Keep your propaganda out of the museum!

[Rilchiam]

This afternoon, Mr. Rilch and I visited LACMA (Los Angeles County Museum of the Arts). The modern art section included a really impressive installation. Someone had rigged up a room to look exactly the way a garage would if someone had been spent twenty years or more accruing all the junk that piles up in a garage over time. Shelves and drawers and workbenches, all scattered with odds and ends. Automotive parts, broken toys, empty cans of stuff, those jars of nails and whatnot with the lid nailed to the underside of the shelf so you can unscrew the jar from beneath, a spiderweb with a huge egg suspended in it (brrr...) garden tools...

...and a badge that said, in white letters on blue,

"NO WAR WITH IRAQ".

Sigh.

Look, I'm not going to state what I think about the current situation, except to say that I don't believe it matters what I think. I'm just following the news while staying neutral. What's going to happen is going to happen. Or not happen.

All afternoon, I'd been looking at art (man, I love those Dutch masters!) and without consciously realizing it, I had slowly been reaching a state of serenity and wonderment. That's why you go to an art museum. It's not the place for propaganda.

We continued on through the installation, then I discreetly approached a guide.

"Ah...I was just wondering...If it was the artist's intention, then okay, but there's a badge in the "garage" installation that says 'No War With Iraq.' Is that supposed to be there?"

"Oh, man, there's so much stuff in that installation...I'll go take a look...You know, it's from the early '90s; are you sure it's not something left over from the Gulf War?"

"Well, it might be...See, there it is."

"Oh, no; that's not supposed to be there. Sheesh...We've already got cameras in here so people don't snag stuff..."

"Yeah, well; I know it's not your fault. Thanks anyway."

I mean, really: that's tampering! I wonder what the artist would say if he knew? Even if he is also anti-war, that's still out of line. If he wanted to make an anti-war statement, he would make a separate one. What makes someone think they have the right to sneak propaganda into a) someone else's work and b) a public place that is not a forum for political statements?

Again I say, I didn't object to the badge because it was anti-war. If it had had a pro-war message, I would have been equally offended. I just didn't want to see anything having to do with Iraq while I was in an art museum. Is there no place on earth where I don't have to hear about that? Apparently not.

[moc.liamtoh@rorrim]

I mean, really: that's tampering! I wonder what the artist would say if he knew?


uuhhh.. i dont think you exactly explained HOW it was tampering?
Did the guard place the badge there?
If not im totally confused..

[Rilchiam]

The badge was not part of the installation. Someone, either a museum patron or a staff member, placed it there.

You don't add or subtract anything to a museum installation. You don't touch them at all. I asked the guide if the badge was meant to be part of the installation, since there was an outside chance that the artist had directed it to be added, so as to make a statement, though I doubted it. She confirmed that it was not meant to be there, and removed it.

[Already in Use]

Yes, vandalizing works of art is bad, and the person who did that was an inconsiderate jackass.

But I'm a bit puzzled by your insistence on not being exposed to anti-war/pro-war statements in an art museum. I mean, what about Guernica? The Third of May 1808? Portraits of Napoleon or George Washington in battle? If those, why not Iraq?

[Rilchiam]

Not pro/anti-war statements in general, AiU; just the one that I've been hearing about ad nauseum for the last few weeks. The Guernica bombings are history, not topical. When the inevitable 9/11 installations go up (or have they already?) I will gladly view them as retrospectives. As a matter of fact, when I visit the LACMA, I make a point of viewing a painting of the Czechoslovakian invasion of Siberia. (I'm half Slovak; we don't get much representation!)

If someone had been distributing the badges outside the museum, I would have forgotten about it by the time I'd gotten past the cashier. If one had been left on a bench or a table in the cafe, I would have glanced at it, then forgotten it in my absorption in the Van der Mies. I just thought that sneaking one into an installation was going over the line.

[Rilchiam]

And I need to get some sleep. Van der Mies, indeed...I know that's architecture...Phooey.

[RTA]

People are by nature barbaric hell-pigs. Take it from a museum pro who's cleaned a few wads of gum and dry bloody boogers from pictures in his day.

Exhibit tampering is rather common, but not as common as people simply reaching out with their greasy grubby hell-pig claws and stroking the art, as if they had eyes in place of their jagged, dirty fingernails.

That's why you go to an art museum. It's not the place for propaganda.

Of course it's not, dear (pat pat) ... hey, have you seen that Guernica? Hollywood liberal antiwar drivel! Do our taxes help pay for that crap?!

[gobear]

[quote]
All afternoon, I'd been looking at art (man, I love those Dutch masters!) and without consciously realizing it, I had slowly been reaching a state of serenity and wonderment. That's why you go to an art museum. It's not the place for propaganda.
[quote]
Sure, it is. As Already in Use pointed out, Picasso and Goya's most famous paintings are works of political propaganda. And what about Kathe Kollwitz's Never Again War (http://www.bethel.edu/~letnie/KollwitzNeverAgain.html)? Max Beckmann's Declaration of War (http://www.art-ww1.com/gb/texte/001text.html)? George Grosz's The Hero (http://www.si.umich.edu/Art_History/UMMA/1935/1935.20.jpg)? The history of art encompasses the history of poltical expression from the Palette of Narmer, a work of politcal propaganda celebrating the conquest of Lower Egypt by Narmer, King of Upper Egypt in the fourth millenium BCE.

With all due respect, a work of art is not necessarily meant to inspire only middlebrow "serenity and wonderment," but to create rage, awe, lust, anger, and other strong emotions in the viewer. If you feel serenity and wonderment while looking at Guernica, then you don't understand the painting.

[gobear]

Not pro/anti-war statements in general, AiU; just the one that I've been hearing about ad nauseum for the last few weeks. The Guernica bombings are history, not topical.
But that's when art has the most potential for change. Heck, some of the most intersting German art is from political campaign posters.

[Rilchiam]

Oh brother. Might as well respond to this while I can.

Of course it's not, dear (pat pat) ... hey, have you seen that Guernica? Hollywood liberal antiwar drivel! Do our taxes help pay for that crap?!

Oh, RTA! I just said Guernica is okay!

As a matter of fact, pro/anti-war statements about stuff that's already happened are a good way to put this whole Iraq thing in perspective. Wars happen, they have happened, and they will continue to happen.

But that's why I thought what I saw yesterday was presumptuous. What, did they think Dubya was going to see it and fling up his hands saying, "You're right! I should call this whole thing off!"?

Sure, it is. As Already in Use pointed out, Picasso and Goya's most famous paintings are works of political propaganda. And what about Kathe Kollwitz's Never Again War? Max Beckmann's Declaration of War? George Grosz's The Hero? The history of art encompasses the history of poltical expression from the Palette of Narmer, a work of politcal propaganda celebrating the conquest of Lower Egypt by Narmer, King of Upper Egypt in the fourth millenium BCE.

With all due respect, a work of art is not necessarily meant to inspire only middlebrow "serenity and wonderment," but to create rage, awe, lust, anger, and other strong emotions in the viewer. If you feel serenity and wonderment while looking at Guernica, then you don't understand the painting.

I wasn't looking at Guernica. It's not even in the LACMA. I was in the modern art section...let's see, what did they have? A sculpture called "Breaker", which was a bunch of garden hoses welded together to look like a breaking wave. Then there was a series of photos called "100 Boots". This guy took 100 pairs of rain boots and arranged them at different locations in California and New York: "100 Boots cross Fifth Avenue" and like that. Some other guy painted a lot of free-association text on unbleached muslin...I got as close as I could and read as much as I could...it was like a justhink post. There was almost an ocean theme here, because someone else created a buoy out of wicker and rigged up a motor to make it pitch and yaw, while a recording of harbor sounds played. If you watched it long enough, you felt like you were at sea.

This was interesting. This was a new way of looking at things. Then I went into the "garage", and I was over the moon. It was just like my dad's garage! Omigod, the artist must have loved putting all this together! This is middle America, right here! This is the pack-rat mentality! This is...

...the same damned thing I'm hearing about every day, on the net and on the TV and from other people. All Iraq, all the time. And the artist didn't intend for it to be there.. If someone had made a painting, sculpture, or whatever about Iraq, I would have judged it on its own merits (overlooking the fact that it's way too early for someone to complete something and get it sold). But this was a jarring, unwelcome intrusion.

It also might not have bothered me if I hadn't been on my last stop. We were going to see the modern art, then leave. So the last note was a sour one.

People are by nature barbaric hell-pigs. Take it from a museum pro who's cleaned a few wads of gum and dry bloody boogers from pictures in his day.

Exhibit tampering is rather common, but not as common as people simply reaching out with their greasy grubby hell-pig claws and stroking the art, as if they had eyes in place of their jagged, dirty fingernails.

ARGH! Where's that jaw-dropping smiley?

[gobear]

If someone had made a painting, sculpture, or whatever about Iraq, I would have judged it on its own merits (overlooking the fact that it's way too early for someone to complete something and get it sold). But this was a jarring, unwelcome intrusion

Well, there I am in agreement. Some dorkwad lefty sticking a peace button on a work of art is, IMO, acting no better than a vandal (or a Vandal, even).

[Weirddave]

Originally posted by Rilchiam
And the artist didn't intend for it to be there..

I think this is the key point, one that is difficult to argue with.

[Eve]

"Someone had rigged up a room to look exactly the way a garage would if someone had been spent twenty years or more accruing all the junk that piles up in a garage over time."

—Doesn't sound so much like "art" as, oh, I don't know . . . A pile of crap? I think I'd be more horrified if someone stuck a NO WAR WITH IRAQ sticker on a Holbein or a Goya. This sounds like one more little piece of annoying crap atop the huge pile of annoying crap.

[Watcher of the Skies]

This discussion brings to mind a favorite modern art moment: A few years ago, I had the pleasure of viewing the Whitney Museum's Biennial exhibit which showcases "the best" modern art has to offer. I would consider myself an art enthusiast, but more than half of what passes for modern art seems to me to be more in the ridiculous joke category, this garage exhibit being a good example. We saw an exhibit which was ostensibly a room from a house, set on a angle - you could look in the windows and see the floor and all the furniture but the whole room was tilted. After a number of such exhibits, we were walking down the corridor of the museum and I noticed a bank of pay telephones attached to the wall, They were sort of old fashioned looking telephones, so the thought occurred: "Are those actually pay phones, or is that an exhibit?" My group did a double take and for a quick minute we couldn't be sure...

[furlibusea]

It seems to me there are two different discussions here. I am against the war. What the vandel did was offensive and rude, and does more to hurt his cause than any person for the war could do. I am sure that someone maybe able to come up with exeptions, but I am having trouble coming up with when it would ever be acceptable to mess with someone elses work.

The second discussion is art being something that is supposed to make you comfortable. I am sorry. You don't get to have that. Art is supposed to make you think. It should sometimes make you angry. It should discuss politics and religion and the values of our culture. It should never ever let you just drift off into some calm state of nothingness. The purpose of doing art is comunication. Maybe the nicey nicey stuff that our first grade art teachers made us do is what some think art should be, but that is not art anymore than pablum is food.

[Eve]

Holbein is "pablum?" Da Vinci is "pablum?" Sorry, that doesn't wash. A pile of junk is a pile of junk, it ain't "art."

[Homebrew]

What about Kinkade? Is that art or pablum?

[furlibusea]

Da Vincci in his day was very controversial. He learned anatomy by doing autopsies, which was not just illegal but could have gotten him excommunicated. Holbien had to deal with the Reformation. The way the piece in question is described, suggests it is only a pile of junk, but frankly I cant judge it by the description presented. I have to assume if it was in the museum there might possibly be more to it than that, and even if there wasn't no one has the right to deface it.

[furlibusea]

I tend to think of Kinkade as pablum, although he is an excelent technician. The fact I don't like it doesn't give me any right to add to one of his paintings, even if that addition doesn't harm it.

[susan_foster]

Originally posted by furlibusea
The second discussion is art being something that is supposed to make you comfortable. I am sorry. You don't get to have that. Art is supposed to make you think. It should sometimes make you angry. It should discuss politics and religion and the values of our culture. It should never ever let you just drift off into some calm state of nothingness. The purpose of doing art is comunication. Maybe the nicey nicey stuff that our first grade art teachers made us do is what some think art should be, but that is not art anymore than pablum is food.

Vandalization of art is wrong - period. There, now that that's out of the way.

As for the meaning of art - art is meant to make you feel as well as think. I like Monet and Degas - not the most controversial artists in the world. And no, after I look at their paintings, I don't feel particularly angry or get a true message. What I feel is serenity - and happy, because I see something beautiful. So - is this art? It is to me. And art is in the eye of the beholder.

Susam

[Zebra]

Rilchiam
I agree with what you say. Of course if an artist wants to make a statement about war or politics that is fine with me. If an artist wants people to participate and add to (or subtract from) a particular work but people should not alter the art.




BUT


Then you say this.

Originally posted by Rilchiam
, except to say that I don't believe it matters what I think. I'm just following the news while staying neutral. What's going to happen is going to happen. Or not happen.



I'm pretty sure that you are of voting age and that you live in a democracy. What you think does indeed count. (if you vote gets counted properly)

[furlibusea]

But Monet was controversial. People thought his blotches of color didn't show any craftsmanship, and people didn't approve of Degas because he wouldn't do portrature. People thought a lot of this was realy ugly stuff at the time.

[gobear]

Originally posted by furlibusea
But Monet was controversial. People thought his blotches of color didn't show any craftsmanship, and people didn't approve of Degas because he wouldn't do portrature. People thought a lot of this was realy ugly stuff at the time.

Umm, you place far too much emphasis on controversy as a measure of a work of art's worth. Moreover, you seem to inject the adjective "controversial" into each artist's careeer even wheere there is no evidence for such a claim, as in Da Vinci.

The Impressionist painters were met with some initial scorn by the popular press (the word "Impressionism" was coined by the reporter Louis Leroy in his review of Monet's seascape Impressions: soleil levant [rising sun], but their new style of capturing light on canvas gained favor among the public quickly.

[Smapti]

I saw this particular installation in 1998 and again in 2000, and I don't recall ever seeing anything to do with Iraq in it. My vote goes for "Someone stuck it there".

[Rilchiam]

The badge just rubbed me the wrong way at the wrong time. I am not speaking for anyone else here, but I, personally, am getting bombarded with talk about Iraq. It's on every channel. It's on every talk radio show. My mom sends me daily e-mails telling me what she thinks of Dubya. It's currently Friend's number-one conversational topic, supplanting wrestling and music. It's the subject of dozens of threads here on SDMB. No, I don't read what I don't want to read, but a thread can start off about one thing, and before you know it, it turns into a thread about Iraq. Even the Eliz. Smart threads have had people saying things like "Well, I'm glad this story has a happy ending, 'cause god knows the Iraq story sure won't." It's all I bloody hear. Well, that and American Idol ;) I just needed a respite from all that.

Zebra, I am of voting age. But I've cast my votes. I've sent my e-mails to elected officials, and I've called into Larry Elder and Dennis Praeger, before the discussions became redundant. Now we're past the point where any form of protest can do anything. Absolutely no offense to people here who did participate in protests. You did what you could when you could. But now the only thing anyone can do is watch as the train picks up speed.

I didn't realize how frustrated I was until I did see this thing. I am not an ostrich. I do not like Thomas Kinkade. But thank you, susan and gobear, for pointing out that it's acceptable to appreciate some art simply for its aesthetics.

Eve: I'll admit that some modern art is a cop out. In fact, part of my enjoyment of it is seeing Mr. Rilch's reaction to it! Because that's what some modern artists are trying to do: simply piss people off for the sake of it. Of course, there was the inevitable canvas-painted-all-one-color-except-it-was-a-funny-shape-and-had-some-shading-at-the-bottom. But Mr. Rilch actually liked the garden-hoses-welded-together-to-look-like-a-wave! And the "100 Boots" photos. Grudgingly, he admitted that using non-traditional media can sometimes be creative. And, if you ask me, our attempts to define the line between modern art and what results when you turn a child loose with a bunch of random objects was a challenging and worthwhile discussion.

Watcher: I also saw a white cube with a tiny plaque on it that said "Please do not touch". Eyes narrowed, I tiptoed forward to look at the artists name and title...and saw a notice that whatever had been there, had been taken away for refurbishing. "Well, okay," I said. "Not even I would have been able to defend a plain white cube."

furlibusea: I'm not saying that art is always and only supposed to make you "comfortable". And I'm aware of controversy! Listen, there was another installation that showed a 1938 Ford, with beer bottles scattered on the fake grass around it. Inside (the door was open) were more beer bottles, and a sculpture of a woman sprawled out on the back seat. A chicken-wire (except for shoes on the "feet") figure of a man was on top of her, groping her lewdly.

The placard explained that this was created in 1966. City officials objected to it on grounds of obscenity. The LACMA trustees refused to remove it. The city officials threatened to close down the entire museum if it wasn't removed, so the trustees compromised. The door would remain closed, to be opened by a guard if everyone in the room was over 18. So there's your controversy. And if I'd been around in 1966, I would have been on the side of the trustees and the artist. I'm glad they told us of that bit of history: it shows how far we've come since then*. If, today, city officials objected to a pro/anti-war statement that was an intentional element of something in LACMA, I would again side with the trustees. But I'm not gonna defend a vandal. He can create his own art if he wants to make a statement.

I'm also not gonna debate the relative worth of Guernica vs. Water Lilies, because my rant wasn't about art: it was about some smartass who added their own propaganda to something that didn't have a political message. Weirddave, you nailed it.

*I also wonder how many of those city officials found reasons to examine the installation, or photos of it, again and again and again, to make sure that it was unacceptable...;)

[Rilchiam]

So what did you think of the whole shebang, Smapti? Just curious!

[furlibusea]

Originally posted by Rilchiam
I'm not saying that art is always and only supposed to make you "comfortable".
I agree with you there. I spent 20 years working professionaly in theatre and sometimes get a little too reactionary about the dumbing down of art just to get an audience. I don't realy have a problem with doing the light stuff its just sometimes that anything else gets pushed out so that there will be sales. There realy is room just asthetics I just sometimes get fed up when thats all there is, and sometimes even that gets pushed out.

Originally posted by Rilchiam But I'm not gonna defend a vandal. He can create his own art if he wants to make a statement.
I agree 100%

[Tarantara]

I was in the San Bernardino County Museum with my mother and Grandmother. There are exhibits of local flora and fauna, geology, antiques, history, etc. In one corner was an African exhibit. No other place other than San Bernardino County had an exhibit anywhere else in the museum. What the hell that was doing in a Museum dedicated to local history, I have no idea. I can only conjecture that it was done for PC purposes, but it was absurd and offensive to all of us.

[Rilchiam]

Oh brother. :rolleyes: I'll bet anything that they had to do that in order to keep getting grant money.

[Rilchiam]

Oh, and furlibusea: Okay then!

[litost]

Originally posted by gobear
And what about Kathe Kollwitz's Never Again War (http://www.bethel.edu/~letnie/KollwitzNeverAgain.html)?

Wow. I really liked this one but I couldn't fully wrap my mind around why the arms are up and what emotion is being expressed on the face.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally posted by Rilchiam
Someone had rigged up a room to look exactly the way a garage would if someone had been spent twenty years or more accruing all the junk that piles up in a garage over time. Shelves and drawers and workbenches, all scattered with odds and ends.

I'm sure people do leave things behind, intentionally, in Central Meridian.

I know and love that exhibit. I'm raising my morning coffee cup to The Temple Of Cosmic United Atoms Revealed right now.

[i]other dopers wander about scratching their heads, saying to themselves, "L.A...that explains it".

[Tony Montana]

Originally posted by gobear
[quote]
If you feel serenity and wonderment while looking at Guernica, then you don't understand the painting.

So her reaction was wrong?, there's a wrong reaction to art?

<hi-brow frech artist>
"no no no monsuier, you're supposed to be angry when you see this"
<hi-brow frenchie>

Eve To me a 1967 Shelby GT-500 E Mustang is art, to others its just an old car ...

[gobear]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by gobear
If you feel serenity and wonderment while looking at Guernica, then you don't understand the painting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So her reaction was wrong?, there's a wrong reaction to art?

The OP wasn't looking at Guernica sinse she was in LA and not Madrid. And I'm not saying that there are necessarily wrong reactions to art, but. . . Guernica (http://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/a_nav/guernica_nav/main_guerfrm.html) is a cry of grief and horror in rection to the bombardment of a Basque village during the Sapnish Civil War. Over the course of three days, 1600 noncombatants were killed or wounded. "Serenity and wonderment", IMO, would be an inappropriate reaction to this painting, just as much as someone getting "a feeling of peace" form watching 9/11 footage.

[Tony Montana]

hmph,

I must be a simpleton when I look at that painting all I'm thinking is WTF? If I hadn't read: "It is modern art's most powerful antiwar statement... " I would think "man this guy is a nut job"

I'm guessing that
a) that people are told before hand what this piece represents,and who painted it so they could say "oohh yes that is a powerful peice"

b) there are those who do get a feeling of peace and serenity from watching 9-11 footage..

Whats my point? helephino Im an artist...

[gobear]

I must be a simpleton when I look at that painting all I'm thinking is WTF? If I hadn't read: "It is modern art's most powerful antiwar statement... " I would think "man this guy is a nut job"

I'm guessing that
a) that people are told before hand what this piece represents,and who painted it so they could say "oohh yes that is a powerful peice

Well, the woman screaming in agony and the horse blown apart should clue in the viewers that they aren't looking at Le Petit Dejeuner Sur L'herbe.

[matt_mcl]

Did you see it in Madrid, Tony? All I can say is that the impression that that enormous canvas makes is devastating. I burst into tears and had to leave the gallery. A small reproduction just can't communicate it.

[Tony Montana]

Originally posted by matt_mcl
Did you see it in Madrid, Tony? All I can say is that the impression that that enormous canvas makes is devastating. I burst into tears and had to leave the gallery. A small reproduction just can't communicate it.

Good point, the link gobear supplied is the only time I've seen it ..

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally posted by Eve
"Someone had rigged up a room to look exactly the way a garage would if someone had been spent twenty years or more accruing all the junk that piles up in a garage over time."

—Doesn't sound so much like "art" as, oh, I don't know . . . A pile of crap? I think I'd be more horrified if someone stuck a NO WAR WITH IRAQ sticker on a Holbein or a Goya. This sounds like one more little piece of annoying crap atop the huge pile of annoying crap.

To be fair, it's not just a "pile of crap", but a "pile of crap that really makes you wonder about the person it belonged to". You encounter things that are just -- slightly off, but not horrifying or obviously disturbing. For example, there are no Nazi insignia, nor a KKK uniform hanging on the wall, but just oddities. My reference above, to the "Temple Of Cosmic United Atoms Revealed" refers to a sign with those words nailed to the wall, featuring a little atom graphic and, if memory serves, a lab flask to symbolize "science". You just have to experience it before you dismiss it. Really, I expected that a published author living and working in the cultural capital of the Western World would not be so quick to dismiss it out of hand.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally posted by Eve
"Someone had rigged up a room to look exactly the way a garage would if someone had been spent twenty years or more accruing all the junk that piles up in a garage over time."

—Doesn't sound so much like "art" as, oh, I don't know . . . A pile of crap? I think I'd be more horrified if someone stuck a NO WAR WITH IRAQ sticker on a Holbein or a Goya. This sounds like one more little piece of annoying crap atop the huge pile of annoying crap.

To be fair, it's not just a "pile of crap", but a "pile of crap that really makes you wonder about the person it belonged to". You encounter things that are just -- slightly off, but not horrifying or obviously disturbing. For example, there are no Nazi insignia, nor a KKK uniform hanging on the wall, but just oddities. My reference above, to the "Temple Of Cosmic United Atoms Revealed" refers to a sign with those words nailed to the wall, featuring a little atom graphic and, if memory serves, a lab flask to symbolize "science". You just have to experience it before you dismiss it. Really, I expected that a published author living and working in the cultural capital of the Western World* would not be so quick to dismiss it out of hand.

*unless I've got you confused with someone else, that is.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Oh cripes, sorry for the double post.

In no way were my remarks meant to dismiss the Renaissance.