the unwillingness to admit to it and wisdom is the admission of ignorance.

Posted by: Michael Motta on June 5, 2007 10:18 PM

I am curious as to what production(s) of Angels in America Tatyana & Ceneris might have seen. I'm also curious whether it was the politics, the playwriting or both they found objectionable. While I was admittedly favorably disposed by virtue of my wife's involvement as sound designer for the production, I saw both parts of Angels in America done by a local professional acting company a few years ago and found it very compelling and thought provoking theater.

BTM and I have been over this ground before, but the underlying message still seems to be that the many people in the public who DO enjoy/appreciate modernism should not count as part of "The Public" while those that dislike modernism are the only public whose opinion should matter. Or that there should be unanimity (obviously an impossibility) before tax monies should be spent on the arts. I suspect that there are NO tax-supported programs of ANY kind that have universal support. Furthermore, as someone who has sent letters to my congressional delegation urging that they support the NEA, I can say that there IS a constituency for supporting the arts.

As to whether art is being censored or not, if university theater departments are threatened with funding cuts due to controversial plays being produced, that may not be censorship in the absolute sense, but isn't it a matter of degree rather than kind?

The curious aspect of these threads for me is always the same; I do not expect everyone to have the same aesthetic as I do, but I don't have problems with art I don't like getting support or finding an audience. The tone among many who comment here seems prone to not only dismissing but also wanting to CRUSH art and artists whose aesthetic is different.

Posted by: Chris White on June 5, 2007 10:45 PM

"the underlying message still seems to be that the many people in the public who DO enjoy/appreciate modernism should not count as part of "The Public" while those that dislike modernism are the only public whose opinion should matter. Or that there should be unanimity (obviously an impossibility) before tax monies should be spent on the arts."

Another false dichotomy. Dude, they got outvoted! Democracy at work. If its all so popular, why do they need the taxpayer to fund them?

I have several issues with modernists. We have already dealt with the quality issue. Another issue I have is how, everywhere you turn, these people are in the public's pocketbook. It's crazy. They are all over the public's money but they don't want to listen to the public when they vote not to see the modernist stuff. The public's only good for milking and feeling superior to. Crazy! Three cheers for those who took back their public space! Hooray!

You should get hear these groups of slightly talented people whine and moan that the public just doesn't like or understand good work! The real truth is that these people's work is not nearly as good as they think it is. Money's not going to stop somebody who is motivated from doing the work, and if it really is good, it will be recognized. Let the market work, let the public have its say. Too bad if it ain't what you want to hear.

Posted by: BTM on June 6, 2007 12:06 AM

I too disliked Angels In America. I watched part of one episode on HBO and tuned away when the guy sought out a hustler in cenral park to sodomize him. Yucch! I watched an entire episode which prominently featured Al Pacino. Pacino's street energy and his portrayal of Roy Cohn's bitter cynicism and self-loathing was the only reason I watched that episode all the way through. And, yes, AIA was shot through with very simplistic conservatives=homophobes equation.

Posted by: Peter L. Winkler on June 6, 2007 2:18 AM

Michael Motta - Thanks for the clarifications. It would appear that you and I have many similar views on the topic. I like your take on "shock".

BTM - In the category of "haven't we been over this before?" (a) the market for modernist art exists and is strong enough that it has been one of your complaints; (b) plenty of arts fundng goes for art you would like or approve of, but it seems you want NO funding for art YOU don't like.

Again, please note that I AGREE with Kimball's take on the institutionalization of the new avant-garde. What I argue with is the way some posters here lump together virtually all visual art that isn't based on demonstrating the technical abilities of accurate representtion and deem it bad by definition.

Posted by: Chris White on June 6, 2007 8:01 AM

Per BTM,

I might be more attracted to direct democratic micromanagement of public arts funds if we also take up direct democratic micromanagement of the budgets of all of the agencies and departments the budgets of which dwarf that of the NEA.

I read recently where the NEA budget for a year would buy about 3 hours in Iraq.

Posted by: Michael Motta on June 6, 2007 8:53 AM

"the market for modernist art exists and is strong enough that it has been one of your complaints"

I am not concerned with the market, but the quality of the work. To me, the fact that anybody makes any money selling the stuff is irrelevant, and no proof of quality. Look at the dot.com bubble.

"plenty of arts fundng goes for art you would like or approve of, but it seems you want NO funding for art YOU don't like"

Duh! Of course I don't want to fund something I don't like! It's my tax money, taken from me by force. Whay would I want to pay somebody to poke me in the eye? Why should anybody be forced to subsidize entertainment that they don't like?

Nobody is micromanaging anything. Nobody is telling anybody what they can or cannot do, they are just telling them to do it on their own dime and in a private place. Hardly controversial.

You know a lot of this funding nonsense wouldn't be much of an issue if the star system hadn't been set up in the first place. All the dullard buyers are bidding up the so-called "star's" work into the stratosphere while developing artists get hardly anything. Just think what if the many millions (over)paid for Brand X Genius Artist were to actually be spent on the up and comers. Oh well, there's too many damn people who want to be artists anyway, and few with any real talent. No wonder all the imitation. Throwing government money at them only keeps too many in the game who should otherwise be productively employed in some other field.

I blame the whole thing on the galleries and museums that set up the star system in the first place. They did it to make money and increase the value of their inventories. If real geniuses didn't exist, they tried to invent them by changing the standards from mastery to "Innovation!" to create the advertsing brand "Genius!"-- a manuever that has left us all poorer. Whole schools have been created at the university level and beyond to try to train kids to sell into this dot.com "rising star" marketplace. But the teachers make thier money teaching, not creating--they feed on their own mostly. Oh, and let's not forget the government funding this nonsense. Its all such a sham. Its an industry that has very little to do with real art at all.

I would much rather go back to the days when artists weren't artists, but craftsmen. No stars, just guys trying to make a living by creating designs and illustrating. They got paid for craftsmanship, for getting work done, not because they created some kind of public spectacle of themselves. And the work was always blended into the functions of everyday life, from decorating a public fountain where people came to get fresh water, to the curch they went to on sudays, to the furniture they put their clothes into and the lamps they turned on for reading at night. And if anybody wanted to do art for its own sake, they did it on their own time and on their own dime.

Posted by: BTM on June 6, 2007 1:10 PM

Wouldn't it be nice if we could, by fiat, return to the (mythic) Golden Age of the Past when all was Pure.

Still, I am confused. BTM, you say, on the one hand, modern art is a marketing scam, then that it wouldn't survive without government support. Then say that even if it does well in the market that doesn't equate to having "public" support. So, you don't accept the private marketplace, nor the institutional art world, nor the government peer review panels as being valid? Presumably, then, only your own opinion is valid and the rest of us need to get with the program.

I know a LOT of artists, of many different aesthetic persuasions. VERY few have ever gotten ANY grants. Those that have might be able to complete a specific project, certainly not retire to the south of France, with the amounts they get. I NEVER met an artist who is an artist only because they've gotten endless grant support.

One perhaps wonderful, perhaps disagreeable, aspect of a representative democracy is that many different opinions and priorities get taken into account. It is not a winner take all, mob rule, arrangement. If some arts funding goes to an artist who does work you like, and I don't, or vis a versa, what is the problem with that? [kudos to Michael Motta for his comments on micro-managing ALL tax supprted programs if we're going to worry about it with the NEA.]

Posted by: Chris White on June 6, 2007 4:44 PM

I think what I said is pretty clear. You're trying to confuse the issue by mixing up private money with public money, but the issue still stands that if its public money, the public should get the say and if they don't like something, they have the right to cut the "artist" off from using public money or public space.

Why is anybody who considers their work art running after grant money? Why don't they just offer the work to the public at large and see if they can sell it?

There were any number of Golden Ages of art in the past. Much better work was done with fewer people considering themselves artists and standards remained quite high. Today is an aberration. Never before has so much money been thrown at the arts and never before has the quality of the arts been as low, especially due to modernism. We would do a lot better to cut a lot of these so-called "artists" off and truly educate the buyer. What we have today is ridiculous. Artists running after the government for handouts, like really good artists need welfare! Ha!

Posted by: BTM on June 6, 2007 5:45 PM

I am confusing nothing. The issue is how "public" is being defined. The uses of public funds most directly related to this thread are state and federal "Percent for Art" programs, where public funds are used to purchase or commission art, and various grants, usually given to defray costs for study or other professional development. The former utilizes a multi-layer review committee process that includes members of the public, often there are public hearings as well. The latter is more often peer review oriented, but rarely is any art work being directly paid for by the public with these grants. So, unless you are trying to make the argument that every taxpaying American needs to personally vote on every grant or commission, I again maintain that the public IS represented in these decisions.

As for the private sector side of the equation, artists compete in the marketplace. Taken as a whole the art market offers some insight into what the current consensus may be on particular artists. Some artists may appeal to well-heeled Boston matrons, others to flashy hedge fund managers, and still others to farmers in Kansas. After that it is a question of supply and demand, what the maket will bear, and a whole host of Econ 101 catch phrases. I might think anyone buying a Thomas Kinkade is getting ripped off. You might think anyone buying a Hans Hofmann is a fool. And so what? Each market niche has its own stars and unknowns, its own politics and social scene. Where is the problem?

Making a perhaps futile attempt at returning to the original posting, I believe that there is always a small percentage of work being done, in nearly any style, that is of high quality and a lot of lesser quality. That said, I agree with Kimball that many collectors, curators and art institutions have become so caught up in the content (sex, ethnicity, politics) that they undervalue the formal attributes (composition, craft, etc.) of the works they buy or exhibit. This is not being "risky" but is driven by a conformist, pack mentality.

Posted by: Chris White on June 6, 2007 8:26 PM

Its "cultural welfare" and should be done away with if the public can't micromanage it. Micromanagement by the public is GOOD!, and it would be even better if there were lots more of it. Then maybe the government wouldn't waste so much money. Its the public's money. Only select members of the public, usually cronies of the local arts institutions stuffed to the gills with modernists, are the ones on these boards. They should spend their own money, not manage everyone else's.

Also, everytime I comment on the cultural welfare shelled out to the members of "Wack-ademia" in universities, you always ignore it, as if it doesn't exist. A lot of these wack-ademics are also the ones beating the grant drums. Cut them off. There's absolutely no public interest in funding the vast majority of so-called arts programs. The arts were a lot healthier before they were even dreamt up. Its been all downhill ever since. You yourself admitted that you hardly know an artist who gets grants. You know why? There usually off painting or working a real job. Its the academics, the masters or doctorates or MFA, many in some kind of non-profit arts institution, who are getting this stuff. If so much of the funding is being misspent on these people who don't produce anything, including art, why are they getting the money? Don't you think the system is broken?

Getting back to the original idea, there are way too many people in the arts, and the governmental funding of it in universities and other arts institutions is one of the reasons why. Too many people, to much repetition and copying. The same people calling for more funding of the arts (Kimball and you, for example) are only exacerbating the problem. I know you mean well, but its counterproductive. The real talent pool is pretty small, a whole lot smaller than the the number of painters out there. But the whole system encourages it. There's too many people trying to get their work in front of people, even if the quality doesn't merit it, and some will do just about anything to attract attention. I think its crazy. You can have the last word if you want.

Posted by: BTM on June 6, 2007 10:13 PM

Chris White,

Thank you for your kind remarks.

BTM and Chris,

I'm kind of confused as to how BTM is using the term "modernist". Is it really THAT inclusive? I'm not remotely an expert in art history and my exposure is pretty hit or miss, but it would seem to me that "modernist" could include anything from Post-Impressionism up through Minimalism and whatever is hot now (unless Postmodernism is being excluded, which somehow I doubt). This would entail most of the Twentieth Century and some spillage into its bracketing centuries!(What about Socialist Realism and Social Realism? Are they modernist or not? They seem like a departure)

No offense intended, but such a sweeping notion of all modernist art as decadent would seem to me an extension on Hitler's "Degenerate Art", which I've found was something of an exhibit of my favorite artists!

My top favorites are van Gogh, Munch, and Expressionism in general especially "The Bridge". I also like some Dali, some Picasso, some Marc, some Chagall and several more . . .

Off topic: What is the name of the font style that this site uses? I think it's as close as I have to a favorite. Knowing this might prevent me from going for the default font most times :)

Posted by: Michael Motta on June 6, 2007 11:03 PM

Well, I suppose I'll add that my impression is of AIA: Millenium Approaches. I didn't bother reading the second, nor staying for the second half when I went to go see it. I recall when reading it, thinking that it was pretty much entirely concerned with being clever and pushing a political agenda.

Watching it, it's been a few years, but I remember laughing at a few of the climactic moments. The ridiculousness of the moral universe that had been built up was just too much to bear. I didn't really find any of the characters sympathetic or well developed. All of the conservative characters were particularly obnoxious.

A lot of my dislike of this play is directly political, but I'd like to think I'm objective enough to think that it's just not a good play in a technical sense either (largely for reasons that arise as a result of pushing politics over other things). In the universe of the play, for example, being a conservative seems to mean being a closeted homosexual. Shocking reality: This is not true. I don't think I'm expecting too much for a work that obviously wants to sit as social-critique not to make all of its featured opposition spokesmen into secret members of the KKK/NAMBLA/etc. It's just immature, and bad characterization regardless. Clever lines might be enough to sustain a few paragraphs of a snarky Digg comment, but absent a really compelling story, evenhandedness, maturity, characterization, or just stunning craftsmanship, I'm not going to be able to stomach three hours of it.

Posted by: Cineris on June 7, 2007 2:22 AM

BTM- Have many museums gone overboard collecting or exhibiting the newest art, either as a means of appearing "with it" or out of fear they're going to miss the boat on art objects whose price will skyrocket out of their price range? Yes.

Have many art schools become too concerned with "nurturing creativity and imagination" at the expense of teaching a complete skill set? Yes.

Are there career-minded poseurs whose only talent lies in offering an impenetrable statement that purports to explain why the silly doodle on the toilet seat cover is "art"? Yes.

Are there dealers and collectors who, due to either venality or ignorance, sell and buy silly doodles on toilet seats? Yes.

I am not, nor have I previously, offering any kind of blanket approval for any and all art. However, I find your blanket condemnation of virtually all art that does not seek to depict nature faithfully, exclamation point, to be so narrow as to be irrelevant. Based on my own experiences and following press accounts I've seen examples of all types of art and artists, from the very traditional to the Post-modern, get grants or public commissions. That said, none of the artists I know who have gotten any grant or commission ever got more than a single modest payday, certainly none of them are living on the public teat. And as a taxpayer myself I'd rather see more public funds spent on art than ... oh, destabilizing third world countries with rich natural resources.

Michael Motta – the font is Book Antiqua I believe. And here on 2blowhards "modern" is generally used as a blanket term used for almost any art that looks like it was done after the Impressionists (who are themselves sometimes lumped in with the modernists.)

Posted by: Chris White on June 7, 2007 8:03 AM

Thanks for both pieces of info Chris. I guess I had a good guess on the modern or modernist! It does seem extremely narrow to me to rule that out. It strikes me as an aesthetics born of natural law theory whereby each thing has a telos and the extent to which it deviates from its nature and is not rational is the extent to which it is perverse. Eek gad!

Give me "Degenerate Art" any day! I don't want so much order that any clown at the top can run the whole show with surgical precision.

Posted by: Michael Motta on June 8, 2007 1:28 AM

So my Munch biography by Sue Prideaux arrived via interloan to my small town library. I haven't officially started into it yet but I began flipping through. I turned to a chapter called "Degenrate Art", and this is what I found concerning Hitler's exhibit:

"Beneath or beside many of the works was a red sticker bearing the words, 'paid for by the taxes of the German working people', an effective technique of populist art criticism."

I'm sorry BTM but the comparisons are too striking to ignore.

Besides, there just isn't THAT much money for arts funding going around as compared to just about any other kind of funding of which you could think. Did you know that through a FOIA request it was recently found that the US Air Force was working with scientists circa 1994 on the idea of a "gay bomb"? Yes, that's right, a bomb that wouldn't kill the enemy troops but would turn them into randy sweeties. There's some fine funding for you.

Posted by: Michael Motta on June 14, 2007 4:37 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?