NYLON: I’m no expert, but I am aware enough to know that art isn’t meant to be loved by all; it’s meant to be criticized, evaluated, picked apart, sure. Some pieces are going to offend, and others are going to motivate. Why then, as of late, have pieces deemed “controversial,” also been deemed worthy of removal?
8 comments:
I think that everyone should take a moment to read this article and any others like it. Not only does it discuss our (unbalanced) American sensitivities to race and sex, but it also brings up the question of why art exists at all. Personally, I believe with the perspective of the author of this article: that art is made into art when it is put in the public for general viewing and it can spark conversation and discussion about bigger topics. But I also agree with the idea of when something becomes offensive on a personal level instead of being offensive on a more general or social level, that art piece's publicity should also come into question. But why do so many Americans seem to get so much more offended by sexuality and not by the exploitation of a minority race? The answer clearly is that those voices of those minority races are not as easily heard, and this is a problem across all aspects of our society. We as an artistic community must work harder, then, to make those voices hard, and to make ourselves more uncomfortable for the sake of discussion.
The fact that works of art that were censored by the public before they had a chance to experience it is awful. I will never understand why people think that they have the ability to censor art just because they are worried it will upset someone. When I was at the Carnegie Museum of Art earlier this year I saw a painting that got more grotesque the more that I looked at it. It had caricatures of black people being forced to do obscene things by white men labeled as society and money. However as I looked at it, I came to the understanding that the painting was supposed to evoke these feelings of disgust and horror. I think that when people censor artwork because they are worried of the reaction they are missing the point as a whole. The art is supposed to garner a reaction. However, what I am most disappointed by is the way that society is so touchy on the subject of sex, yet they are often blind to the subject of race and racism. I think this article did a good job of highlighting how society is less tolerant of public shows of sex than they are by public shows of racism. While one is perfectly acceptable, and something that most of the world will experience throughout their lifetime in a healthy manner, the other is awful and should not be happening in today’s world. And yet only one of these is censored.
I am baffled by our society. This article highlights something that I did not know about and am speechless to hear. Art is not something that should be hindered, removed, or blocked. Art can be used to provoke and to bring awareness, as it seems these pieces were aiming to do, and yet the public blocked them from being shown before they could even be shown because they didn’t like the idea of it. It just baffles me. The purpose of this art was to get a response it seems and it did its job but what was hoped would happen and what happened I’m sure are polar opposite. It seems our society has developed the attitude that ignorance is bliss and engrained it into their souls so that they can just let the world die, remain to worsen, and regress. This article has brought my attention to something new and it saddens me to know this. It is sad to hear this. It is sad to know where our society is heading to. However, it also empowers me to want to create more art, more provoking and “controversial art” so that people are provoked and so that change can occur.
I one hundred percent agree with Nicolaus. I am extremely shocked by the Guggenheim Museum and how it was forced to not put up one of the pieces of the “Art and China after 1989: Theater of the World” exhibit. I understand that it would be difficult to put up with protesters and I stand by the Guggenheim's decision but it is saddening that things need to be so censored. I also agree with Nicolaus that our world is regressing by all this censorship. The removal of the Domestikator is probably more outraging because of the censorship of sex. I have this same issue with violence being less censored than sex. Sex and nudity is natural. Five year olds shouldn’t be exposed to violence as they are. It is one of the most unnatural engineered things humans regularly do. I agree with the author that things are overly censored but I don’t necessarily know the right answer. I understand people need to be respected but I wonder how people can be respected and there be less censorship.
I one hundred percent agree with Nicolaus. I am extremely shocked by the Guggenheim Museum and how it was forced to not put up one of the pieces of the “Art and China after 1989: Theater of the World” exhibit. I understand that it would be difficult to put up with protesters and I stand by the Guggenheim's decision but it is saddening that things need to be so censored. I also agree with Nicolaus that our world is regressing by all this censorship. The removal of the Domestikator is probably more outraging because of the censorship of sex. I have this same issue with violence being less censored than sex. Sex and nudity are natural. Five-year-olds shouldn’t be exposed to violence as they are. It is one of the most unnatural engineered things humans regularly do. I agree with the author that things are overly censored but I don’t necessarily know the right answer. I understand people need to be respected but I wonder how people can be respected and there be less censorship.
I have a lot of issues with the current criticisms regarding the censorship of art in museums. The fact of the matter is animal cruelty and racial tensions are not issues to be compared with each other, particularly in this case where one of the pieces featured actual animal cruelty. The fact of the matter is that museums have always been flawed places: many museums CONTINUE to almost exclusively feature male artists, and a piece by Guerilla Girls at the Met comes immediately to mind in terms of the staggering statistics about how awful representation in modern museums is in general. The piece (From 1996) highlights the fact that less than 3% of the art in the museum was actually created by women, but that 83% of the nude pieces that are featured are of women. It's clear to me that museums have done an excellent job at marketing themselves as perfect palaces of representation, but that simply is not the reality.
“Art is meant to be provocative, and if the work created continues to be watered down, there won’t be room left for dialogue of any kind.” This statement from the article rings incredibly true to the basis of art and the meaning for creating it. Art in it’s most basic form is meant to evoke emotion and provoke a feeling. The pieces highlighted in the article aimed to do just that, but never got to reach an audience because they were too controversial? That is truly astounding to me. In a society that claims to be so openly self aware of issues regarding race, gender, and sexuality, we still manage to close ourselves into a box that limits us from actually facing these issues head on.We would rather be hypocrites in our own comfort zone, than branch out and actually start a conversation about something that might scare us. It is truly disappointing to think that we have reached this point, but it also means that we- as creative people- must continue to push the boundaries and create meaningful, provocative work.
Controversy in art is a really tricky topic, just as freedom of speech is. Almost every hate group imaginable has used the argument that their opinions are protected by their freedom of speech, but this does not cancel out the fact that they are still a hate group and their opinions should not be tolerated. However, art is much more up in the air. Art can never be physically harmful. Art can always be defended as an expression of the artist's opinion, a window into a different point of view. I think it is more painful for people to see their beloved museums, places they frequent, “supporting” these pieces by showing them. It is like finding out that a brand you love supports an organization that you do not agree with morally. This might be why patrons react so extremely.
Post a Comment