Like the title says, how do you feel about censorship in art?
I watched "Fire in my belly" from the Smithsonian scandal. To be honest, I have no idea what the video is about.
I mean, it is decent from a technical standpoint looking during the 1980s. But I did not find it profound nor riveting. Perhaps I am to low-bow or to high-brow. I thought it was mediocre art to be perfectly honest. Not great, not thrilling, not revolting nor provoking. Wouldn't be surprised if it was removed for "being lame."
MoCA on the otherhand is an entirely different discussion. I actually think the sentiment behind the mural is a sentiment a lot of veterans agree with. I think it is a bit of a double standard-- we're proud of our military-industrial complex and its effectiveness yet acknowledging what the industry actually does is a faux pas.
For instance, one of my parents works for a company that does a lot of government contracting. Yet I'm never allowed to say that they "make tons of money because our government likes blowing up brown people who live in mud buildings."
My thought overall is this:
I think activist art is pretty much dead. It's been on life support for a while. Many artists are generally praised for demonstrating blunt opinions yet few ever investigate whether or not those opinions are worthy of demonstration or properly thought out.
In the same manner, I find 'pedestrian art forms' equally disgusting for similar short sighted views.
For instance, how many popular films have been made in the last 5 years that have a similar guise of "evil real estate developer vs. small 'making it' family or community?"
Both impart an equal shock value and both do so poorly. How about we just have stories or ideas thrown out without over charging their moral or ethical implications?
Also, I feel like sometimes we over politicize or sensationalize issues on both sides-- critic and artist-- for the sole reason of detracting away from the obvious...
Most of this art just plain sucks. But you can't really tell someone that without completely devastating them. Even then, "sucking" is entirely subjective and preference is without defense on both sides.
Perhaps that is where deconstructionism ultimately rules-- deconstructionism as an art form from visual arts to literature simply asks "why?". In that sense, art is hard to gauge and the efficacy of art is only framed by the formulation of a perfect "why?" scenario. It can be either visually appealing or abhorrently awful as long as the execution of asking remains.
But, even by 2000s standards, deconstructionism can be both immature and burdensome because it relies on an inherent complexity of reduction and truth. We know from mathematics the reduction and truth are formal impossibilities.
In a sense, though, I'd like one of these curators to reply with "Writing on t-shirts? What are you? Fourteen year old suburbanites? You're awful. That's awful. The whole thing sucks. Come back when you put some non-vinyl-lettered effort into it."
The art world is a scam. $ome rich guy decides he can make money by patronizing a kid who pisses on telephone books. He donates to the museum, the kid's work gets in for a while, the value of the kid'$ work goes up.
There are variations, and an academic ecosystem, but that's about it.
You haven't figured that out yet?
Oh, as to censorship in art? In architecture, it happens every day. Thank the AIA. Otherwise, architects wouldn't have jobs. We would have to learn something technical, like how buildings work and how they go together, and how much they cost. Yuck.
BTW, What's the best style of architecture, Uxbridge? Honestly, I haven't figured that one out yet.
uXbridge....my problem with Classical Architecture in to days world is
I can't find the "Crapman to Pull it off." So I go find a tin knocker and a waddle tosser...and I have 2010 Architecture in a baggie.
No offense, snook... but you slew of words are both inaccurate and semi offensive.
I have no idea whether you're being serious or tongue-in-cheek because you certainly don't knock tin for classicist styles and you can't throw waddle. I'm sure this is some misappropriated obscure construction terminology.
And there's nothing wrong with repoussé in classicist styles as a filler to porperly carved or molded features. Finding a craftsman skilled in repoussé is about as difficult as finding quick mold-maker. Just back fill the pieces in with plaster.
While not one of Wojnarowicz' best pieces, I wouldn't call it lame.
In the context of his personal situation and the association of HIV as a way to demonize homosexuals, the piece tackles the stigma of "uncleanliness" that was tagged to gay men in the 80s.
In some ways I find it very personal, a struggle he has with himself as he found out he was HIV+. The repetition of unclean, the religious / spiritual images, with the short masturbation scene, coupled with images of a meat factory transcend just a Christian reading as well, bringing to mind the untouchable caste of leather workers and butchers.
I think its an interesting work of art.
On the other hand, I found Blu's work at the MOCA to be super lame. While it should not have been removed as a form of censorship, as an artwork I think it was a one-liner that lacked any depth.
And the Gagosian gallery thing... I just don't understand what went on there.
I would agree with beefeaters. The protest of the Wojnorawicz video was relevant and makes a good point about an ugly (and unfair) situation. While Im not familiar with the video I do think that censorship in this situation is wrong. The final point made about the marginalization of gays, even in an exhibit claiming to be against that, is a very good point.
However, the mural about coffins and money was quite one-dimensional and not overly thought provoking.
@betadine - The point of deconstructivism is to make money for deconstructivists.
If you don't believe in 'truth', put a loaded gun to your head and pull the trigger. When you're driving your car, try praying instead of using the brakes.
Those are moments of truth. People who deny truth are called liars. But hey, the pay is better.
Where did I actually say "people who like modern architecture are stupid."
Let's not also point out that many Classicist (and even the Roman buildings they copied) did have central heating and running water-- some even had 'toilets!'
@Uxbridge - Classicist. Duh. The word "Duh" tells me that you think the question is stupid because you have the right answer.
I could be wrong, though. Maybe you have a different explanation for writing "Classicist. Duh."?
Personally, I don't love classicism. Sometimes I don't mind it. But that's my personal opinion. A lot of people love it. But it isn't my call to make for someone else.
On the other hand, as an architect, I think it would be fair to say that in areas subject to human impact, safety glass is a better choice than annealed glass. I could make that judgment for someone else.
But you seem to think that you can make the call for other people that classicism is better for them? Or not?
@b3tadine[sutures] - Is that a professional opinion? Or a personal insult? What's the difference? Oh, and what's an 'aesthetic judgement?'
And if architecture is art, how come it has no first amendment recognition? I would really like to hear this, because I haven't found *anyone* who has a good answer. Do you? Or is 'tru dat' the extent of your expressive skills?
'safe art world'
From this Archinect news article.
Like the title says, how do you feel about censorship in art?
I watched "Fire in my belly" from the Smithsonian scandal. To be honest, I have no idea what the video is about.
I mean, it is decent from a technical standpoint looking during the 1980s. But I did not find it profound nor riveting. Perhaps I am to low-bow or to high-brow. I thought it was mediocre art to be perfectly honest. Not great, not thrilling, not revolting nor provoking. Wouldn't be surprised if it was removed for "being lame."
MoCA on the otherhand is an entirely different discussion. I actually think the sentiment behind the mural is a sentiment a lot of veterans agree with. I think it is a bit of a double standard-- we're proud of our military-industrial complex and its effectiveness yet acknowledging what the industry actually does is a faux pas.
For instance, one of my parents works for a company that does a lot of government contracting. Yet I'm never allowed to say that they "make tons of money because our government likes blowing up brown people who live in mud buildings."
My thought overall is this:
I think activist art is pretty much dead. It's been on life support for a while. Many artists are generally praised for demonstrating blunt opinions yet few ever investigate whether or not those opinions are worthy of demonstration or properly thought out.
In the same manner, I find 'pedestrian art forms' equally disgusting for similar short sighted views.
For instance, how many popular films have been made in the last 5 years that have a similar guise of "evil real estate developer vs. small 'making it' family or community?"
Both impart an equal shock value and both do so poorly. How about we just have stories or ideas thrown out without over charging their moral or ethical implications?
Also, I feel like sometimes we over politicize or sensationalize issues on both sides-- critic and artist-- for the sole reason of detracting away from the obvious...
Most of this art just plain sucks. But you can't really tell someone that without completely devastating them. Even then, "sucking" is entirely subjective and preference is without defense on both sides.
Perhaps that is where deconstructionism ultimately rules-- deconstructionism as an art form from visual arts to literature simply asks "why?". In that sense, art is hard to gauge and the efficacy of art is only framed by the formulation of a perfect "why?" scenario. It can be either visually appealing or abhorrently awful as long as the execution of asking remains.
But, even by 2000s standards, deconstructionism can be both immature and burdensome because it relies on an inherent complexity of reduction and truth. We know from mathematics the reduction and truth are formal impossibilities.
In a sense, though, I'd like one of these curators to reply with "Writing on t-shirts? What are you? Fourteen year old suburbanites? You're awful. That's awful. The whole thing sucks. Come back when you put some non-vinyl-lettered effort into it."
The art world is a scam. $ome rich guy decides he can make money by patronizing a kid who pisses on telephone books. He donates to the museum, the kid's work gets in for a while, the value of the kid'$ work goes up.
There are variations, and an academic ecosystem, but that's about it.
You haven't figured that out yet?
Oh, as to censorship in art? In architecture, it happens every day. Thank the AIA. Otherwise, architects wouldn't have jobs. We would have to learn something technical, like how buildings work and how they go together, and how much they cost. Yuck.
BTW, What's the best style of architecture, Uxbridge? Honestly, I haven't figured that one out yet.
"What's the best style of architecture, Uxbridge?"
Classicist. Duh. No one has the labor pool for it, though!
uXbridge....my problem with Classical Architecture in to days world is
I can't find the "Crapman to Pull it off." So I go find a tin knocker and a waddle tosser...and I have 2010 Architecture in a baggie.
No offense, snook... but you slew of words are both inaccurate and semi offensive.
I have no idea whether you're being serious or tongue-in-cheek because you certainly don't knock tin for classicist styles and you can't throw waddle. I'm sure this is some misappropriated obscure construction terminology.
And there's nothing wrong with repoussé in classicist styles as a filler to porperly carved or molded features. Finding a craftsman skilled in repoussé is about as difficult as finding quick mold-maker. Just back fill the pieces in with plaster.
Hell, I'd be happy if we could still have a real brick wall ! Metal-work still seems to be viable.
Wattle and daub ?
While not one of Wojnarowicz' best pieces, I wouldn't call it lame.
In the context of his personal situation and the association of HIV as a way to demonize homosexuals, the piece tackles the stigma of "uncleanliness" that was tagged to gay men in the 80s.
In some ways I find it very personal, a struggle he has with himself as he found out he was HIV+. The repetition of unclean, the religious / spiritual images, with the short masturbation scene, coupled with images of a meat factory transcend just a Christian reading as well, bringing to mind the untouchable caste of leather workers and butchers.
I think its an interesting work of art.
On the other hand, I found Blu's work at the MOCA to be super lame. While it should not have been removed as a form of censorship, as an artwork I think it was a one-liner that lacked any depth.
And the Gagosian gallery thing... I just don't understand what went on there.
deconstruction relies on "truth"? i thought the point of deconstruction was to point out the impossibility of "truth".
Exactly.
Plus I said "an inherent complexity of reduction and truth."
But pea pick all you want to make points.
I would agree with beefeaters. The protest of the Wojnorawicz video was relevant and makes a good point about an ugly (and unfair) situation. While Im not familiar with the video I do think that censorship in this situation is wrong. The final point made about the marginalization of gays, even in an exhibit claiming to be against that, is a very good point.
However, the mural about coffins and money was quite one-dimensional and not overly thought provoking.
@Uxbridge - So you are saying that people who like modern architecture are stupid? That sounds like the reasoning of an ignorant bigot.
Besides, classical buildings didn't have indoor plumbing or electricity or central heating. Who would buy a design like that?
@betadine - The point of deconstructivism is to make money for deconstructivists.
If you don't believe in 'truth', put a loaded gun to your head and pull the trigger. When you're driving your car, try praying instead of using the brakes.
Those are moments of truth. People who deny truth are called liars. But hey, the pay is better.
Where did I actually say "people who like modern architecture are stupid."
Let's not also point out that many Classicist (and even the Roman buildings they copied) did have central heating and running water-- some even had 'toilets!'
eje = douche <------- tru dat
@Uxbridge - Classicist. Duh. The word "Duh" tells me that you think the question is stupid because you have the right answer.
I could be wrong, though. Maybe you have a different explanation for writing "Classicist. Duh."?
Personally, I don't love classicism. Sometimes I don't mind it. But that's my personal opinion. A lot of people love it. But it isn't my call to make for someone else.
On the other hand, as an architect, I think it would be fair to say that in areas subject to human impact, safety glass is a better choice than annealed glass. I could make that judgment for someone else.
But you seem to think that you can make the call for other people that classicism is better for them? Or not?
@b3tadine[sutures] - Is that a professional opinion? Or a personal insult? What's the difference? Oh, and what's an 'aesthetic judgement?'
And if architecture is art, how come it has no first amendment recognition? I would really like to hear this, because I haven't found *anyone* who has a good answer. Do you? Or is 'tru dat' the extent of your expressive skills?
Thanks in advance.
eje = idiot douche <------ tru dat
The coffin mural may have been one dimensional, but the idea that war=profit is so offensive to the powers that be is very telling.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.