2008 Fall: Theoretical Constructions in Contemporary Art

I think it's OK -- even more than OK, it's desirable -- for artists to be irreverent, angry, or "shocking" in their artwork, but I think it would be unwise for artists to expect or count on funding for projects which they know are going to offend a lot of people. I didn't personally find Serrano's Piss Christ to be shocking or offensive, and this is in part, I think, because I've grown used to artworks in which it is the artist's intention to "shock" or "offend." Sometimes I think that artists are having to work harder to get through the viewer's skin, and evoke a reaction, but on the other hand, the things that offended certain people a long time ago (pornography, "deviant" sex, "anti-Christian" religious messages, etc.) are the same things that offend certain people today.

It was interesting to me to think that gaining new knowledge about the "background" of a piece of art -- how that piece was made, the title of the piece, the artist's intentions, the circumstances surrounding the making of that piece -- could drastically change one's perception of that piece of art. If people had never learned that Serrano's figurine of Christ was submerged in urine, or that his photograph was called "Piss Christ," they may have just thought it was an interesting, strangely colored, mysterious photograph with Christ as the main figure, and would never have reacted so violently.

Vance says, "No doubt the continuous contemplation of the standards of public taste that should obtain in publicly funded projects...will itself increase self-censorship and caution across the board." Censorship seems like a downward spiral, and one of the pernicious ultimate effects of censorship is self-censorship: when we learn that something is "indecent" or "off limits" in art, we may cease to permit ourselves to make that kind of art and may withhold our "private expressions of noncomformity." I found it interesting that conservatives and fundamentalists try to avoid acknowledging that what they are doing is "censorship," since doing that would be to admit that they are on the wrong side, and that they are actually encroaching upon people's creative freedom and privacy (which is, of course, exactly what they are doing). It's amazing to me that sometimes the people who think the least can have the loudest of voices and the most clever of tactics, and that certain dangerous people are still fighting to limit our right to free speech and free expression. I can't help but feel awash in pity for those people who can't "live and let live," and who feel compelled to make their personal opinions public opinion. However, I have a lot of faith that free expression will win out in the end. But as Vance states, "the fundamentalist attack on art and images requires a broad and vigrous response that goes beyond appeals to free speech...the art community needs to employ its interpretive skills to unmask the modernized rhetoric conservatives use to justify their traditional agenda, as well as to deconstruct tthe "difficult" images fundamentalists choose to se their campaigns in motion."

Despite all of this, it's interesting that even freedom of speech needs to be restricted in some ways -- for example, we shouldn't be allowed to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, and we shouldn't be allowed to release classified, life-or-death information (like government officials did when they outed CIA agent Valerie Plame). Perhaps in art, too, everything except the illegal should be allowed, since, in general, art can pose no real physical danger to anybody. Art may be "offensive" to people who don't like being offended, but to my mind offensive art is often the best kind of art.

If we were to decide not to use public money to fund anything controversial or potentially offensive, I’m not sure what would be left to fund. Education would still be there, but biology and ecology would be missing, as well as any research based science that might contradict someone’s religious beliefs. War would definitely be out, as well as social assistance for single mothers, pregnant teenagers, or anyone existing outside of the model of a nuclear family. What about publicly funded museums and historical societies that dare to show images of murder, rape, and genocide? I heard a program recently about how NASA is having a really difficult time proving itself relevant any longer. Its as if after touching the moon, which is something we already know about and can see every night, the public lost interest. It struck me as horrifying that as a culture, we have lost our sense of adventure. We’ve stopped wanting to fund exploration, dreams, and the potential for discovery. I realize that this article is discussing a smaller, more fundamentalist group of people and their objections, but I would argue that as a whole, people in this country do not have minds that are generally open to new or controversial imagery.

Or perhaps they are simply threatened by it. “Ironically, those who specialize in producing and interpreting images were surprised that any image could have such power.� I found the way the author talked about the this power really fascinating, especially when speaking of the people’s need for a diversity of imagery. “...we too know that diversity in images and expression in the public sector nurtures and sustains diversity in private life.... People deprived of images become demoralized and isolated, and they become increasingly vulnerable to attacks on their private expressions of nonconformity, which are inevitable once sources of public solidarity and resistance have been eliminated.� Imagine if all imagery other than the American flag, eagles, other patriotic symbols were slowly removed from everyday life, until it became indecent to talk about anything at all. Is that what living under real communism is like? Or does revolutionary imagery in, for example, China, just become more subtle?

I also found it interesting, especially since we are in the midst of such a wild election period, to read about how conservatives use imagery so much more effectively than liberals. Generally speaking, I think Republican campaign strategies are more successful than those of Democrats. I have always chalked this up to conservatives being more willing to be act in a calculated, conniving manner, while Democrats are always trying to at least appear to be civil and reasonable. However, I never thought about the more specific methods that Conservatives use to manipulate that public, such as their use of imagery. The author gave the excellent example of how conservative fundamentalists have very deliberatively caused the dominant image of abortion to be a dead fetus or baby, rather than a pregnant woman. This shifts the issue from the realm of the woman to the realm of the fetus, and causes the general public to think only of the rights of the “baby� and to forget about the woman entirely. I can only hope that, as the author suggests, that the “desire to eliminate symbols, images and ideas they do not like from public spaces... may signal weakness, in that conservatives no longer have the power to directly control, for example, sexual behavior, and must content themselves with controlling a proxy, images of sexual behavior.�

Rowan, I disagree with your idea that although artists can, or even should be irreverent or shocking in their work, that they shouldn't count on public funding for it. Who is to say what is shocking or irreverent? If we can't fund art for art's sake, as well as for cultural development's sake (even if it feels over the top at first), then what CAN we fund? I disagree with the carpet bombing of Iraq- I find it much more offensive than peeing on the cross- but my tax dollars went to fund that as well as to fund Serrano's work. All we can do is try to make our voices heard, but depriving artists of funding because their work is offensive to some is simple censorship.

I suspect we are still feeling the effects of these culture wars and restrictions on the NEA now-- as Vance says in her piece, “Moral panics leave in their wake residues of law and policy that remain in force long after the hysteria has subsided.� As far as I know, there is still a decency clause for NEA funding. The right got what they wanted, control of art content and a crippling of the NEA. Their budget is now far less than it was under Reagan.

It’s amazing that the right managed to frame this censorship in a way that garnered such support, got so many legislators riled up enough that others had to succumb to the pressure to go along with it, all through the language and images that were used. The use of the word censorship would not have gotten them far, so they labeled it sponsorship of trash, or “subsidizing decadence.� We need to "clean up our culture" as Buchanan put it. (It sounds a bit like a modern witch hunt.) There is certainly art out there that I find offensive, but one of the most important roles of the artists in our society is to push boundaries and explore. These attacks were a denial of the artist’s value in culture. Vance points out that the ultra religious felt their grip on society slipping, and I’m sure they saw art as one of the agents that contributed to this (perhaps rightly so).

I’m interested in the right’s use of the art as a symbol—as Vance says, “The symbol, often taken literally, out of context, and always denying the possibility of irony or multiple interpretations, is waved like a red flag in front of their constituents.� Piss Christ probably represented to them the degeneration of society, the loosening of the hold of Christianity on culture. Serrano’s intended meaning may not have been this, but the right must have read Death of the Author. I’ve been trying to figure out just what post-modernism indicates, and I’m guessing that this denial of multiple interpretations that is a denial of post-modern principles. Also there is a denial of different ways of living, of alternate and malleable perceptions of what is decent. I'm reminded of Sally Mann's work. She took really beautiful photos of her children, who were naked in some of the photos, playing or swimming. The photos were very innocent, and seemed to celebrate the wildness of children. There was of course a controversy, and her photos were labeled by some as child pornography-- the only interpretation that the unimaginative people of the right could see was a sordid one. (Yet beauty pageants where eight year olds dress up like prostitutes are acceptable to many, but offensive to me.)

I suspect we are still feeling the effects of these culture wars and restrictions on the NEA now-- as Vance says in her piece, “Moral panics leave in their wake residues of law and policy that remain in force long after the hysteria has subsided.� As far as I know, there is still a decency clause for NEA funding. The right got what they wanted, control of art content and a crippling of the NEA. Their budget is now far less than it was under Reagan.

It’s amazing that the right managed to frame this censorship in a way that garnered such support, got so many legislators riled up enough that others had to succumb to the pressure to go along with it, all through the language and images that were used. The use of the word censorship would not have gotten them far, so they labeled it sponsorship of trash, or “subsidizing decadence.� We need to "clean up our culture" as Buchanan put it. (It sounds a bit like a modern witch hunt.) There is certainly art out there that I find offensive, but one of the most important roles of the artists in our society is to push boundaries and explore. These attacks were a denial of the artist’s value in culture. Vance points out that the ultra religious felt their grip on society slipping, and I’m sure they saw art as one of the agents that contributed to this (perhaps rightly so).

I’m interested in the right’s use of the art as a symbol—as Vance says, “The symbol, often taken literally, out of context, and always denying the possibility of irony or multiple interpretations, is waved like a red flag in front of their constituents.� Piss Christ probably represented to them the degeneration of society, the loosening of the hold of Christianity on culture. Serrano’s intended meaning may not have been this, but the right must have read Death of the Author. I’ve been trying to figure out just what post-modernism indicates, and I’m guessing that this denial of multiple interpretations that is a denial of post-modern principles. Also there is a denial of different ways of living, of alternate and malleable perceptions of what is decent. I'm reminded of Sally Mann's work. She took really beautiful photos of her children, who were naked in some of the photos, playing or swimming. The photos were very innocent, and seemed to celebrate the wildness of children. There was of course a controversy, and her photos were labeled by some as child pornography-- the only interpretation that the unimaginative people of the right could see was a sordid one. (Yet beauty pageants where eight year olds dress up like prostitutes are acceptable to many, but offensive to me.)

I suspect we are still feeling the effects of these culture wars and restrictions on the NEA now-- as Vance says in her piece, “Moral panics leave in their wake residues of law and policy that remain in force long after the hysteria has subsided.� As far as I know, there is still a decency clause for NEA funding. The right got what they wanted, control of art content and a crippling of the NEA. Their budget is now far less than it was under Reagan.

It’s amazing that the right managed to frame this censorship in a way that garnered such support, got so many legislators riled up enough that others had to succumb to the pressure to go along with it, all through the language and images that were used. The use of the word censorship would not have gotten them far, so they labeled it sponsorship of trash, or “subsidizing decadence.� We need to "clean up our culture" as Buchanan put it. (It sounds a bit like a modern witch hunt.) There is certainly art out there that I find offensive, but one of the most important roles of the artists in our society is to push boundaries and explore. These attacks were a denial of the artist’s value in culture. Vance points out that the ultra religious felt their grip on society slipping, and I’m sure they saw art as one of the agents that contributed to this (perhaps rightly so).

I’m interested in the right’s use of the art as a symbol—as Vance says, “The symbol, often taken literally, out of context, and always denying the possibility of irony or multiple interpretations, is waved like a red flag in front of their constituents.� Piss Christ probably represented to them the degeneration of society, the loosening of the hold of Christianity on culture. Serrano’s intended meaning may not have been this, but the right must have read Death of the Author. I’ve been trying to figure out just what post-modernism indicates, and I’m guessing that this denial of multiple interpretations that is a denial of post-modern principles. Also there is a denial of different ways of living, of alternate and malleable perceptions of what is decent. I'm reminded of Sally Mann's work. She took really beautiful photos of her children, who were naked in some of the photos, playing or swimming. The photos were very innocent, and seemed to celebrate the wildness of children. There was of course a controversy, and her photos were labeled by some as child pornography-- the only interpretation that the unimaginative people of the right could see was a sordid one. (Yet beauty pageants where eight year olds dress up like prostitutes are acceptable to many, but offensive to me.)

Censored art should in no way be an existing problem; yet it has become a frequently repeated dilemma that never seems to arrive at an ultimate solution. It frustrates me to no end that a few somewhat powerful, close-minded members of the senate have to capability to cut funding from the NEA. I certainly agree with Rowan that an artist should be as shocking and explicit in their work as they deem necessary. I suppose the tragedy lies wherein artists cannot or should not expect funding and support for the work that they know will offend certain audiences. The senate should respect the cornerstone values of the NEA established by Lyndon Johnson, “We fully recognize that no government can call artistic excellence into existence…Nor should any government seek to restrict the freedom of the artist to pursue his own goals in his own way.�

Vance makes the keen observation that, “In moral campaigns, fundamentalists select a negative symbol which is highly arousing to their own constituency and which is difficult or problematic for their opponents to defend. The symbol, often taken literally, out of context and always denying the possibility of irony or multiple interpretations is waved like a red flag before their constituents.� Yet she is quick to point out those activists who “favor images of late-term fetuses or better yet, dead babies, displayed in jars,� while ignoring the image of the woman. As she highlights, the problem seems to stem from ignorance, close-mindedness and denial; or as Rowan states, “…fundamentalists try to avoid acknowledging that what they are doing is censorship, since doing that would admit that they are on the wrong side.�

I deem any artist whose subject matter can stir up such vast amounts of controversy and conversation to be highly successful. By selecting and pairing symbols with heavy political, sexual, or religious connotations, the artist clearly intends to shock or anger the viewer. Aware of this notion, perhaps the artist expects limited to no support while clinging to a hope that their project receives funding and publicity. Mapplethorpe’s photographs, whether considered by some as beautiful or by others as obscene, effectively pushed the boundaries. His works exposed viewers to a side of life that many had never witnessed and posed complicated questions and ideas concerning homosexuality, BDSM subcultures and AIDS. He was not displaying those explicit photos without intent. I feel that those who are quick to censor contentious artworks are the same people who refuse to face the real issues and problems at the roots of our culture.

Oops, sorry! It didn't refresh so it didn't look like I had posted. I wish there were a way to delete posts.

Wow, Areca, you had a lot to say! Hee hee... just teasing.

I agree with Rowan that perhaps the most frightening aspect of censorship is the way that it can inspire people to censor themselves. When an idea flirts with indecency (in other words, flirts with existence), one may talk oneself out of giving it a physical form. In a sense, the Corcoran museum’s decision not to exhibit Mapplethorpe’s work represents this protective attitude of self-editing (albeit on the part of an institution, not an artist.) Their position is understandable, given their probable dependence on NEA funding, but the director’s assertion that “…this is not censorship; in fact, this is the full artistic freedom which we all support,� is downright chilling.

A cultural climate in which aesthetic and thematic standards are dictated by the state is simply not conducive to democracy, freedom, or any of the other purported ideals of the United States. However, this is the net effect of the NEA restrictions that Vance describes. Of course, any art can be made and displayed outside of the system of state funding, but when this art can never be legitimated by publicly funded institutions, its lifespan is limited.

However, I think the real goal of these “conservative� lawmakers (as usual) lies not in cultural conservatism, but in economic liberalism. Republicans love to dangle the carrot of social conservatism in front of the over-encumbered donkey of their working-class constituency, so they can ride comfortably to the legendary oasis of unrestricted trade, maximum corporate power and profit, and minimum government funding for education and culture. And then the donkey dies of heat exhaustion, while the same “social values� get eroded by privately funded entertainment corporations instead of publicly funded artists. But this time, there’s no subversive political content, there are vast profits (some of which will be directed back to the legislators in the form of campaign contributions, stocks, and bribes), and the government has more available cash to spend on waging wars. Sorry to get all cynical all of a sudden. Hey! It’s a beautiful day outside!

Concerning the political strategies that make this bait-and-switch game possible, I fixated on the same sentence that Robin quotes: “In moral campaigns, fundamentalists select a negative symbol which is highly arousing to their own constituency and which is difficult or problematic for their opponents to defend. The symbol, often taken literally, out of context and always denying the possibility of irony or multiple interpretations is waved like a red flag before their constituents.� It’s essential to recognize that this discomfort with defending controversial content is the undoing of progressive culture. Perhaps freedom of artistic expression has to be defended on principle, even when one isn’t a fan of the work in question.

Its crazy to think that right now there are very well-funded conservative think tanks in this country discussing ways to deny rights to minorities and gays, but also to artists that force you to think outside the box. It is peculiar that the arts have been attacked as of late. Maybe Vance is right when she says it is partly because it is easy to take a physical visual example out of context, and start blowing the horn of ignorance with it. "Why can't we make everything stay the same forever, never force us to be uncomfortable, and never have to step outside our bubble?!"

To step inside the conservative realm for a moment, I can clearly see how a person can get upset that their taxes are funding artworks that strike them as being horribly obscene and unnecessary.
I for one support freedom of expression, but when you start to take public tax dollars to fund 'controversial' forms of expression, you start to play with fire. I will even go a step further and say that taking a huge chunk of NEA funds and using it to fund one single artist, and not a larger more diverse pool of artists, is maybe a bit unfair. Am I a crazy person?
I do think it is important that 'difficult' and controversial work is totally needed in the public sphere, to a certain degree, so the public is pushed to have that dialogue. It does really burn me that none of these senators took the time to research the artwork and/or have a dialogue with the artist themselves. It is the same old fear caused by ignorance of the 'unknown', the 'different'.

"To be effective and not defensive, the art community needs to employ its interpretive skills to unmask the modernized rhetoric conservatives use to justify their traditional agenda, as well as to deconstruct the "difficult" images fundamentalists choose to set their campaigns in motion." Thankfully Vance ends the essay with a helpful how-to and a kick in the pants for artists to defend themselves. I strongly feel that the way we as artists, (and everyday citizens), are using interpretive skills to deconstruct the conservative agenda is with the internet. Before the net, if you weren't one of the few large entities that owned the television, print, radio lines of communication, how could you on a global scale, fight this agenda? The internet has given a voice to the citizen like never before.

Last question: Should one million dollars of NEA funding, be given to a few elite artists? or spread out more to fund 100 diverse artists from every corner of the country?

www.nyartbookfair.com

and

www.arlisny.org/cabc/

I agree with what what Mel was saying about the public funding of art. One of arts purposes is to challenge society and keep it in check. This sort of expression is at the root of our democracy. Freedom of speech is one of the checks and balances that keeps our country strong. With out this we turn into a fascist state. I thought Sam brought up an interesting point in regards to the use of NEA funding for a single artist. Though I think single artist should be funded, it does open them up for more criticism. If the funds are spread out amongst more artist in smaller chunks it might be easier dodge public scrutiny. Granted I wonder if this sort of public dialogue is such bad thing. There were just as many people on the other side standing up for the freedom of artist's expression. Maybe it is a healthy exercise for our culture.

Back in 2000 I went to Andres Serrano's artist talk for a show that was opening at the Episcopal Cathedral of Saint John the Divine in New York City. My first thought was one of disbelief. I thought that he must have pulled a fast one on the church. After the deacon introduced him and explained how Piss Christ was completely in line with the values of the the Catholic church, I began think differently. Serrano basically took a commodified version of Jesus on the cross, which is offensive in its own right, and transformed it into something that is far more beautiful and poetic. The deacon talked about how the urine was a way of infusing the notion of the body of Christ back into his image. The cheap little trinket on the other hand is more about making money than it is about Christian values. This being said Serrano was most definitely trying to be contentious. I don't blame him, shock is a powerful tool that has the ability to make people pay attention.

It is really quite incredible that these works of art made their way into main stream media. As disturbing as it is that right wing conservatives and fundamentalist Christians are trying to censor and control the arts, it also has a silver lining. In Serrano's case it launched him into art super stardom. In regards to the art world it made people pay attention to art. When these issues of censorship where in the media, far more people went to see the spectacle then would have under normal circumstances. Advertising uses increasingly sneaky ways to grab people's attention(sex, humor, product placement, viral marketing...) Why shouldn't artists take part in this.

Sam, I think distribution of funds to artists really depends on the artist and the work they are pursuing. It seems ideal to share the wealth and give more artists less money, but at the same time if the funding is spread too thin is it really of any significant use to anyone? It is a good question, I'd like to hear some other opinions as well.

I agree with Sam’s comment: “I do think it is important that 'difficult' and controversial work is totally needed in the public sphere, to a certain degree, so the public is pushed to have that dialogue. It does really burn me that none of these senators took the time to research the artwork and/or have a dialogue with the artist themselves. It is the same old fear caused by ignorance of the 'unknown', the 'different'.� However, there would probably also be controversy if the NEA followed Armey’s ideal grant guidelines that would “clearly pay respect to public standards of taste and decency�.

The NEA panel, that chose to give the funds to Serrano, selected him out of over 500 applicants. According to the panel chair, Andy Grundberg, the former New York Times photography critic, wrote in the August 17 Los Angeles Times: "Artistic quality? Let's not kid ourselves...The Work Serrano submitted with his application was among the strongest we had the privilege of seeing.� I wonder if the controversy would have gone as far as it did if fundamentalist minister Donald Wildmon hadn’t been sent a catalog of the SECCA exhibition, which included Serrano’s "Piss Christ"?

I question the attack of Mapplethorpe’s images, which were described as “perverted, filth, trash�. I think that there is plenty of advertising that is equally controversial, and gets displayed and imaged in our face opposed to choosing to attend a gallery exhibition to view Mapplethorpe’s images….which is more public vs private…but it is still about the dollar. Vance states, “If we are always afraid to offer a public defense of sexual images, then even in our rebuttal we have granted the right wing it’s most basic premise: sexuality is shameful and discrediting. It is not enough to defend the principle of free speech, while joining in denouncing the image, as some in the art world have done�.

http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/history/cartoons.htm#shop

No where in this article does it say that the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art or the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute of Contemporary were completely funded by the National Endowment of the Arts, only that they had been recipients of NEA funds. But somehow, by accepting these funds, these organizations found themselves at the mercy of the conservative Senate and conservative constituents or staff that brought these controversial artworks to their attention. Their immediate and aggressive response of suppression and censorship in the interest of public decency completely undermined the credibility of the institutions and juries that selected these artworks to be credible representations of the contemporary art world at that time. Censoring not only the artists themselves but also the major institutions that bring art to the country and the world. As Sam pointed out, where in this article did it say that the Senate asked these institutions, juries or even the artist’s what their intentions, justification, or social value as works of art were.

Like Jonathan I was shocked to read the contradictory statement of the Corcoran Gallery’s director’s change of position and obvious spin of the cancellation of Mapplethorpe’s exhibition. But it goes to show how the threat of funding to Universities and Art Centers can be a powerful motivator, not to mention the threat of losing your job if your stance on freedom of speech puts your employer in such a position.

I find the example of fundamental conservatives use of fetal imagery very hypocritical. The censorship of offensive imagery is a double standard when it is the conservatives that are using it. In their case it is obviously propaganda, used to manipulate opinion away from all aspects of the complex issue at hand. The censored artworks mentioned in this article were not being used as propaganda, but as forms of artistic expression. I find it ironic that the controversy raised by the social conservatives raised more awareness and are more responsible for the fame of Serano’s Piss Christ, Mapplethorpes’s photographs, and Fischl’s painting of a naked baseball player than the artists themselves, or the curators and institutions that decided they were worthy of support.

Hey Mel, I try to go by the general life philosophy of "have no expectations," which is why I suggested that artists shouldn't expect funding -- for any kind of art piece, "offensive" or otherwise. I certainly don't think that artists should stop trying to make irreverent, furious, catalystic, or "offensive" pieces of art or, as Areca said, "push boundaries and explore." I think there's a certain art to being a provocateur, and so in a way some of these "sensationalist" artists are artists within artists. It's interesting though: in my own art I don't usually try to challenge cultural sensibilities as much as I try to push my own artistic limits and challenge myself. I wonder if this artistic self-policy is too self-focused and narrow...

What a wonderful (Lyndon Johnson) quote, Robin! I liked what you said: "I feel that those who are quick to censor contentious artworks are the same people who refuse to face real issues and problems at the roots of our culture." Also, the roots of themselves. I think that these conservatives are in fact projecting their shame, their distaste for a part of themselves onto what they would call "shameful" or "distasteful" artworks. As open-minded artists we must beware that we don't censor ourselves for fear of being censored by those restrictive, destructive forces outside us. And, as Vance suggests, we have a responsibility to do battle with those forces. As Jonathon says, "Perhaps freedom of artistic expression has to be defended on principle, even when one isn’t a fan of the work in question."

To be optimistic, I think that our society has come a long way: in 1863 people were offended by Manet's painting of Olympia (a naked courtesan), or by his 1863 painting The Luncheon on the Grass (a naked woman sitting next to two clothed men), both of which paintings conservatives reviled as "vulgar" and "an affront to the propriety of the time," but which nowadays, I would argue, wouldn't cause even conservatives to bat an eyelash. I think that people are developing a stronger tolerance for "provocative" art, and I wonder if our society will ever reach the point where no one is offended by...anything artistic? What will become of art at that point?

This is definitely a topic I would refer to what I have been seeing throughout my career in art education. (Mainly from student's works at MCAD.) First of all, I am not against such kind of rebellious or “shocking� art, I just do not consider most of such art worth taking seriously, regardless of the risk that artists may take. Because many cases I only find them being bold and standing out without any further meaning but to be standing out. Being bold or getting attention from the public is easy. Simply find a taboo and break it in front of people who protect it, and you will gain the attention in proportion to its importance. Further meaning and value to the work comes when you think WHY you do that. Too many of cases I have faced in the past were only happening simply because the authors wanted our attention. Catching more eyes seems to carry such an importance in this world but in reality it means nothing unless there is something to tell AFTER they have caught our attention.

I can't stop relating this kind of art to a typical commercial advertisements. They too, seem to put too much emphasis on getting the attention and are careless about what happens in the end. But still, to me an advertisement is even more valuable than a piece of art simply existing to get my attention, because those advertisements at least try to do something AFTER it's got my attention: to make me want something. Whether that's good thing or not, is a whole another topic I won't discuss here, but I still think a commercial advertisement is more valuable than a meaningless piece of art.

Thinking why we do what we do and imagining what would happen after we deliver our message are the responsibilities we must carry as artists. Censorships and authoritarian control would come after us, if we take our freedom for granted. We should not be afraid to explore a new horizon, but I think it is important to be aware of the culture that may oppose your explorations. If one does something that opposes other culture, conscious and understanding what he/she is going against, then I must respect the action in its sense of purpose, even if it turns out to be a war.

Sam, I think having one big chunk would trigger a competition that might lead to a higher quality of works to be submitted. At the same time this could mean that there will be more restrictions in kinds of art that can be accepted. Now that you have mentioned and I am trying to imagine, it might be interesting to have a fund that is equally given to all the artists. We might be able to see less filtered, raw ideas as the outcomes.

Wow, there is so much to comment on in other peoples responses and in this text.

At the end of this text Vance says; " The right wing is deeply committed to symbolic politics, both in using symbols to mobilize public sentiment and in understanding that, because images do stand in for and motivate social change, the arena of representation is a real ground for struggle. A vigorous defense of art and images begins from this insight." The right wingers are better artists than the left wingers? The capitalist machine has absorbed tenets of its opposition? I have been curious as to why it has been difficult to fight back, to support freedom of expression and sexuality with what Vance says is a publicly formed and visible community.

Im also very interested in the use of language created for awareness of anti feminist actions being used with images of dead babies to support anti abortion agenda. Also the revival of the language no longer allowed to be used while attacking gay men can be used to attack the photographic image. I think this heady stuff. The ability through images and words to keep alive hate and anger. It just seems it should be as effective going the other way. Classes like the one we are participating in seem to be needed to help the art community " unmask the modernized rhetoric " as well as " deconstruct the " difficult " images" chosen to set the fundamentalist campaigns in motion.

I agree with Mel that my tax dollars have gone to support a war that I dont believe in and also that I think the government should fund art. I disagree with Sam about sending large amounts of money to individual artists. I think in calling them elite you are attacking your people. I really believe that in order to realize certain projects and to mount certain exhibitions which get installed and deinstalled all around the world, large sums of money are needed. I also feel that Mpls does a great job of sending out smaller monetary grants to individual artists, grants which have grown in size by at least half in the last ten years, and even then it is easy to not agree with who gets the money and how it was used.

�let him be a jerk on his own time and with his own resources. Do not dishonor our lord� I like the use of the word “jerk� so humorous, how these fundamentalists can be taken seriously I’ll never get it. To make an assault on imagery and culture is absurd. The fact that all their words and complains worked at cutting funding for art is even more absurd. I hate how the bad guys win. They are the ones creating a “Moral Panic� with their needs to control America through images in culture. Are there really more sheep in this country than free thinkers? I know the answer; I just have to be in awe of the idiocy for a moment. How can these people tell us what to think about art or the lord? Serrano submerged a piece of plastic molded into a Christ, not Christ himself, but no one seemed to get that it is an expression and reaction to culture. Serrano is not telling us what to think he’s just making statements.

It’s funny to see how people such as Buchanan and the American Family Association react to their own reactions, do they know they are exposing their own naiveté, like the protest to Eric Fishels painting, don’t we bring our own interpretations to art works. This is where I think the Art institutions failed, people at that time may have needed education on arts role in culture. I just had a conversation about how museums of art are not didactic enough for the “average Joe� (maybe Joe the Plumber) so how do we get to the “public� to let them know there is no wrong answer in reacting to a piece of art. The work exists for you to have your own interpretations of it.

In the end funding is lost, art is cut out of schools and the makers are still misunderstood. The moral panic for me is that we (the sheep) are losing our touch with the non-realities of being Human, our imaginations and the connections between heart, body and mind.

I don’t understand why Dick Armey cares about what artists are up to, though it is a very frightening thought to imagine that these politicians are really trying to destroy high culture. And what are their motives; I don’t think that Serrano’s “Piss Christ� really achieves anything but shock. I seriously doubt it would turn a fundamentalist Christian child into an atheist. Maybe the religious right actually does think that art can move people into action. Furthermore, I’m shocked to find that Rev. Donald Wildmon and Representative Dick Armey were so successful in motivating people through grassroots vehicles, through pamphlets and letters. The language that Armey uses is also frightening, “morally reprehensible trash�. It’s as though he’s waging a religious battle against art.
As stated in the essay, conservative and religious groups are very succinct in their campaign’s use of powerful images, “In these campaigns, symbols figure prominently, both as highly condensed statements of moral concern and as powerful spurs to emotion and action. In moral campaigns, fundamentalists select a negative symbol which is highly arousing for their own constituency and which is difficult or problematic for their opponents to defend. The symbol, often taken literally, out of context and always denying the possibility of irony or multiple interpretations, is waved like a red flag before their constituents.� The Piss Christ is certainly an effective red flag to wave. I wonder if this tactic could promptly blow up in their right wing faces. For example, I remember hearing all the fluff surrounding The Last Temptation of Christ, which consequently made me really, really, want to see it.
Tipper Gore sited TV and rock music responsible for corrupting youth, so during Bush Sr.’s administration it was art. Tipper Gore didn’t destroy music and TV is still generally deplorable. I’m sure that a million Methodist newsletters will not destroy art, though they might succeed in cutting some funds.