Art or artists?
Much to the disgust of the gallery involved, a man dumped a severed, bloodied bull’s head on gallery steps insisting it be displayed as a piece of art. He wanted to communicate his disgust for slaughtering animals for food.
Andy Warhol, was a famous artist for his pop art pictures of Marilyn Munroe. He also depicted the ‘contemporary landscape’, such as a can of campbell’s soup.
Wassily Kandinsky painted pictures of explosive colour, sporadic shapes and intense movement in an effort to describe what he saw and felt when listening to music.
When I was 16 I looked after a four year old for an evening. She drew a picture of me in a flower garden surrounded by swirls of colour (aka scribbles). I came home and stuck it on my wall.
“There is no art, only artists.” - George Gittoes
What do you reckon?
Post some of your favourite artists/artworks with your comments.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Self expression & freedom of self expression is a biggie; sometimes it’s called art & gives you a bit of a “don’t you limit my art” look. Sometimes it’s just the right to express views. But the question that art has never seemed to give a good answer to is, “when is this kind of response innapropriate?”
The law gives us some clear boundaries about what is appropriate sexually speaking when it comes to images of infants & minors; but clearly there is art & advertising masquerading as art that is pushing the boundaries here. I don’t mind art that challenges perspectives, but there has to be a sense in the general populous that there are ethical & moral boundaries that shouldn’t be crossed. I’ll try to have a think over the next few days about art that I think exemplifies appropriate challenge & art that might be close to the boundary.
April 30th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Art is subjective, the response gained from each individual will always vary.
Similarly ethical and moral boudaries also have grey edges, so how do we draw lines when there is no absolute consensus? As long as laws are abided by while producing the art then I have no problem in other ’socially sensitive boundaries being crossed, although problems will certainly arise if an artist then forces other individuals to view the work without consent.
For example, I find little fault with an artist who may choose to produce sexually explicit ‘art’ in a private studio and display at a gallary that advises it patrons of the content prior to entry. Alternatively, I would take great offense if that same art was displayed in public arena to unsuspecting passers-by. If our laws allow the first example then it is not for me to object because I have the ability to avoid the display.
Returning to our beef loving friend, I find great fault with his actions because firstly, he has potentially broken a law in killing the animal and secondly he has forced the skull into public space without the consent of potential viewers.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:14 pm
I agree think tank that the “sexually explicit art ina private studio” thing has some merit but even it can push boundaries that maybe aren’t meant to be pushed. Electronic media for example is constantly challenge the notion of where the boundaries are. For example, watch the music programs that go to air on a Saturday & SUnday morning; here we have image after image of provactive & sometimes sexually explicit material masquerading as musical & artisitic expression. Now, any adult can watch that, but this is on at a prime time when young people are watching, & what are they seeing? image after image of mainly young women expressing themselves in a manner that would be more appropriate to late night TV. My wife works looking after young children and the anecdotal evidence that she gives me of number of young people that she cares for not only being allowed to watch that crap, but modelling it in the way that they do life is quite frightening.
SO immediately we are not talking about art behind closed doors, but artistic expression that is in your lounge room, on your computer, in every shop you enter, on every billboard that you pass, on every radio you turn on. I’m not for a minute suggesting that it’s all bad, but it does need some savvy people who are going to be prepared to debate & argue for where the boundaries are, & just what is appropriate. I had a lecturer years ago who erged his students to always analyse & have an opinion about every image that gets put in front of you
MM
May 1st, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Forgive my dyslexic spelling above; It’s late!!
May 2nd, 2007 at 7:37 am
“SO immediately we are not talking about art behind closed doors, but artistic expression that is in your lounge room, on your computer, in every shop you enter, on every billboard that you pass, on every radio you turn on.”
I agree with Think Tank that the law is the only solid boundary that could be used for censorship. That’s a democratic and secular law.
A note on the beef loving friend.
Have a look at this ps3 promotion for a new game “Lord of War”
http://forums.secondcitizen.com/showthread.php?t=11927
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:24 am
There are no laws that are secular godBoy, nearly all can be traced to some kind of religious, fundamental groundings. Just thought I’d clarify that. The law is controversial, so probably not a solid grounding for clarifying art.
If artists feel the need to express themselves so sexually in the form of video clips, should there be restraint? What reason have they for doing such a thing? I think the greater matter, in terms of censorship, would be to explore the reasons behind an artists need for outward exposure and expression. “To gather an appropriate view of the issues people faced in a period of time, look at the art that was being produced” (or something like that!)
I watched an Elvis movie on the weekend. His pelvis swinging moves gathered the same reaction - if not greater disgust - from parents in the 1950s, yet compared to what we see today, that is almost a laughable concept.
Throughout history art has pushed the limits. Most artists were ahead of their time and produced works we now see as masterpieces, which at the time were seen as almost the opposite. Cezanne’s landscapes were laughed at, he used them to pay for his rent in the place he stayed and the landlady used them in her chicken coop for the chickens to crap on. Some of these were recovered and worked to be restored for display in galleries today. Maybe these sexually provocative images prevalent everywhere are a way of commenting on the times, and are used for shock factor?
Thinktank is right, art is so subjective. I think a better definition in terms of art would be to explore what makes an artist rather than what should be deem a piece of art.
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:17 pm
There are no laws that are secular godBoy, nearly all can be traced to some kind of religious, fundamental groundings. Just thought I’d clarify that. The law is controversial, so probably not a solid grounding for clarifying art.
Yikes, If law is not secular then the people have no choice in matters of civil rights - it is as the religion says it should be. This is the worst form of government I can think of. The overwhelming majority see that there needs to be a clear separation of church and state for freedom of thought to have any value.
The law based on democracy is the best thing - that I can think of - to mark out such boundaries.. Do you have a better idea?
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Right with you godBoy! Laws do arise from our democratic system of Government, and rightly so. If laws changed everytime the majority of the population chnaged from one to another, think of the anarchy. For example if our laws were linked to the church and Australia changed from being majority CHristian to majority Hindu for example, the turmoil would be unbelievable.
Back to art in-your-face, particularly Video Clips. Of a Saturday Sunday morning I do not let my kids watch these shows for that exact reason (and I must say that to date, Dora the Explorer hasn’t shaken her booty in our direction!).
I have the choice not to watch and these artists are using a media that gives me the power, not them. In other words it is only in your lounge room if you allow it in. I hear child experts repeatedly saying “watch TV with your children to monitor/explain, do not use it as a babysitter!”. If young people are watching this it is because their parents are elsewhere. Further, I also have the ability to complain to the network or appropriate government dept.
Billboards are certainly an area that I believe the advertising standards associations are letting us down, but again that is not art or artists at fault, it is commercial companies profiting from throwing images in your face.
So I return to the same point, if we were to stop art that is deemed offensive, who would right such guidelines? Who has the right in Australia, apart from the Government through it’s laws, to become, dare I say, Big Brother?
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:52 am
‘Laws do arise from our democratic system of Government, and rightly so. If laws changed everytime the majority of the population chnaged from one to another, think of the anarchy. For example if our laws were linked to the church and Australia changed from being majority CHristian to majority Hindu for example, the turmoil would be unbelievable.’
Just because laws are not secular does not mean they are also undemocratic. Australia has christian foundations as do the UK, and the US - western laws and values are the dominant form of law enforcement in the world at the moment. And yes thinktank, you are absolutely right, the majority of political scientists do believe the world is in a state of anarchy - but the research in the field is being assessed as to why there is so much order in the world despite the prevalence of anarchy. Check out Hedley Bull’s research, it’s fascinating.
It is believed that this order in the world is due to these laws and fundamental human rights assessed in the UN declaration of human rights, but many of those are hard to be seperated from the biblical principal of ‘every human being has inherent dignity.’
This century has been one of the bloodiest in history, you can argue that it is not logical to disrespect the law and unreasonable to harm the well being of another. But this century has appeared contrary to these thoughts, I am still a baby in this research but it seems clear in so much contemporary academic writing that there is no reason to respect these laws outside of the fact that people have ‘inherent dignity’ which is fundamental principle in many world religions.
I’m sorry to divert from the topic, I’m currently writing a research paper on this topic so it’s fresh in my mind. I’m totally open to rebuttal from the wonvoice community, I’m just presenting to you what I am reading and assessing…
I still don’t see why the law should be relevant to what defines art. Art is expression, change the way people think and you will change the way they express. Placing restrictions only shoves it in the closet.. In the mean time change the way the next generation will think and express by keeping your kids away from the TV, teach them to think abstractly, show them what you believe to be wrong and right, and give them a broad education..
go ahead rebut away
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:27 am
I still don’t see why the law should be relevant to what defines art. Art is expression, change the way people think and you will change the way they express. Placing restrictions only shoves it in the closet..
I want someone’s art form of child mutilation to be censored. Again i’ll ask do you have a better idea? Or are you saying that art should not have any boundaries, all someone would have to do is claim that they are an artist to be a criminal - that’s anarchy.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 am
But don’t you see godBoy, that is the idea of this discussion. Obviously what constitutes art is a discussion that could go on and on and is the source of much stress for curators in galleries.
But change the idea of the definition to rather what constitutes an ‘artist’? Who is given such a title? Why are they given the title? and what they should do with such a title? Thus ‘there is no art, only artists’
This is a very prevalent discussion especially in the entertainment world at the moment. Women exposing themselves and men communicating extreme forms of violence, what do you do with this? Should they be termed artists?
We are in a state of global anarchy. There is no definitive order other than ‘laws’ and ‘rights’. Why do people obey these? Why don’t they?
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:53 am
I don’t know if there exists such a thing as freedom of speech, or in this case, artistic representation. With the right to express oneself also comes the responsibility to ensure that what you express doesn’t cause harm within societal norms. Talking about issues related to sexual expression can be misleading so lets take another track.
What if I want to represent something contentious like issues relating to Muslims in the contemporary world? What if I want to represent a negative connotation about gay people?
I remember years ago a cartoon by Leunig, in which he drew a baby in child care; the baby was thinking out loud & apologising for being such a burden to interupt his mothers career;
The responsibility not to express oneself in such a way that it breaks societal laws is easyish to know where the line is. (Or at the very least, you have a measure to test that line)
I actually love artistic expression that pushes people to think. but I think that we need to be questioning about what is appropriate & more importantly, when it is inappropriate. We need to be prepared to fearlessly debate the propriety of every form of expression, and the artist needs to be prepared to have their various forms of freedom of expression called to account. Every artist does, & if they are not prepared to, then it is my belief that they should keep their expressions to themselves. Grrrr!!!
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Case in point; My next album is to be called “Reality”. On my road trip to brisbane last week, I spent a portion of the time thinking about the cover. I have tended to avoid photo’s of myself on the covers, & have rather leaned towards making the covers something of an artistic representation of what was on my heart.
The thoughts about this cover & the title track have lead me to think that Reality dictates that we see ourselves one way, but God sees through all our disguises to see us just as we are.
So, I mused at the possibility of some naked images on the cover to represent that thought; What I actually thought was to have an image of a naked person(s) on the front & on the rear, the same image but being fully clothed; If this were a secular album, I know I could get away with what I am thinking, but I am a gospel artist, & even though our naked image & form is a creation of the very creator I serve & worship, (he isn’t scared or embarassed by our nudity) I know that I would not be able to sell that cover to Christian outlets; they would censor my art.
Let me say, that that cover idea was only one of about 15 that I thought of that day. Should I be afraid to proceed with it?
MM
May 3rd, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Back to Audrey, firstly, I did not say “the majority of political scientists do believe the world is in a state of anarchy”. I welcome you disecting my comments but please try to avoid putting words in my mouth - much appreciated.
Secondly, I dont think anyone argued that the law should define art. I think what both godBoy and I argued was that the law was the only device by which we could control what was placed into public view.
Thirdly, I think Audrey raises a interesting topic, our desire to give people titles. If someone pursues a hobby that allows to express themselves in a visual format, do they immediately announce themselves an artist, or perhaps is it relevent only when the product is produced for commercial purposes. I would like people to stop putting titles on people, allow them to become what they become without fear of falling into a genre or niche.
Onto The Scot, this is a great example of our discussion. Firstly, you are producing something that on it’s own could be left alone to be a visual expression of an idea or the music that you produced. But oh, how everything changes when we need to commercialise it! In your attempts to do the marketing required you potentially need to make certain sacrifices or at least restrict your options to ensure you album doesn’t fall at the first hurdle.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
‘If laws changed everytime the majority of the population chnaged from one to another, think of the anarchy.’
That’s what you said, I was merely pointing out that this is totally possible. The international system is in a state of anarchy. If Australia moved to becoming a predominantly Hindu society, the laws would change in interpretation and enforcement - as is the case in many predominantly Hindu societies.
I think the ‘nude’ cover is also an interesting point. We’re all pretty aware that it would spark a fair bit of controversy in christian circles - especially if it were to be placed in stands in christian bookshops. So knowing this, and placing aside the fact you may really just want to do a nude photo shoot to represent the beauty of the human body - should you do such a thing simply to provoke a response out of people?
The same could be applicable to the man who demanded the bull’s head be displayed. His main objective for this could certainly be defined as provoking a ’shock-factor’ to get the issue into public discourse.
Is this a legitimate reason for producing a piece of art?
May 9th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I am going to avoid the argument about laws ‘n’ stuff on account of ignorance (on my part, please note!)
Back to the original post. “I know what I like” is what i stick to. If I like something, even if it’s the picture that “came with the frame” then I like it and that’s art. I get angry when people try to tell me I have to like it cos it’s Monet or Da Vinci, but some of their art is awful (to my eye). now some Art buffs would tell me it’s because I am uncultured or uneducated. But isn’t about what you like?
I had the same argument about music with hubby. I am going to say something shocking here. I think a lot of the beatles music sucks! There I said it, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t like it. If an Abba track makes me happy inside and feel like dancing my slippers off then isn’t that good music?
I think it’s all about how it makes you feel. Like your little friends artwork that made you happy.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:49 am
I think that the “it’s how it makes you feel” argument is one worth examinng. I think that art is food for the soul & we each need to be careful about what we consume. For e.g. I grew up loving a certain band that are still popular today. In my late teens I became conscious of some of th ethings that they stood for & made the decision that even though I loved the sound of their music, I would never part with money for their market place product as this would propogate something that I inherintly(?) disagreed with. I still like the sound of their music but theyr still stand for what they stand for & I won’t change my mind as long as this is the case. So like any product, when you consume art, you are not just consuming an image or a song, you are also consuming a world view about something.
MM
May 24th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Do you take that stance on everything you “Consume”? You haven’t been clear on what their stance was so I don’t know how impactive it was. But you can’t know the philosophy of every distributor you encounter. I mean those conflakes you eat in the morning could be made by a bunch of Satanic Worshippers who sacrifice a chicken before they flatten the corn. How would you know?
May 24th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
That’s true enough; we cannot possibly know the philosophy or world view of every product that we consume, but a goodmany of them put their world view right out there. For eg; Levi’s ran an ad campaign years ago that was clearly not just selling jeans; it was selling (via it’s advertising) a world view that it was OK to have casual sex before marriage; since that ad, I have never bought a pair of levi’s. Nike had a world view that it’s OK to pay Michael Jordan, more than the sum total of all of their employess who produced their goods working in sweat shops.
And I haven’t even brought up art yet. I agree with the idea that you can’t know the philosophy of evry distributor that you encounter, but you would have to admit that when it comes to shaping societal attitudes that music & art sits in a different place to corn flakes.
A lot of music is just what it is, light, entertaining & as my friend Marty McFly says, “Hey, it’s got a beat & you can dance to it!”. But then there is a lot of stuff that is not all that hard to spot which is selling questionable attitudes about life, sexuality, religion/beliefs, & they should be questioned. This is why I said that art is food for the soul & we need to be careful what we feed our soul.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not on a witch hunt here. But I for one would rather approach art with this kind of attitude; I actually believe that as a Christian I have a responsibility to do so.
Oh & BTW; I don’t eat corn flakes, I only eat Muesli that has been grown in happy paddocks by New Testament Christians.
May 24th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Well you made me giggle at the end at least. I know what you’re saying and I tend to feel the same (I don’t own a pair of Nike’s or Levi’s). Though i am more judgemental on these things for my impressionable girls.
But that aside, I still wonder if we take things too far sometimes as christians. “I only buy my *whatever* from Koorong then I know it’s spiritually clean”. Bah, I know some people who would actually admit to only eating muesli made by new testament christians……