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]