In art this quarter, we’ve been talking a lot about controversial contemporary art, and the debates surrounding it. Sarah Harrison writes, “As time has moved on and contemporary art has moved with it, controversy has somehow always managed to keep up.” Harrison’s article, “Censorship and Controversy in Contemporary Art” relate to the ones we’ve been reading for class because they’re all about censorship and controversy, and the question of whether or not art has a limit that it should not cross.
My understanding of art has shifted back and forth while reading these pieces because they provide multiple perspectives, and each perspective has valid points. While some of the modern art today can be alarming and even offensive, people have to consider how art changes. Harrison talks about how 1907 was the year that modernism was born when Pablo Picasso delivered Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, now in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art in New York, which shocked and offended people. The abstract painting of what appeared to be a group of prostitutes was appalling to the public at that time. Even more difficult for us to understand today was the shock and outrage that came with the impressionist paintings. However, the impressionist period and the beginnings of modernism have served as a base for so much art created later on. It seems like, from our history, we should learn that it is always good to support art and lift up artists whose work is new and different. Suppressing the art of certain artists that is considered “controversial” or “offensive” is suppressing that person’s right to expression, and potentially keeping them from inspiring future artists. For example, in the article “Censorship at Many Levels,” G. Wayne Clough, head of the Smithsonian, ordered a video by Wojnarowicz to be removed just because the video contained an 11-second segment showing ants crawling on a crucifix. This work was an anguished tribute to his partner who died from AIDS in 1987, but he did not end up getting to share that grief through his art because of this censorship.
However, it is also easy for me to see the other side of the story. For example, the article “The Art of Controversy,” talks about the controversy surrounding the show “Sensation” which opened at New York’s Brooklyn Museum of Art. One specific piece, the most controversial, was “The Holy Virgin Mary” by Chris Ofili. This work was a depiction of a black Madonna “adorned with elephant dung and sexually-explicit photos — that was deemed by New York’s Mayor Rudolph Giuliani ‘anti-Catholic.’” I agree that some of the works we’ve been reading about in these articles and that we’ve been discussing in class can be offensive and even rude, depending on how they are interpreted. I don’t think that any of these artists should be stopped from making this type of art, but the question is, should Americans be spending their federal tax dollars on this art? I can see why Americans would be upset about personally paying to fund art that offends their faith. However, I can also see the other side of the story, that America needs to fund artists as a whole, no matter what art people are making.
While I don’t have an answer to all the questions that have risen as we have been reading and discussing, it has allowed me to broaden my views on modern art and understand different ways of looking at and interpreting art. One piece that could be considered offensive by one spectator could be considered simply an exploratory piece by another spectator. I do think it is always important to keep an open mind when making and viewing art.
My understanding of art has shifted back and forth while reading these pieces because they provide multiple perspectives, and each perspective has valid points. While some of the modern art today can be alarming and even offensive, people have to consider how art changes. Harrison talks about how 1907 was the year that modernism was born when Pablo Picasso delivered Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, now in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art in New York, which shocked and offended people. The abstract painting of what appeared to be a group of prostitutes was appalling to the public at that time. Even more difficult for us to understand today was the shock and outrage that came with the impressionist paintings. However, the impressionist period and the beginnings of modernism have served as a base for so much art created later on. It seems like, from our history, we should learn that it is always good to support art and lift up artists whose work is new and different. Suppressing the art of certain artists that is considered “controversial” or “offensive” is suppressing that person’s right to expression, and potentially keeping them from inspiring future artists. For example, in the article “Censorship at Many Levels,” G. Wayne Clough, head of the Smithsonian, ordered a video by Wojnarowicz to be removed just because the video contained an 11-second segment showing ants crawling on a crucifix. This work was an anguished tribute to his partner who died from AIDS in 1987, but he did not end up getting to share that grief through his art because of this censorship.
However, it is also easy for me to see the other side of the story. For example, the article “The Art of Controversy,” talks about the controversy surrounding the show “Sensation” which opened at New York’s Brooklyn Museum of Art. One specific piece, the most controversial, was “The Holy Virgin Mary” by Chris Ofili. This work was a depiction of a black Madonna “adorned with elephant dung and sexually-explicit photos — that was deemed by New York’s Mayor Rudolph Giuliani ‘anti-Catholic.’” I agree that some of the works we’ve been reading about in these articles and that we’ve been discussing in class can be offensive and even rude, depending on how they are interpreted. I don’t think that any of these artists should be stopped from making this type of art, but the question is, should Americans be spending their federal tax dollars on this art? I can see why Americans would be upset about personally paying to fund art that offends their faith. However, I can also see the other side of the story, that America needs to fund artists as a whole, no matter what art people are making.
While I don’t have an answer to all the questions that have risen as we have been reading and discussing, it has allowed me to broaden my views on modern art and understand different ways of looking at and interpreting art. One piece that could be considered offensive by one spectator could be considered simply an exploratory piece by another spectator. I do think it is always important to keep an open mind when making and viewing art.