h2h
|
Mon Oct 23rd 11:07 2006 / #1 |
|
Hmmmmm, artists create provocative art then get upset when audience reacts. |
pragueboy
-
[profile]
|
Mon Oct 23rd 11:35 2006 / #2 |
you think it is correct way to react to art?
perhaps the reaction to the danish cartoons was correct as well?
i don't know what you are smoking that you could write such a thing?
a) crack
b) pcp
c) peco + strudle
d) all of the above
< not an attack on you, a serious question > |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Mon Oct 23rd 14:15 2006 / #3 |
|
Yeah especially when the audience is a bunch of neo-fascist nationalists. I guess they were also justified in killing the reporter who was exposing human rights violations. Criticism should only be dictated by the state, or the church. Perhaps Courbet's origin of the world, or Judy Chicago's dinner party should have been attacked as well by neo-fascists. That would show those damn artists. |
|
pragueboy
-
[profile]
|
Mon Oct 23rd 16:01 2006 / #4 |
|
thank you pacman, i really don't understand h2h, how you could write that. again, not tryin' to attack you, just wanna know what is goin on in your mind that you could think that way... care to explain? |
|
h2h
|
Mon Oct 23rd 17:06 2006 / #5 |
Pragueboy,
What constitutes a correct response to art - when Jay and Dino Chapman defaced a rare series of Goya sketchings with Mickey Mouse heads, was that art or vandalism?
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,11710,926134,00. html
Or take the case of Alexander Brener:
Alexander Brener, a 39 yeal old Russian performance artist (who first came to the attention of the art world after damaging a painting by Chinese artist Gu Wenda ), sprayed a green dollar sign over fellow Russian Kazimir Malevich's Suprematisme 1920-1927
On Saturday morning January 4th 1997, after supposedly travelling to Amsterdam for the express purpose of damaging the painting, Brener sprayed a green dollar sign on the work. The oil on canvas painting depicts a white cross on a light grey background and Brener said he intended the dollar sign to appear nailed to the cross.
Brener surrendered himself to museum security and in a statement made later to police demanded his work be viewed as a protest against "corruption and commercialism in the art world"[1] and as such - performance art.
The Amsterdam Criminal Court felt otherwise, and sentenced Brener to ten months imprisonment and two year's probation during which time he was prohibited from entering the Stedelijk Museum. Five months were suspended (with the time spent in pre-trial detention subtracted) but during his prison term, Brener supposedly engaged in a hunger strike as a protest against the harsh penalty imposed on him.
In court Brener is recorded as saying 'The cross is a symbol of suffering, the $ a symbol of trade and merchandise. On humanitarian grounds are the ideas of Jesus christ of higher significance than those of the money. What I did WAS NOT against the painting, I view my act as a dialogue with Malewitz'[2]
The website Youth Against Internet contains further documentation and quotes from the court case. It lists his motive as follows "The art organsations are doubtful, they form an elite that takes care of its own means, and also ensures that success is written in their name (..) Anyone passing by could have done this, it is a representation of an attitude towards/opinion about the closed world of art (..) Presently the paradox is: Malewitz wanted to change the world by his art, nowadays his statue is measured in $'s ".[3]
In A Letter of Support for Alexander Brener, February 11th 1997 the writers document Brener's history of provocative 'performance art' or protest. One of the more entertaining instances (hilarious -actually), occured in 1994 at the Fine Art Museum in Moscow where he shat in his pants while standing infront of a Van Gough painting and repeating the mantra "Vincent, Vincent."[4]
He is quoted describing this action as 'a dialogue with the beginnings of modernism, where "excrement in pants" had a double meaning--both of great pleasure caused by the work of art and the notion of excrement as a symbolic materialization of the monolithic ideology that Van Gogh was placed in as its founder.'[5]
During a reading by avant-garde artist Dimitry Prigow, Brener jumped on stage shouting 'It's burning! It's burning!' while grabbing his arse in response to "Prigow's belief, that his poetry is a cold analysis".[6] Prigow subsequently accused him of being a Fascist. Ever the critic, Brener is also recorded as interrupting a reading by another Russian poet Jevgenij Jevtusenko where he stood up and repeated the phrase: 'Silence, my mother wants to sleep.'
Perhaps more controversial is his public masturbation on the diving platform of a swimming pool built during socialism on the site of a destroyed Orthodox church, an act which quite unsuprisinignly saw Brener arrested.
During the Russian war campaign in Chechniya, Brener is recorded going to Red Square in boxing get up and shouting in the direction of the Kremlin: 'Yeltsin, come out!'
It seems increasingly his performaces became more aggressive to property when for example in Ljubijana during October 1995, he performed three actions, the most controversial of which saw him smashing a baroque window in the Opera house. During the following year (1996) he damaged an installation by Gu Wenda in Stockholm and the year after brought the attack against the Malevich.
The letter writers state "he doesn't believe in a political democracy, but he does believe in a democratic art - that is, an art of individuality fighting for mental and spiritual freedom and moral progress. Political democracy is impossible because it demands total responsibility of every member of the society. Therefore, art is a good tool, which should be used for democratic self-development."[7]
1.Stedelijk visitor defaces Malevich painting"
Jacqueline Hagman
Hagman gives a more detailed account of the restoration process and an overview of the crime.
2.ALEXANDER BRENER'S $UPREMATISMUS
found on the Youth Against Internet website offers a brief account of the crime and a first hand report ( in poorly translated English) of the courst case.
3. Ibid
4. Letter of Support for Alexander Brener
Eda Cufer, Goran Dordevic;February 11.1997
Is a group signed letter of support from people with previous dealings with Brener
5. Ibid
6. Ibid
7. Ibid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Brener |
fatman
|
Mon Oct 23rd 17:58 2006 / #6 |
So the skinheads were fellow artists?
Ah-ha, I get it. |
|
h2h
|
Thu Oct 26th 17:59 2006 / #7 |
Continued from here:
http://www.prague.tv/forum/killing-jounalists-in-putins-russ ia:7028
Pacman:
Are you still trying to play this one out h2h??? I mean really. Thousands of years of art history has no purpose? I'm sorry if you hate artists, and think they should be beaten up by neo-fascists (much of the same type of people that likely killed the journalist), but hey, I guess neo-fascists do need some people to legitimise their actions. I actually believe in freedom of expression, and speech, and I think that many times artists (be it writers, film directors, painters, or musicians) do actually have a place in society. A world without artists would be pretty boring.
"There is no meaningful work in politics anymore. On the contrary, art is a sphere, in which it is possible to do something important today, something that will be demanded by society in general."
Marat Guelman
What are you trying to say h2h?
----
Pacman,
Note I said “many artists”, not all. A world without artists might be boring, but equally true is that there are many bored artists today. If artists try to provoke through their art why should they be upset if the audience reacts? The gallery owner Guelman has a political agenda - maybe he hired local skinheads to attack his gallery to generate media attention? Raise the value of the paintings?
Note the article said “10 men WHO LOOKED LIKE skinheads.” The rest of the article is hearsay and speculation about the state of Russia and Georgia according to Sophia Kishkovsky. We don’t know.
What we do know is that Russians were involved. And Russians love to drink, tell stories, be ostentatious, act soulful and tragic, and all that stuff. They are born artists. It comes to them naturally.
You see my point? |
|
h2h
|
Fri Oct 27th 10:22 2006 / #8 |
More on Sophia Kishkovsky:
MY RUSSIA: ONE REPORTER'S VIEW OF LIFE AFTER COMMUNISM
http://www.carnegie.org/reporter/06/russia/index.html |
|
I wank
-
[profile]
|
Fri Oct 27th 00:12 2006 / #9 |
|
|
|
I wank
-
[profile]
|
Fri Oct 27th 00:13 2006 / #10 |
"maybe he hired local skinheads to attack his gallery to generate media attention? Raise the value of the paintings?"
jesusfuck. |
|
pragueboy
-
[profile]
|
Fri Oct 27th 07:36 2006 / #11 |
...defaced a rare series of Goya sketchings with Mickey Mouse heads, was that art or vandalism?
it was both. but, last time i checked, vandalism and beating someone is against the law. following that logic, you could do anything, (rape, arson, murder) and call it art... where do you draw the line?
if something is a crime when it's committed against us, it's a crime when we commit it against others, i wonder how any of the "artists" would feel about their mother's being beatin' in the name of art...
as an artist myself, its conversations like this that remind me why i don't want to have any part of the so called "art world" |
|
h2h
|
Fri Oct 27th 11:01 2006 / #12 |
Pragueboy,
I offer no answers, just more questions:
---
Congressional Record
Senate - May 18, 1989
#1. Mr. [Alfonse] D'AMATO [of New York]. . . . Mr. President*, several weeks ago, I began to receive a number of letters, phone calls, and postcards from constituents throughout the Senate concerning art work by Andres Serrano. They express a feeling of shock, of outrage, and anger.
#2. They said, "How dare you spend our taxpayers' money on this trash." They all objected to taxpayers' money being used for a piece of so-called art work which, to be quite candid, I am somewhat reluctant to utter its title. This so-called piece of art is a deplorable, despicable display of vulgarity. The art work in question is a photograph of the crucifix submerged in the artist's urine.
#3. This artist received $15,000 for his work from the National Endowment for the Arts, through the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art.
#4. Well, if this is what contemporary art has sunk to, this level, this outrage, this indignity - some may want to sanction that, and that is fine. But not with the use of taxpayers' money. This is not a question of free speech. This is a question of abuse of taxpayers' money. If we allow this group of so-called art experts to get away with this, to defame us and to use our money, well, then we do not deserve to be in office.
#5. This is why, Mr. President, I am proud of the members, who in literally a matter of minutes - over 20, about 25 - joined me in signing a strong letter of protest to the endowment. Here is a picture, and the title is "Piss Christ." Incredible.
#6. To add insult to injury, after this group of so-called art experts picked this artist for this $15,000 prize - of taxpayers' money; we paid for this, our taxpayers - I do not blame people for being outraged and angered, and they should be angered at us, unless we do something to change this. If this continues and if this goes unrectified, where will it end? They will say, "This is free speech." Well, if you want free speech, you want to draw dirty pictures, you want to do anything you want, that is your business, but not with taxpayers' money. This is an outrage, and our people's tax dollars should not support this trash, and we should not be giving it the dignity. And after this piece of trash and this artist received this award, to make matters worse, the Awards in Visual Arts, this wonderful publication was put together; and who was it financed by, partially? By none other than the National Endowment for the Arts. What a disgrace.
#7. They not only see this garbage, they can say we did not know he engaged in this kind of filth, but then they see fit to distribute it through the Nation and brag about it and allow their names to be used, instead of calling and saying, you get our name out of that. . . .
#8. The purpose for which the Endowment was established, and I quote, "to support the survival of the best of all forms that reflect the American heritage in its full range of cultural and ethnic diversity and to provide national leadership on behalf of the arts."
#9. Mr. President, I submit this is a distortion of those purposes. It does not reflect on the full range of cultural and ethnic diversity; rather, it is a perversion of those principles. If people want to be perverse, in terms of what they recognize as art or culture, so be it, but not with my money, not with the taxpayers' dollars, and certainly not under the mantle of this great Nation. This is a disgrace.
#10. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter to the National Endowment for the Arts be printed in the RECORD.
#11. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, May 18, 1989
Mr. Hugh Southern, Acting Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC
#12. Dear Mr. Southern: We recently learned of the Endowment's support for a so-called "work of art" by Andres Serrano entitled "Piss Christ." We write to express out outrage and to suggest in the strongest terms that the procedures used by the Endowment to award and support artists be reformed.
#13. The piece in question is a large and vivid photograph of Christ on a crucifix submerged in the artist's urine. This work is shocking, abhorrent and completely undeserving of any recognition whatsoever. Millions of taxpayers are rightfully incensed that their hard-earned dollars were used to honor and support Serrano's work.
#14. There is a clear flaw in the procedures used to select art and artists deserving of taxpayers' support. That fact is evidenced by the Serrano work itself. Moreover, after the artist was selected and honored for his "contributions" to the field of art, his work was exhibited at government expense and with the imprimatur of the Endowment.
#15. This matter does not involve freedom of artistic expression - it does involve the question whether American taxpayers should be forced to support such trash.
#16. And finally, simply because the Endowment and the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art (SECCA) did not have a direct hand in choosing Serrano's work, does not absolve either of responsibility. The fact that both the Endowment and the SECCA with taxpayer dollars promoted this work as part of the Awards in Visual Arts exhibition, is reason enough to be outraged.
#17. We urged the Endowment to comprehensively review its procedures and determine what steps will be taken to prevent such abuses from recurring in the future. We await your response.
Sincerely,
#18. Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Warren R. Rudman, Rudy Boschwitz, Dennis Deconcini, Pete Wilson, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, James A. McClure, John Heinz, Wendell Ford, Howell Heflin, Harry Reid, Richard Shelby, John W. Warner, Larry Pressler, Conrad Burns, Tom Harkins, Trend Lott, Jesse Helms, John McCain, Arlen Specter, Steve Symms.
#19. Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Senator from New York is absolutely correct in his indignation and in his description of the blasphemy of the so-called artwork. I do not know Mr. Andres Serrano, and I hope I never meet him. Because he is not an artist, he is a jerk.
#20. Let us examine exactly what this bird did to get $15,000 of the taxpayers' money through the so-called National Endowment for the Arts. If they have no more judgment than that, it ought to be abolished and all funds returned to the taxpayer. What this Serrano fellow did, he filled a bottle with his own urine and then stuck a crucifix down there - Jesus Christ on a cross. He set it up on a table and took a picture of it.
#21. For that, the National Endowment for the Arts gave him $15,000, to honor him as an artist.
#22. I say again, Mr. President, he is not an artist. He is a jerk. And he is taunting the American people, just as others are, in terms of Christianity. And I resent it. And I do not hesitate to say so.
#23. I am not going to call the name that he applied to this work of art.
#24. In naming it, he was taunting the American people. He was seeking to create indignation. That is all right for him to be a jerk but let him be a jerk on his own time and with his own resources. Do not dishonor our Lord. I resent it and I think the vast majority of the American people do. And I also resent the National Endowment for the Arts spending the taxpayers' money to honor this guy.
#25. This program, supported by the National Endowment, is administered by the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art. They call it SECCA. I am sorry to say it is in my home State.
#26. After Mr. Serrano's selection, this photograph and some of his other works were exhibited in several cities around the country with the approval and the support of the National Endowment.
#27. Horsefeathers. If we have sunk so low in this country as to tolerate and condone this sort of thing, then we become a part of it.
#28. The question is obvious. On what conceivable basis does anybody who would engage in such blasphemy and insensitivity toward the religious community deserve to be honored? The answer to that is: he does not. He deserved to be rebuked and ignored because he is not an artist. Anybody who would do such a despicable thing - and get $15,000 in tax money for it - well, it tells you something about the state of this Government and the way it spends the money taken from the taxpayer.
#29. So no wonder all of the people calling my office are indignant. The constitution may present the government from prohibiting this Serrano fellow's - laughably, I will describe it - "artistic expression." It certainly does not require the American taxpayers or the Federal Government to fund, promote, honor, approve, or condone it. None of the above.
#30. Mr. President, the National Endowment's procedures for selecting artists and works of art deserving of taxpayer support are badly, badly flawed if this is an example of the kind of programs they fund with taxpayers' money.
#31. I have sent word to the Endowment that I want them to review their funding criteria to ensure abuses such as this never happen again. The preliminary report we got form one person with whom we talked was sort of "down, boy, we know what we are doing."
#32. Well, they do not know what they are doing. They are insulting the very fundamental basis of this country. I say again I resent it.
*"President" here refers to the presiding officer of the United States Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
A descriptive definition of "art" claims to describe the actual usage of the term in public language. A normative definition of "art" sets standards for what an artist ought to achieve to be considered "art," from the perspective of the speaker. A normative definition also impliedly sets standards for what should count as "good" art. Consider the usage of "art" in the statements by the Senators. Which are "descriptive" uses? Which are "normative" uses? In the "normative" uses, what standards are being suggested for what should count as "art" or "good art"?
Do the Senators seem to believe that different people might reasonably disagree on what constitutes "art"? On what basis might they disagree? Are the Senators saying that the conclusions of other people about what constitutes "art" are wrong if they disagree with the Senators?
By what criteria should the National Endowment for the Arts decide what counts as "art," according to the Senators? By what criteria do you believe the NEA should decide what counts as "art"?
Senator Helms says that Serrano is not really an "artist." The other senators refer to him as an "artist," even though they disapprove of his work. Can you infer from the text how the various senators define "artist"? How would you define "artist"? Can you be an "artist" only if you create "art"? Can you be an "artist" if you only create "bad art"? Can you be an "artist" if you create only objects which are "non-art"? Can you be an "artist" if you create nothing?
Ben Wattenberg hosted a panel discussion on "Is Contemporary Art, Art?" with four art critics and museum directors. One issue they considered was whether the work of Serrano and other contemporary artist was "art." To read the transcript of the discussion, click here. Try to determine the definitions of "art" used by the various panelists. How would each answer the question, "Is Contemporary Art, Art?"
Serrano's work "Piss Christ" is available on-line by clicking here. (You are not required to look at the work. Please do not look if you believe it might be offensive or upsetting to you.) Which arguments that "Piss Christ" should be considered "art" are most compelling? Which arguments that "Piss Christ" should not be considered "art" are most compelling? |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Fri Oct 27th 13:02 2006 / #13 |
Wow, we're back into the world of pisschrist once again. A piece that was created 20 years ago. hmmmm. Anyway, I still like the fact that sister wendy said she approved of the piece. I personally don't find the work offensive, serrano was trying to convey the idea of mortality of christ in the work, it was based around the idea that when we die, we piss ourselves, the way the piece looks, it's almost as if we can see a soul rising from the body of christ, it also makes reference to previous religious work because the yellowing makes it look old, and holy in many ways. This was the end of the 80s art boom, and irony was king back then. Hence a piece of work came out of the culture, and now it will never go away. I like that, you may not. I think it's important to have artifacts that are uncensored, and represent a certain period of time. This incident also occured during the same time as Mapplethorpe's images were taken down. Now Robert Mapplethorpe is regarded as one of the best american photographers. History is always the judge of whether a work will stand throughout the years, thats why I don't support neo-fascists destroying art. Apparently, you still do. You may not want to think that the death of the journalist, and the intimidation, and beating of artists have anything in common. But in fact they are closely linked. Orthodox christianity is on the rise in Russia today, and this combined with a huge neo-nazi movement have made it a dengerous place for those other than the status quo. Watch this video of a gay pride march being attacked by neo-nazis, do you think these people should be attacked? Do you think that they should be quiet about who they are?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VXHzoONni-k
This is not a new debate, people have been debating the role of conceptual art for 90 years now. It's not a debate that will go away anytime soon. Duchamp's fountain is regarded as one of the most important works of art made in the 20th century, I m glad it wasn't destroyed by neo-fascists.
 |
|
h2h
|
Fri Oct 27th 14:52 2006 / #14 |
Pacman,
we don't know if they were skinheads. Guelman reports the attack was carried out "without hysteria" and they did not seem like hooligans or fanatics, but "professional fighters."
Btw, Guelman doesn't look so good himself:
--
St Petersberg Times: In the mid-1990s, Gelman delved into politics, serving as a consultant to the Kremlin...In 2003, he was one of the masterminds behind the creation of the nationalist Rodina party.
Wikipedia: On November 6, 2005, the Rodina Party was barred from taking part in the December elections to the Moscow Duma following a complaint filed by the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia that Rodina's advertising campaign incited racial hatred. The advertisement in question showed dark-skinned Caucasian immigrants tossing watermelon rinds to the ground and ended with the slogan, "let's clear our city of trash". It garnered much controversy and opinion polls predicted that Rodina would come second with close to 25% in the December vote. Rogozin appealed the decision, but the ban was upheld on December 1, 2005.
More here:
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/11/b058b58d-c196-4 cb1-b0f8-6db948f452c7.html
--
The picture is murky and, things being what they are in Russia, we are not going to get a clear picture of what happened. |
|
Pacman
-
[profile]
|
Fri Oct 27th 19:20 2006 / #15 |
|
Yeah, and one reason we won't get the whole story is that journalists who actually report things are intimidated, and sometimes murdered. |
|
g³upota
-
[profile]
|
Sun Nov 5th 14:04 2006 / #16 |
Without wishing to cast doubt on Marat Guelman, it is worth noting that the speculation that Guelman may have engineered the attack on his own Moscow gallery is not groundless. Sitting here in Moscow, I observed the following: Guelman's gallery is indeed trashed. Guelman, however, is apparently happy as a clam. And his glamour-girl assistantky are elegant all over town apparently unconcerned about having been attacked as the New York Times documented last week.
Art from Guelman's gallery was stopped at the border, and that would appear to be a genuine incident of "state" censorship on a level of pettiness on par with that of Michniowski's Poland.
But the attack on Guelman-- this may very well be just street theatre.
Alena Boika, the Moscow producer of the Shadows of Humor art show, wrote an interesting article about Guelman for Umelec, within which she documented similar theatre with Guelman in Kiev, Ukraine. |
|
h2h
|
Fri Nov 3rd 09:12 2006 / #17 |
Maybe someone should research whether Ms. Kishkovsky used to be Guelman's girlfriend.
Btw, Djikia's artwork is completely harmless and non-controversial. |
|
Restaurant U Malíøù
Pálffy Palác Club...
Mosaic House
Auberge de...
MYCLINIC Prague
Maitrea - Vegetaria...
PH2 Translations
Feedback Form