Monday, January 17, 2011
A Fire in MoMA's Belly: The Modern Buys David Wojnarowicz's Censored Video
Yahoo! News: "The censorship of the late artist David Wojnarowicz's 'A Fire in My Belly' at the National Portrait Gallery has touched off a wide-ranging solidarity campaign from museums and other institutions, screening the video to protest its repression. Now the furor has provoked a still stronger statement: Glenn D. Lowry, director of New York's Museum of Modern Art, announced this morning that the institution has acquired both the 13-minute version of 'A Fire in My Belly' and a 7-minute edit made by Wojnarowicz. According to a press rep, MoMA acquired the work through New York gallery PPOW, which represents the artist's estate, and the museum claims to be the first institution to collect the video. It goes on view immediately.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The line between censorship and the arts has always been blurred. Any form of art if we consider it to be a fine art, performance art, or even the media has issues surrounding censorship. Provocative work has been a part of our history for centuries and will be continuously produced. I feel that there are lines and limits to who should see specific works, but if no one produces the work because they are scared of the consequences then art is a lost cause. MoMA has made a bold decision to show the work, and individuals have every right to protest the censorship of the work. As long as art is legal (which is another issue), we should not feel we must hide works which we are not comfortable with.
AJ said "we should not feel we must hide works which we are not comfortable with."
I would take this even one step further. I think one of the roles of art in society is to be provocative and challenging, which often requires making the viewer uncomfortable. Many of these works will be controversial and possibly require warnings or restrictions (I think of age, mainly), but censoring an artist ultimately alters the artist's intention in creating a piece.
I do, however, see that a museum has multiple concerns in showing or acquiring a piece. Art with content not suitable for all audiences, or even just generally controversial art might limit or exclude the intended audience of the museum at large. Depending on what a museum feels is its role in its community, they will make choices to continue to serve that audience in that way. But censorship is tricky territory with art. It absolutely changes the nature of the piece, despite giving it a wider audience.
I think art is supposed to make us think and most art does that by making us feel uncomfortable or leaving us not knowing what to think. Museums that don't have art that does that, I feel, is a waste of space. Why would I go to the museum if all I'm going to see are works that make me want to say "oh that's pretty"? I like art that makes a statement because that's what art should do. It's a form of expression and if you aren't expressing anything what's the work doing?
Cassandra brings up an interesting point about museums having to/wanting to cater to the audience they are trying to attract... Yes, a museum has every right to accept or not accept a certain piece of art based on any number of reasons, but if they don't accept something because it might make people think and question their world, then they are doing it for the wrong reason.
I like pretty museum things as much as the next person, and sure, I don't like to be offended, but if I find a piece of art offensive I don't have to keep looking at it. Art promotes dialogue--censorship destroys that. Although the National Gallery's actions in this particular case were questionable, I applaud MoMA's decision to showcase the work. Censorship in one market sometimes serves to make that particular item even more popular in the next. I'm sure MoMA will be enjoying having such a popular and controversial work on display.
Post a Comment