Do any of you remember the three or four panel cartoon that went like
this? (it suffers in the translation):
1) Bohemian artist (complete with beret and goatee) in front of canvas
with a portrait of a banker in a bowler hat. The portrait is
unfinished, with the word "FUCK" written large underneath.
2) The selfsame banker walks by, looks at the picture.
3) The artist holds out his hat, and the banker drops in money.
4) The artist returns to the canvas, completing the portrait of the
banker that now has the words "FUCK YOU" emblazoned on it.
Piquing the bourgeoisie is an old established european artistic
pastime. It has been taken up with a vengeance in America, where we
love to hate authority anyway. It sounds as though the American flag
exhibit is part of this fine old American pastime, viz. dumping on
authority. I know that I enjoy it, and the "Freemen" in Montana sure
enjoy it. But, there is the danger that as conceptual art (which is
the big tent into which I am conveniently putting art pieces with
flags in toilets, though it may also house Cy Twombly, who I think
is pretty cool), all that is left is the idea of bursting
authoritative balloons, and none of the trappings of art: grace, wit,
craft, passion, and more craft.
I don't get worked up about desecrating the flag, but I do get worked
up about bad art. And I am particularly concerned that the museum
community is losing its credibility by making hard and fast
commitments to protect *any* sort of artistic expression. Can't we be
discriminating? Can't we say that some stuff, even if it is
provocative, is just dopey? Or is provocation itself now an artistic
virtue, so that the more provoking a piece is, the more it is worthy
of being considered art?
I think that there is an important distinction between controversial
exhibits that posit different historical viewpoints and controversial
exhibits that present art that is in some way enraging.
I personally think that the former is critical to protect: we must
participate in the enrichment of historical understanding, and we
must encourage the inclusion of previously neglected viewpoints. As
far as enraging art, I frankly find it mostly painfully art student-y,
and if most of it went away, the only losers would be a small coterie
of collectors and curators.
Yikes, I guess I am getting old and encrusted.
Eric Siegel
[log in to unmask]
|