Chris Ofili: British Artist Holds Fast to His Inspiration
Matthew
Dr. John wrote:
> The following story concerns the artist, Chris Ofili of the U.K., whose
> work now showing at the Brooklyn Museum of Art has set off a number of Ms.
> Laura's highly entertaining rants'n'raves.
I have become a bit concerned that almost all the attention about this
"art" exhibit has been centered around this particular work. There is so much
more that hardly ever gets mentioned.
Like the vertically bisected shark and pig. The vivisected cow. The ice
sculpture of a man's head made from the "artist's" blood. A depiction of "The
Last Supper" with a topless woman in the place of Jesus. And so on.
The debate seems either to be about whether taxpayer's money should be
spent on the creation or showcasing of "art" considered controversial or if
this is free speech.
The answer, in both cases, for me, is no. And that especially goes for
the latter.
Sorry, but there is just nothing redeeming, socially or
scientifically, about this exhibit. It was created with a dual purpose: To
shock, and offend. And it has.
And I have grown so sick and tired of people who produce the most
vile, despicable, unbelievable garbage you could possibly imagine, and then
hide behind the First Amendment, as if the free speech clause is absolute.
Enough, indeed, is enough.
Matthew
>
>
Matthew
August XXi wrote:
>
>
> Art can also make a person "think." Symbolism. Look into it.
>
> August
I look at pictures of the "art" from the exhibit and I think: Obscene.
Garbage. Way, way, *WAY* over the line.
Common sense.
Look into it.
Matthew
Dr. John
The following story concerns the artist, Chris Ofili of the U.K., whose
work now showing at the Brooklyn Museum of Art has set off a number of Ms.
Laura's highly entertaining rants'n'raves.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/arts/092899ofili-brooklyn-museum.html
Cheers,
Dr. John
--
"In 48 hours I'll be deader than a Saturday night in Salt Lake City!"
--Dave Lister
Martha Hughes
>
> The following story concerns the artist, Chris Ofili of the U.K., whose
> work now showing at the Brooklyn Museum of Art has set off a number of Ms.
> Laura's highly entertaining rants'n'raves.
If I had the money, I would fly out tomorrow to see Sensation. It sounds
truly fascinating.
August XXi
>Dr. John wrote:
>
>> The following story concerns the artist, Chris Ofili of the U.K., whose
>> work now showing at the Brooklyn Museum of Art has set off a number of Ms.
>> Laura's highly entertaining rants'n'raves.
>
> I have become a bit concerned that almost all the attention about this
>"art" exhibit has been centered around this particular work. There is so much
>more that hardly ever gets mentioned.
>
> Like the vertically bisected shark and pig. The vivisected cow. The
>ice
>sculpture of a man's head made from the "artist's" blood. A depiction of "The
>Last Supper" with a topless woman in the place of Jesus. And so on.
>
> The debate seems either to be about whether taxpayer's money should be
>spent on the creation or showcasing of "art" considered controversial or if
>this is free speech.
>
> The answer, in both cases, for me, is no. And that especially goes
>for
>the latter.
>
> Sorry, but there is just nothing redeeming, socially or
>scientifically, about this exhibit. It was created with a dual purpose: To
>shock, and offend. And it has.
>
> And I have grown so sick and tired of people who produce the most
>vile, despicable, unbelievable garbage you could possibly imagine, and then
>hide behind the First Amendment, as if the free speech clause is absolute.
>
> Enough, indeed, is enough.
>
>
> Matthew
Matthew, I have been asked to let you know that Laura needs her long, cold,
steel rod back. Her ass is empty.
Marc T. Satterwhite
>
>
> Dr. John wrote:
>
> > The following story concerns the artist, Chris Ofili of the U.K., whose
> > work now showing at the Brooklyn Museum of Art has set off a number of Ms.
> > Laura's highly entertaining rants'n'raves.
>
> I have become a bit concerned that almost all the attention about this
> "art" exhibit has been centered around this particular work. There is so much
> more that hardly ever gets mentioned.
>
> Like the vertically bisected shark and pig. The vivisected cow. The ice
> sculpture of a man's head made from the "artist's" blood. A depiction of "The
> Last Supper" with a topless woman in the place of Jesus. And so on.
>
> The debate seems either to be about whether taxpayer's money should be
> spent on the creation or showcasing of "art" considered controversial or if
> this is free speech.
>
> The answer, in both cases, for me, is no. And that especially goes for
> the latter.
>
> Sorry, but there is just nothing redeeming, socially or
> scientifically, about this exhibit. It was created with a dual purpose: To
> shock, and offend. And it has.
>
> And I have grown so sick and tired of people who produce the most
> vile, despicable, unbelievable garbage you could possibly imagine, and then
> hide behind the First Amendment, as if the free speech clause is absolute.
>
> Enough, indeed, is enough.
>
>
You know, I feel pretty much the same about Norman Rockwell, but you
don't see me saying it's not protected by the First Amendment just because
I don't like it.
As many others have pointed out, popular speech and art don't NEED the
First Amendment; it's precisely the unpopular that MUST be protected.
Otherwise "freedom of expression" is utterly meaningless.
Best, Marc
Pogo Possum, Ph.D.
Matthew wrote in message <37F89F8A...@earthlink.net>...
>
>
>August XXi wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Art can also make a person "think." Symbolism. Look into it.
>>
>> August
>
think: Obscene.
>Garbage. Way, way, *WAY* over the line.
>
> Common sense.
>
> Look into it.
>
This is your knee-jerk reaction. If you think further you'll learn
something about what makes you tick. Why do you consider a particular
piece obscene or garbage? What does that tell you about what you
value? What aspects of the piece contribute to that response? How did
the artist manage to evoke those responses using a visual medium?
What is the relationship of the artist to the message presented (e.g.,
does the artist intend you to feel negative emotions about what is
portrayed)? Is the message presented saying something about what is
revered in society or common in society?
If you think about these questions, beyond your initial disgust, you
will grow as a person. THAT is one of the purposes of art. You seem
to think it is only to create beauty and pleasure -- artists think it
is also to stimulate thought and other emotional reactions, including
disgust, horror, anger. Artists think it is to encourage people to
new social understandings and perhaps political action. In such a
case, disgust or revulsion might be an appropriate response to a piece
and feeling it might indicate that you get the point -- not that the
piece shouldn't have been presented.
EMF1947
>Date: Wed, 06 October 1999 04:23 AM EDT
>Message-id: <7tfp3i$82p$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
In that context, I think of Pablo Picasso's "Guernica". I think the last
reaction he would have wanted the viewer to have was "Oh, what a pretty
painting".
Ellen
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
Eric da Red
Matthew <ter...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Dr. John wrote:
>
>> The following story concerns the artist, Chris Ofili of the U.K., whose
>> work now showing at the Brooklyn Museum of Art has set off a number of Ms.
>> Laura's highly entertaining rants'n'raves.
> I have become a bit concerned that almost all the attention about this
>"art" exhibit has been centered around this particular work. There is so much
>more that hardly ever gets mentioned.
>
> Like the vertically bisected shark and pig. The vivisected cow. The ice
>sculpture of a man's head made from the "artist's" blood. A depiction of "The
>Last Supper" with a topless woman in the place of Jesus. And so on.
>
> The debate seems either to be about whether taxpayer's money should be
>spent on the creation or showcasing of "art" considered controversial or if
>this is free speech.
>
> The answer, in both cases, for me, is no. And that especially goes for
>the latter.
>
> Sorry, but there is just nothing redeeming, socially or
>scientifically, about this exhibit. It was created with a dual purpose: To
>shock, and offend. And it has.
How do you know what the artists' intentions are?
Do you have a lot of experience viewing and evaluating modern art?
> And I have grown so sick and tired of people who produce the most
>vile, despicable, unbelievable garbage you could possibly imagine, and then
>hide behind the First Amendment, as if the free speech clause is absolute.
I agree with you that free speech, like any right, is not absolute.
Artistic expression is just about as close to an absolute right of free
speech that there is, imo.
> Enough, indeed, is enough.
I'm sure that there are some Precious Moments figurines available from QVC
that would be more to your aesthetic temperment.
--
Historical Revelation Of The Week: In 1938, the 27-year-old actor [Ronald
Reagan] announced he wanted to signup. The [Communist Party] conducted an
investigation, said Fast, and "word came back he was a flake ... who
couldn't be trusted with a political opinion for more than 20 minutes."
Matthew
Marc T. Satterwhite wrote:
>
>
> As many others have pointed out, popular speech and art don't NEED the
> First Amendment; it's precisely the unpopular that MUST be protected.
> Otherwise "freedom of expression" is utterly meaningless.
But they don't HAVE the First Amendment. There are established legal limits.
Obscene material is one of them. It is NOT protected. And I can assure you, that
exhibit was not what our founding fathers were thinking of when the Constitution was
being drafted.
Matthew
>
>
> Best, Marc
Matthew
Patrick of Las Vegas wrote:
> >
>
> Of course they have First Amendment protection. But the First Amendment is
> not absolute. Fire - Movie House - etc.
More than that. Try bomb threats, death threats (especially those
directed at the President), libel, slander, defamation of character, and
obscene material.
Matthew
>
Matthew
Crazy Cat wrote:
> I don't follow much modern art -- I've see some that I really like,
> and some that I really hated. However, I think that Rudy Guliani
> went over the line in threatening to remove funding from the museum.
> There is a board elected to make decisions about what is displayed
> in the museum, and he went over their heads.
Yes! Who does Rudy think he is? The mayor?
> If
> Rudy had been around we probaly would never have masterpieces
> like Michaelangelo's David, or the works of Toulouse Lautrec, Monet,
> and Vincent Van Gogh to name a few.
I cannot seem to remember if any one of the above mentioned artists
vivisected animals, adorned paintings with elephant dung and cutouts of
bare female buttocks, made ice sculptures from blood, sex organs growing
out of the mouths of sculptured people, etc. If anyone can provide such an
example, please feel free to do so (with a picture, please) and I will
stand corrected.
Matthew
>
>
Matthew
Brien Sullivan wrote:
> The "Sensation" show
> at The Brooklyn Museum has been promoted in a fairly tacky way,
> is certainly offensive to some, and parts of it are breathtakingly
> grotesque and repulsive, but it's in no way obscene.
So, then, what would someone have to do in order for you to say it is
obscene?
Matthew
Neutrodyne
>From: " Marc T. Satterwhite" mtsa...@athena.louisville.edu
>Date: Wed, 06 October 1999 11:04 AM EDT
>Message-id: <Pine.A41.3.96.991006...@athena.louisville.edu>
>
>As many others have pointed out, popular speech and art don't NEED the
>First Amendment; it's precisely the unpopular that MUST be protected.
>Otherwise "freedom of expression" is utterly meaningless.
>
>Best, Marc
But no one has said it isn't protected, nor has anone sought to prevent
it's exhibition. What is at issue is public subsidy and the exhibition in
taxpayer funded venues. There are abundant private art galleries and/or
museuyms where this exhibit would fit.
I see parallels between this exhibit and a film like "Natural Born
Killers". The difference is, the people who made the film brought their visioin
to the world without taking funds away from Social Security or school lunch
programs to do so.
I haven't noticed any public funding of Norman Rockwell's work, but I'd be
against that too. When the government sponsors art, it can't sponsor everyone
who claims what they do is art, so it is discriminitory. Unless they send me $
to buy pencils for my kid so she can draw Poke-Mon characters, I can say they
are not supporting all artists. It's like the church/state thing. It's only
fair that since there is no consensus as to what is or isn't art, then art
should be left to it's patrons to support, without government interference in
the guise of sponsorship.
Neutrodyne
Patrick of Las Vegas
> But they don't HAVE the First Amendment. There are established
legal limits.
> Obscene material is one of them. It is NOT protected. And I can assure
you, that
> exhibit was not what our founding fathers were thinking of when the
Constitution was
> being drafted.
Of course they have First Amendment protection. But the First Amendment is
not absolute. Fire - Movie House - etc.
Additionally, how do you know that the Founding Fathers would say the First
Amendment does not apply here? Are you channeling spirits?
Patrick of Las Vegas
Crazy Cat
and some that I really hated. However, I think that Rudy Guliani
went over the line in threatening to remove funding from the museum.
There is a board elected to make decisions about what is displayed
go into the local libraries and remove funding from those libraries
that have books he may find offensive? What if a bunch of very
vocal creationists decide that they are offended by having their money
funding 'evolutionist' propoganda, or evolutionary biologists decide
that they are offended by having creationist texts available in
their libraries? Will Rudy kowtow to one group or the other and
threaten the libraries with removal of their funds if they don't
remove the offending texts? Do you know that there is a Picasso
statue in Chicago's Daley plaza called Woman that is a portrayal
of a vagina (I've seen this sculpture many times, but never realized
this until it was pointed out by a local talkshow host here)? Do
you know that when impressionist paintings first appeared they
were considered profane, because they lacked realism? How about
that nude masterpieces of the Renaissance caused near riots? If
Rudy had been around we probaly would never have masterpieces
like Michaelangelo's David, or the works of Toulouse Lautrec, Monet,
and Vincent Van Gogh to name a few.
My two cents.
--
DO NOT HIT REPLY TO RESPOND TO THIS MESSAGE.
The Reply address is bogus as an anti-spam measure.
Instead send e-mail to Axxx...@mindxxxspring.com (
leave out xxx's -- they are there to fool spam bots
that hunt for e-mail addresses in the body of a message).
Who needs a sig?
Brien Sullivan
>From: " Marc T. Satterwhite" mtsa...@athena.louisville.edu
>>As many others have pointed out, popular speech and art don't NEED the
>>First Amendment; it's precisely the unpopular that MUST be protected.
>>Otherwise "freedom of expression" is utterly meaningless.
>But no one has said it isn't protected, nor has anone sought to prevent
>it's exhibition. What is at issue is public subsidy and the exhibition in
>taxpayer funded venues. There are abundant private art galleries and/or
>museuyms where this exhibit would fit.
>
>I see parallels between this exhibit and a film like "Natural Born
>Killers". The difference is, the people who made the film brought their visioin
>to the world without taking funds away from Social Security or school lunch
>programs to do so.
>I haven't noticed any public funding of Norman Rockwell's work, but I'd be
>against that too. When the government sponsors art, it can't sponsor everyone
>who claims what they do is art, so it is discriminitory. Unless they send me $
>to buy pencils for my kid so she can draw Poke-Mon characters, I can say they
>are not supporting all artists. It's like the church/state thing. It's only
>fair that since there is no consensus as to what is or isn't art, then art
>should be left to it's patrons to support, without government interference in
>the guise of sponsorship.
>Neutrodyne
If you're arguing against public funding for museums Neut, all
I can do is offer a different opinion based on different priorities,
such as museums being less important than school lunches, but
more important than F-22's. However, if it's public funding for
this particular exhibit that bothers you, or our Mayor, then tell
people it makes you sick, offends you deeply, and that they should
boycott it. I think that's called censureship. It's a First
Amendment issue because the Mayor is trying to use state power
to force a public institution to alter the content of what it
offers the public--censorship.
One can make a case that The Brooklyn Museum is guilty of
some pretty blatant hucksterism by putting on this show,
and may have exposed itself to accusations of at least being
used by Sciattchi(sp?) and certain auction houses. In that
case maybe the Mayor has a case against the museums board,
but all he's accomplished so far with his political posturing
is to turn this show into a major success.
--
Brien
"Gulliani, a man in search of a balcony."
--Jimmy Breslin
Brien Sullivan
>Marc T. Satterwhite wrote:
>> As many others have pointed out, popular speech and art don't NEED the
>> First Amendment; it's precisely the unpopular that MUST be protected.
>> Otherwise "freedom of expression" is utterly meaningless.
>But they don't HAVE the First Amendment. There are established legal limits.
>Obscene material is one of them. It is NOT protected. And I can assure you,
>that exhibit was not what our founding fathers were thinking of when the
>Constitution was being drafted.
Oh please. They weren't thinking of The Simpsons either. Should
our Mayor be harrassing Fox over that too? The "Sensation" show
at The Brooklyn Museum has been promoted in a fairly tacky way,
is certainly offensive to some, and parts of it are breathtakingly
grotesque and repulsive, but it's in no way obscene.
--
Brien
Been there, seen it.
Martha Hughes
>
> I don't follow much modern art -- I've see some that I really like,
> and some that I really hated. However, I think that Rudy Guliani
> went over the line in threatening to remove funding from the museum.
> There is a board elected to make decisions about what is displayed
> in the museum, and he went over their heads. Is he also going to
> go into the local libraries and remove funding from those libraries
> that have books he may find offensive? What if a bunch of very
> vocal creationists decide that they are offended by having their money
> funding 'evolutionist' propoganda, or evolutionary biologists decide
> that they are offended by having creationist texts available in
> their libraries? Will Rudy kowtow to one group or the other and
> threaten the libraries with removal of their funds if they don't
> remove the offending texts? Do you know that there is a Picasso
> statue in Chicago's Daley plaza called Woman that is a portrayal
> of a vagina (I've seen this sculpture many times, but never realized
> this until it was pointed out by a local talkshow host here)? Do
> you know that when impressionist paintings first appeared they
> were considered profane, because they lacked realism? How about
> that nude masterpieces of the Renaissance caused near riots? If
> Rudy had been around we probaly would never have masterpieces
> like Michaelangelo's David, or the works of Toulouse Lautrec, Monet,
> and Vincent Van Gogh to name a few.
>
> My two cents.
Your sense is worth many hundreds of dollars. I love the way our
perennial hypocrit says how Rudy is her hero. Hero schmero. Does anyone
really take the word of a politician about art seriously? I love modern
art! Shit, even the major multi-national corporation I work for gives us
free passes to the SFMOMA! (I can't wait to see the new Picasso exhibit,
my fav!) >
Crazy Cat
>
>
>Crazy Cat wrote:
>
>> I don't follow much modern art -- I've see some that I really like,
>> and some that I really hated. However, I think that Rudy Guliani
>> went over the line in threatening to remove funding from the museum.
>> There is a board elected to make decisions about what is displayed
>> in the museum, and he went over their heads.
>
> Yes! Who does Rudy think he is? The mayor?
Mayor <> dictator. Why doesn't Rudy just fire the whole museum board
and sign off on every single piece of art being shown in every museum
in the city? BTW, do you think that Rudy ought to make sure that
every book in the NY libraries meet his approval prior to approving
funding for them?
>
>> If
>> Rudy had been around we probaly would never have masterpieces
>> like Michaelangelo's David, or the works of Toulouse Lautrec, Monet,
>> and Vincent Van Gogh to name a few.
>
> I cannot seem to remember if any one of the above mentioned artists
>vivisected animals, adorned paintings with elephant dung and cutouts of
>bare female buttocks, made ice sculptures from blood, sex organs growing
>out of the mouths of sculptured people, etc. If anyone can provide such an
>example, please feel free to do so (with a picture, please) and I will
>stand corrected.
I know of at least one artist I named that has a sculpture of a
vagina in a very public square in a major American city (and it's
been there for years). I leave it
as a test of your reading comprehension to name that artist (hint: it
was in the portion of my post which you oh-so not cleverly clipped).
You would also do well to address the points raised in the post you
are following up rather than coming off like a lobotomized parrot
- "Awk, it's nasty, it's disgusting"- it's already been duly noted
that you are offended by the pieces in the show, it does nothing to
further debate by constantly repeating it. Since you failed to respond
to it in this post, I will reiterate -- a number of
now acclaimed masterpieces were seen as offensive, controversial,
and weren't considered art in their day (most impressionists, nudes,
for example). What do you think your precious Rudy would have done
to such works had he been in a position to do so back then?
>
> Matthew
Crazy Cat
>
>
>Brien Sullivan wrote:
>
>> The "Sensation" show
>> at The Brooklyn Museum has been promoted in a fairly tacky way,
>> is certainly offensive to some, and parts of it are breathtakingly
>> grotesque and repulsive, but it's in no way obscene.
>
> So, then, what would someone have to do in order for you to say
it is
>obscene?
Good question -- I don't know about obscene (I think it's a very vague and
subjective term, and one that has no business in a book of law which
generally requires very specific language) , but I don't think explicit
depictions of sex (not sex organs) would be appropriate for a museum,
particularly if meant to titilate.
You know there's a famous Picasso painting called Guernica of a scene from
a war (I think the Spanish-American war, but I'm not sure) with depictions
of dead bodies, and flying body parts and what not -- do you think this
is obscene?
A number of Renaissance sculptures and paintings are of scenes from
various bloody Bible and Greek Mythology tales (for example Prometheus
getting his liver ripped out by the eagle, and David hoisting Goliath's
head in the air) -- are these obscene?
I was in the Musee D'Orsay in Paris several months ago, and was surprised
to see a painting circa 1800's of a nude woman lying on her back, legs
spread wide revealing a very hairy pubic area -- not because the woman
was nude, but because of the nature of the pose, and the fact that most
of the nudes I had seen from that era and prior were of clean-shaven
women. The picture was in no way pornographic though, just a woman relaxing
au naturel, painted from an interesting angle. Are these obscene (by
the way the Musee D'Orsay is not a modern art museum, most of what is
there are realism, and impressionist works that date mostly from the 1800's
and
back).
EMF1947
>Date: Sat, 09 October 1999 12:02 AM EDT
>Message-id: <8E5AB07C...@209.86.155.207>
>
>ter...@earthlink.net (Matthew) wrote in <37FBC0D2...@earthlink.net>:
>
>>
>>
>>Brien Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>> The "Sensation" show
>>> at The Brooklyn Museum has been promoted in a fairly tacky way,
>>> is certainly offensive to some, and parts of it are breathtakingly
>>> grotesque and repulsive, but it's in no way obscene.
>>
>> So, then, what would someone have to do in order for you to say
>
>it is
>>obscene?
>
>Good question -- I don't know about obscene (I think it's a very vague and
>
>subjective term, and one that has no business in a book of law which
>generally requires very specific language) , but I don't think explicit
>depictions of sex (not sex organs) would be appropriate for a museum,
>particularly if meant to titilate.
>
>You know there's a famous Picasso painting called Guernica of a scene from
>
>a war (I think the Spanish-American war, but I'm not sure) with depictions
>of dead bodies, and flying body parts and what not -- do you think this
>is obscene?
Funny you should mention this, as I had just mentioned that painting myself in
this very thread a few days back. It was the Spanish Civil War, not the
Spanish American War, which happened a few decades earlier and in another
hemisphere.
There is a picture of the painting at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9820/guernica.htm
Info from "Encarta":
Free Concise Encyclopedia Article
...
Guernica, full name Guernica y Luno, town, northern Spain, in Vizcaya Province.
Guernica has a population of 16,400 (1989 estimate). It has traditionally been
a center of Basque culture. Food processing, metalworking, and furniture
manufacturing are the principal industries. A stronghold of the Loyalist forces
during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), Guernica was devastated by German air
bombardment in 1937.
Brien Sullivan
>Brien Sullivan wrote:
>> The "Sensation" show
>> at The Brooklyn Museum has been promoted in a fairly tacky way,
>> is certainly offensive to some, and parts of it are breathtakingly
>> grotesque and repulsive, but it's in no way obscene.
>So, then, what would someone have to do in order for you to say it is
>obscene?
What a peculiar question. Lets see. Maybe if the painting had
photos of L-ra's genitalia, or maybe *your* genitalia on it?
--
Brien
{br...@asan.com}
FABBABS
>Date: Sat, 09 October 1999 01:27 AM EDT
This is not nice, Brien.
Fabbabs the outsider who just won't cave.
Crazy Cat
fp1.aol.com>:
>>From: IHat...@bogus.com (Crazy Cat)
>>Date: Sat, 09 October 1999 12:02 AM EDT
>>Message-id: <8E5AB07C...@209.86.155.207>
>>
>>ter...@earthlink.net (Matthew) wrote in
<37FBC0D2...@earthlink.net>:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Brien Sullivan wrote:
>>>
>>>> The "Sensation" show
>>>> at The Brooklyn Museum has been promoted in a fairly tacky way,
>>>> is certainly offensive to some, and parts of it are breathtakingly
>>>> grotesque and repulsive, but it's in no way obscene.
>>>
>>> So, then, what would someone have to do in order for you to say
>>
>>it is
>>>obscene?
>>
Thanks for the correction, Ellen!
Matthew
Crazy Cat wrote:
> I know of at least one artist I named that has a sculpture of a
> vagina in a very public square in a major American city (and it's
> been there for years). I leave it
> as a test of your reading comprehension to name that artist (hint: it
> was in the portion of my post which you oh-so not cleverly clipped).
I read it. But apparently you did not read mine. I did not refer to
Picasso.
> You would also do well to address the points raised in the post you
> are following up rather than coming off like a lobotomized parrot
> - "Awk, it's nasty, it's disgusting"- it's already been duly noted
> that you are offended by the pieces in the show, it does nothing to
> further debate by constantly repeating it. Since you failed to respond
> to it in this post, I will reiterate -- a number of
> now acclaimed masterpieces were seen as offensive, controversial,
> and weren't considered art in their day (most impressionists, nudes,
> for example). What do you think your precious Rudy would have done
> to such works had he been in a position to do so back then?
So, are you saying any of those "art" works could be considered
"masterpieces" in the future? Maybe in a parallel universe.
And I do not believe you understand Rudy's position in this at all. He
does not approve of Ofili' "art" because of its obvious intent to offend people
of the Catholic faith. It is no different than if it was about blacks, Muslims,
Hindus, etc. (And, you can bet, if it was, they would be making a big stink
about it too.)
Wouldn't you be offended if someone created something that
specifically attacked your religion, or race?
Matthew
>
Matthew
Crazy Cat wrote:
>
>
> Good question -- I don't know about obscene (I think it's a very vague and
> subjective term, and one that has no business in a book of law which
> generally requires very specific language) ,
The United States Supreme Court gave a legal definition of obscenity,
and there are things out there that fit it well. That is why it is in law
books.
> You know there's a famous Picasso painting called Guernica of a scene from
> a war (I think the Spanish-American war, but I'm not sure) with depictions
> of dead bodies, and flying body parts and what not -- do you think this
> is obscene?
>
> A number of Renaissance sculptures and paintings are of scenes from
> various bloody Bible and Greek Mythology tales (for example Prometheus
> getting his liver ripped out by the eagle, and David hoisting Goliath's
> head in the air) -- are these obscene?
>
> I was in the Musee D'Orsay in Paris several months ago, and was surprised
> to see a painting circa 1800's of a nude woman lying on her back, legs
> spread wide revealing a very hairy pubic area -- not because the woman
> was nude, but because of the nature of the pose, and the fact that most
> of the nudes I had seen from that era and prior were of clean-shaven
> women. The picture was in no way pornographic though, just a woman relaxing
> au naturel, painted from an interesting angle. Are these obscene (by
> the way the Musee D'Orsay is not a modern art museum, most of what is
> there are realism, and impressionist works that date mostly from the 1800's
> and
> back).
There are photographs in existence that feature a crucifix in a jar
of urine. A bullwhip in the rectum of a person. Two pubescent boys standing
side by side on a beach wearing not a stich. Are those obscene?
There is a "magazine" that features graphic depictions of severe
child abuse, murder, cannibalism, and bestality. It also contains articles such
as, "How To Be A Successful Serial Killer". Is that obscene?
Matthew
Pogo Possum, Ph.D.
Matthew wrote in message <38013B27...@earthlink.net>...
You are missing the point, Matthew. The point is that in America we
don't censor art because we find it offensive. We write reviews and
critique it, picket the exhibits, or vote with our feet by not going
to see it or buy it. We don't interfere with freedom of expression
simply because an artist deals with a controversial subject.
One problem I have with Giuliani is that he is misusing a position of
power to impose his personal tastes and sensibilities about art on an
entire city. No one elected him supreme NY art critic, censor, or
protector of the faith (any faith). He is mayor -- executor of the
budget and administrator of city services. Overstepping one's
authority isn't a very good way to begin a Senate race, in my opinion.
Ted Krueger
work of "art" think that the "artist" created it with a motivation to
shock and piss off the establishment and the predominant culture.
While those two things can be characteristics of art, they do not
entitle something to be called "art."
IOW, just because something shocks and pisses people off, that does
not make it art.
Imagine the outcry if the subject was not The Madonna, but rather
Martin Luther King Jr.
p.s. I recall my definition of art, "If I can do it, it ain't art."
With that definition in mind, Ofili's work ain't art.
--
Ted the Cruel
Officially Over the Hill
Sir Ted For No Particular Reason
A Laurette in Jackal's clothing kru...@neta.com
Brien Sullivan
>There are photographs in existence that feature a crucifix in a jar
>of urine. A bullwhip in the rectum of a person. Two pubescent boys standing
>side by side on a beach wearing not a stich. Are those obscene?
>There is a "magazine" that features graphic depictions of severe
>child abuse, murder, cannibalism, and bestality. It also contains articles such
>as, "How To Be A Successful Serial Killer". Is that obscene?
Are these in the Brooklyn Museum?
Again, the issue is not Our Mayor's disapproval of this
exhibit. He certainly has the right to denounce it and
urge people not to patronize it, just as it's Cardinal
O'Connor's right, maybe even duty.
The issue is His attempt to use state power to control
the content of what is on display in a public forum.
He's tried this before (the New York Magazine ads) and
lost. He'll lose this one too, probably knows it, but
expects to win with it a year from November.
--
Brien
{br...@asan.com}
Brien Sullivan
>A very large part of this brouhaha is that many in opposition to this
>work of "art" think that the "artist" created it with a motivation to
>shock and piss off the establishment and the predominant culture.
>While those two things can be characteristics of art, they do not
>entitle something to be called "art."
>IOW, just because something shocks and pisses people off, that does
>not make it art.
>Imagine the outcry if the subject was not The Madonna, but rather
>Martin Luther King Jr.
>p.s. I recall my definition of art, "If I can do it, it ain't art."
> With that definition in mind, Ofili's work ain't art.
More likely it's, "If T-d doesn't understand it, it ain't art."
--
Brien
{br...@asan.com}
bigdlaura1
kru...@trojan.neta.com (Ted Krueger) wrote:
> A very large part of this brouhaha is that many in opposition to this
> work of "art" think that the "artist" created it with a motivation to
> shock and piss off the establishment and the predominant culture.
>
> While those two things can be characteristics of art, they do not
> entitle something to be called "art."
>
> IOW, just because something shocks and pisses people off, that does
> not make it art.
What is art, then? If you expect people to take you seriously you can't
say something doesn't fall into a category without defining that
category.
> Imagine the outcry if the subject was not The Madonna, but rather
> Martin Luther King Jr.
Did you make that up?
> p.s. I recall my definition of art, "If I can do it, it ain't art."
> With that definition in mind, Ofili's work ain't art.
I know this is supposed to be a joke, but aren't you some kind of
singer? Does a song cease to be art when you master it? I just can't
get into a joke with something like that distracting me.
GISP
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
vfl
>
> A very large part of this brouhaha is that many in opposition to this
> work of "art" think that the "artist" created it with a motivation to
> shock and piss off the establishment and the predominant culture.
>
> While those two things can be characteristics of art, they do not
> entitle something to be called "art."
>
> IOW, just because something shocks and pisses people off, that does
> not make it art.
>
> Martin Luther King Jr.
...de-lurking once again...
don't know about MLK Jr., but I _do_ know that Ofili uses that
particular medium in a number of his works, including a collage
depicting Miles Davis and James Brown.
v.
>
> p.s. I recall my definition of art, "If I can do it, it ain't art."
> With that definition in mind, Ofili's work ain't art.
>
Marc T. Satterwhite
On 11 Oct 1999, Ted Krueger wrote:
> A very large part of this brouhaha is that many in opposition to this
> work of "art" think that the "artist" created it with a motivation to
> shock and piss off the establishment and the predominant culture.
>
> While those two things can be characteristics of art, they do not
> entitle something to be called "art."
>
> IOW, just because something shocks and pisses people off, that does
> not make it art.
>
[snip]
Granted, but the fact that something shocks and pisses people off doesn't
mean that it's NOT art, either. Recently I gave a small list of
now-recognized masterpieces that shocked and pissed people off at first
(including such things as The Marriage of Figaro and Impressionist
paintings). Many people thought they weren't art, either, and wouldn't
survive.
I'm not in a position to know whether any of the stuff in this show will
pass the test of time or not (most art doesn't, after all), but the mere
fact that some people, on the basis of second- or third-hand descriptions
given by people with an ax to grind, don't approve of it, doesn't mean
that it automatically isn't any good, any more than the riot at the
premiere of The Rite of Spring has prevented every orchestra in the world
from including it in their repertory.
Best, Marc
Ted Krueger
>> A very large part of this brouhaha is that many in opposition to this
>> work of "art" think that the "artist" created it with a motivation to
>> shock and piss off the establishment and the predominant culture.
>> While those two things can be characteristics of art, they do not
>> entitle something to be called "art."
>> IOW, just because something shocks and pisses people off, that does
>> not make it art.
>What is art, then? If you expect people to take you seriously you can't
>say something doesn't fall into a category without defining that
>category.
Why not?
>> Imagine the outcry if the subject was not The Madonna, but rather
>> Martin Luther King Jr.
>Did you make that up?
Yes, why?
>> p.s. I recall my definition of art, "If I can do it, it ain't art."
>> With that definition in mind, Ofili's work ain't art.
>I know this is supposed to be a joke, but aren't you some kind of
>singer? Does a song cease to be art when you master it? I just can't
>get into a joke with something like that distracting me.
I couldn't find any quick adjectives for art that would differentiate
between making things with your hands and performing that didn't make
the sentence sound clumsy.
It comes down to something I've always said about myself: "If it can't
be drawn with a ruler, then I can't draw it." The statement about art
above is a corollary.
Matthew
Pogo Possum, Ph.D. wrote:
> You are missing the point, Matthew. The point is that in America we
> don't censor art because we find it offensive. We write reviews and
> critique it, picket the exhibits, or vote with our feet by not going
> to see it or buy it. We don't interfere with freedom of expression
> simply because an artist deals with a controversial subject.
No, I think you are missing the point. As I have indicated
elsewhere, there are limits to "free expression".
And we "censor" things all the time. When an editor of a newspaper
turns down an article submission or a letter to the editor for printing,
it is being censored. When a publisher rejects a book manuscript, it is
being censored. And when our government keeps documents from us, or gives
them to us with things backed out, it is being censored.
>
>
> Overstepping one's
> authority isn't a very good way to begin a Senate race, in my opinion.
Just an aside here: How many Catholics do you think live in New York
state? It sounds like Rudy just wants to get elected, to me.
Matthew
bigdlaura1
kru...@trojan.neta.com (Ted Krueger) wrote:
> In article <7tven3$onf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> bigdlaura1 <bigdl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >What is art, then? If you expect people to take you seriously you
can't
> >say something doesn't fall into a category without defining that
> >category.
>
> Why not?
Because your sentence has no meaning. It's taco, y'know. What are you
saying it isn't?
> >> Imagine the outcry if the subject was not The Madonna, but rather
> >> Martin Luther King Jr.
>
> >Did you make that up?
>
> Yes, why?
Because I've heard at least three other people use pretty much the same
line and I was wondering if it didn't orginate with Limbaugh or someone.
> >> p.s. I recall my definition of art, "If I can do it, it ain't art."
> >> With that definition in mind, Ofili's work ain't art.
>
> >I know this is supposed to be a joke, but aren't you some kind of
> >singer? Does a song cease to be art when you master it? I just can't
> >get into a joke with something like that distracting me.
>
> I couldn't find any quick adjectives for art that would differentiate
> between making things with your hands and performing that didn't make
> the sentence sound clumsy.
>
> It comes down to something I've always said about myself: "If it
can't
> be drawn with a ruler, then I can't draw it." The statement about
art
> above is a corollary.
Well, what about architechure? I don't agree that a certain arbitrarily
defined level of technical skill is a requirement for something to be
called "art". I'd define it as a form of communication. A little too
broad, I know, but a decent starting point. Just MHO.