So do you or don’t you believe that “Art is suppose to challenge, to shock, to make one uncomfortable”? Or do you want to just have it be challenging to other people?
Christ you are thick.
I think that the phrase is an outdated cliche. I think it constitutes an overly narrow view of what art is. Personally I like art that I find interesting, which may or may not be shocking. Challenging art is ok, provided it delivers some reward for the effort that I put into it.
Neither Piss Christ nor Abortion USA would get my panties in a twist.
Oh hell, I agree with you, what do I do now? 
My point in this thread, to the degree I have one, is that the art world is insular and without a sense of irony. They can’t claim to be fighting for the right of people to express themselves while at the same time picking art that reflects only one viewpoint of society and rejects the rest.
They can’t pretend to be against government control of art while depending on public money. They *are *controlling art through the selection process, and they are acting on behalf of the government.
They can’t say that “everything is art” and then scoff at stuff that other people see as having artistic value.
I support government sponsorship of the arts, but if the institutions that are sponsored have a bias in a particular direction then it is inevitable that public support will disappear.
The most galling thing to me are people within the art world pretending like they are not the equivalent of art world insiders 50, or 100, or 500 years ago that had their own narrow viewpoint on art.
Yes, a lot of things that are highly regarded now were not considered to be great art in their time. But there was also a lot of art that was not considered great because it just sucked.
Liberals lost the high ground with regard to provocative religious art when they by and large refused to come out in force with unambiguous support of the Danish Muhammed Cartoons. In any case, art pieces like this ant one will soon become a crime against humanity if the UN has its way with the new anti religious defamation initiatives, which so far has the backing of the UN Human Rights Council (so called), and the General Assembly is set to vote on the subject this month.
Everything is provocative to someone – except perhaps Mona Lisa, whatever is there to be provoked about there? But if the measure of art is if it is provocative to me then for instance Picasso’s Guernica is not art for me, because I find it to be a rather uninteresting and drab picture.
As far as I can tell this canard has been fully debunked. Absolutely every bit of art that you claim would not get into an art museum has gotten into an art museum. You just don’t know or care enough about it to go look.
Heh, I’ve seen the same claim about Hieronymous Bosch, whereas I’ve actually seen more Bruegel in dorms (maybe the claimants meant “erstwhile Bosch imitators” :))
La Giaconda is plenty provocative–maybe you’re thinking “Why the smirk, lady?”–or “Does she looks content or smug?” or “What the hell is that weird background–why is posing in front of it?” or just “Who is she?” My point to **Bricker **is that you’re supposed to be be provoked into thinking, and maybe, just maybe, you’re annoyed at some of the answers you come up with. If he’s as experienced in looking at art, he understands this, but draws the line at certain unpleasant questions artists are capable of asking, but certainly he doesn’t wish for a universal response to any work of art to be just “Oooh, pretty! Like this, dunno why, don’t care, but ooh, pretty.” If that’s desirable, we’d have the kind of decor and kitsch that even he looks down his nose at. He’s either being provocative himself, or is just more ignorant than he lets on, if he thinks that the masses took the Impressionists to heart but them nasty elitist art critics told them “No, no, no, you can’t have it”–he might prefer it if that were so, but it simply ain’t. (And thanks for digging up the contemporary references to the early Impressionists–I’m too lazy to search.) The stuff he finds so lovely in Dejeuner sur l’herbe today pissed off the general art-goer in its time, but decades of argument and of further “outrageous” art have muted that outrage to the point that now Bricker can’t even see that it prevailed for years and years, which is kinda my point: artists have to do what they want to do, and some artists have to poke the public with sharp sticks. If you don;t like being poked, keep away from galleries that do a little poking, and stick with the safe, predictable art you’re used to. But don;t impose your artistic tastes on every one–some people have edgier tastes than you, and we need our tastes in art supported too.
BTW, thanks for the nice remarks about my gallery opening, which went very well. I had a guy come up to me (a painter himself, I later learned) who ominously said he was with Homeland Security and he’d like me to come down to his office to discuss my painting.
But I haven’t disputed that at all. I’m well aware that many now-classic trends in art began with a then-outrageous change in approach. Marcel Duchamp scandalized the art world with “Nude Descending a Staircase,” when no one could tell if the figure was human, much less nude.
I was making two points: that of all the artistic movements of the last three hundred years, the Impressionists were perhaps the poorest example of this, because the public so quickly accommodated their innovation and the critics did not; and that there’s no rule that says art must be controversial or make you think to be art. I’m not remotely a fan of Thomas Kinkade, for instance, but I don’t deny he’s creating art… just art I don’t want in my home. And I adore Maxfield Parrish, even though I’ve been told, haughtily, that his work isn’t art either.
:eek:
I assume he was joking, or had the lamest pick-up line ever.
But glad the opening went well. This is (obviously) a pivotal moment for your career; you’ll always remember your first opening, I’m told.
So when’s your first solo show?? 
That rgument would be much more meaningful coming from someone else who does not depend on publicly funded institutions for his professional work to be at all efficacious. Even a contract, will, property transfer, investment portfolio, etc., negotiated entirely between private parties relies for its efficacy on the (often tacit) threat that at the last resort it can be taken into the court system – which is publicly funded.
That’s not an attack on you, lawyers generally, the court system, or anything else. It’s underscoring the point that opinions can and do differ as to what deserves public funding – and you do not necessarily hold the moral high ground. You made a living off the public teat, just as much as a NEA-funded artist did. That’s not necessarily a bad thing – but don’t wrap yourself in the flag and point to them as evil execrescences on the body public – you did something very similar yourself, if you think about it.
If you like Rodin, then if you are out West head to Stanford. They have the 2nd largest collection after Paris.
OK, y’all convinced me - next trip to the D’Orsay. Maybe make it to the Continent next Spring I hope.
And, oddly enough, there is a surprisingly good collection at MaryhillMuseum in the middle of no where Washington.
I wonder if the same people who oppose the removal of the Jesus/ants video would oppose the remove of a respectful nativity scene in a publicly funded building because it upset some people.
Talk about a felicitous choice of phrasing.
Good luck. Check the political climate before you go though. I have been to Paris twice and never set foot in a museum as the museum workers were all on strike.
No. I absolutely reject that premise.
All but the most fearsome of libertarians agree that a method to resolve disputes among freely-contracting parties is a matter of public interest. Participating in that system is NOT “just as much as an NEA-funded artist” is doing.
Now, it’s true that opinions differ on the desirability of providing indigent criminal defendants with paid counsel, and I was certainly part of that process, but even there a meaningful line may be drawn between public defenders and NEA funded artists.
I hear that often, but it’s actually rather funny as in the 19th century many progressive (& very provocative) artists strongly believed that art existed for its own sake (expressed by Swinburne as: “the business of the poet is to make poetry, not to redeem the age or remold society”) when they wanted to release it from the limiting chains of societal, moral and political expectation. It appears they failed, but why do you feel a need to limit the role of art to only this one category? Maybe some artist simply feel the need to make art to please the senses.
You mean like paintings of nativity scenes in places like the National Gallery? I see plenty of Christian art in public art museums.
What do you call Christian art?
Is that like Islamic art ?
Ever see a depiction of Mohammed ?
No, I don’t mean paintings. I mean three dimensional depictions that have caused controversy in the past.
Why would dimensional parameters make a difference for you ?