But in two recent controversies, the protesters seem to be winning.
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Guggenheim Museum Is Criticized for Pulling Animal Artworks
But in two recent controversies, the protesters seem to be winning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This is an incredibly controversial topic for everyone. First and foremost, animals are beings that have lives, and forcing them to be in a traveling exhibit is incredibly sad to hear about. I understand the point of it, but art is about changing a situation or recreating it in a way that makes it better, and just repeating these actions centuries later is simply cruel. I do wish the artists had had a perspective in this article, but this exhibit is really hard to hear about. Secondly, the Guggenheim is such a popular museum that yes, should acquire and show controversial pieces of art, and stand by adding them to collections, but I want to know why they thought these specific pieces would help the musem. Art is supposed to start a conversation, but this is not the way to do it, because it is going to hurt museums everywhere, and this particular exhibit is hurting animals, and neither should have happened in the first place.
The circumstances of which the Guggenheim has found itself in is one that we as theatre artist can both understand and commiserate in. As artists, we believe greatly in the sanctity of free speech and artistic expression but also understand the detriment that these things unchecked can cause. There is a fine line between art that causes one to feel uncomfortable because of it’s truth and its ability to evoke thought and depth and art that causes one to feel uncomfortable because of its trigger warnings and provocative nature and unfortunately that line is different for everyone. I personally struggle to find a wrong and right side in these events as I strongly oppose censorship and uphold free expression but find the harming of animals horrific and immoral. These events also beg one to ask if the protests of the people should have such a hold on the choices that artists and their venues make with their creative license as someone will probably always be offended.
I have conflicting feelings towards the argument posed in this museum. Part of me wants to agree with the animal cruelty protesters and support the Guggenheim taking out the installations. However, another part of me agrees that controversial art is just as important as safe art. Yes there is an outrage about it now, but in maybe 10 years people will be discussing and learning the beauty of these art pieces. Every century there is always an art piece that challenges the comfort of the viewer and causes a scandalist out-roar. On the other hand, animal cruelty is not okay. Putting these dogs in harnesses on display to fight is horrible. Watching pigs have sex is vulgar. And analyzing these reptiles and insects under a harsh light can be really hard to look at. All of these installations are incredible hard to understand how the artists felt okay about putting them out on display, but I agree with one spectator who said the Guggenheim should have used this as an opportunity to discuss the larger idea of controversial art and why the viewers have such a visceral reaction to such controversial art.
I have to agree with the protestors on this one. While I don't think that artworks featuring animals, particularly videos, are out of the question. I do think these art pieces really sanction animal cruelty. In a world where people are so disconnected to the realities of modern animal cruelty, I don't think freedom of speech can be used to justify a work of "art" that features real, live animals in intense emotional distress. I agree that museums could definitely be setting dangerous precendents by allowing protestors to influence what is "allowed" to be featured in them, but I think in this case a line was crossed more than just what is "good art" and "bad art". Not to mention the fact that China has far less legislation regarding abuse of animals than the U.S. does, which brings up an interesting point about the context of these particular pieces. At the end of the day, animals should definitely not be used as props, and definitely should not be exploited like they were in this instance at the Guggenheim.
This represents a blatant disregard of the museum’s support for free speech, artistic freedom, and independent thinking. Moreover, these protesters are engaging in a highly jingoistic and western centric perspective about animal rights. Weiwei’s artwork is meant to tell a story of suffering and evolution in China since their incredible economic boom from 1989 onwards. Furthermore, Weiwei’s intentions were not to denigrate or disparage animals and animal rights, but instead to tell a fully factual story about his country. For these protesters to not appreciate the purpose and the intent of the artist is extremely western-centric, and as a result museum goers will lose out on the educational experience. Museums should be a bastion of independent thinking that do not bow down to the mob mentality. Art is meant to be seen and engaged with, and as such controversy should be welcomed.
Post a Comment