Brother Siegel, your essay on the distinction between evocative art and
provocative bullshit was so cogent that I'm burning bandwidth to repeat it
in case somebody missed it.

     Hank Burchard * <[log in to unmask]> * Washington DC


On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, Eric Siegel wrote:

>    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]
>
>