Readings (for Monday, July 26th):
- Chapter 3: “Atrocity Exhibition” in Aftershock: The Ethics of Contemporary Transgressive Art (available on Blackboard).
Recommended Readings (short):
- Hans Bellmer in The Art Institute of Chicago: The Wandering Libido and the Hysterical Body
- Junk for Code
Please post a response to the readings by Monday, July 26th before class begins.
Advertisement
To me this book is a little hard to read. I hope that when/if we go over it on Monday it will make a little more sense. There are many pictures referenced in this book that they don’t show, so I had to find them online as references while reading. For example, when describing the use of the canonic defense of a piece of art, such as Piss Christ which is compared to Bunuel Dali I did not know what either of those were. Some parts of this chapter were much more clear though, like the purpose, “This chapter investigates whether moral misgivings about Jake and Dinos Chapman’s art are justified.” That part was pretty simple. However, some of their defenses confused me like the canonic defense. There was a large section about this defense yet the book says it isn’t a good one. “…the canonic defense cannot really be relied on to argue a case for the defense of contemporary transgressive art with any real conviction. Yet its persuasive recourse means that the canonic defense still possesses the rhetorical capacity to convince.” This really confused me; I don’t see how it’s a bad defense and a good one at the same time.
The second reading, which was suggested, about Hans Bellmer’s piece, mutilated bodies, was much easier to read. I didn’t feel like I needed the same background of art knowledge as I did with the original reading. It told me when he created the art, during the rise of Nazism. It explained the pictures in detail, which helped because some where hard to see. It also gave an explanation of maybe a deeper meaning of the work. “The fetishising of body parts and fragmentation of the sexual form ignored the constraints of physical actuality. …Bellmer’s sense of taboo lay not in what convention condemned but what was hidden in the darkness of the psyche.” Sometimes when seeing this type of art it is hard to tell what the artist was trying to do and there is normally an important message they are trying to tell. When there is insight to the art it is easier to appreciate. I really enjoyed reading the comments left about the art by others also, what is art without someone to view it.
The second article had more that the artist himself had actually said, which I liked. The art becomes more real when you read actual quotes from the person who created it. To hear the passion the artist had is inspiring. ‘”It was worth all my obsessive efforts,” he wrote, “when, amid the smell of glue and wet plaster, the essence of all that is impressive would take shape and become a real object to be possessed.”’ The second one also goes into more detail about the artist’s career and the development of his work.
Tonight’s homework was very interesting to me. I viewed these very interesting art pieces and I am not really sure how they made me feel. I think I should have stopped and just looked at them more, instead of just reading through everything that everyone else though about them. Next time I think I will try to do more of what we did in class, read a little get an idea about the art then take a step back and actually view the art.
First of when I saw the Chapman brothers Zygotic Acceleration, I was utterly appalled. I could not even bring myself to fully look at the image. I still have yet to fully look at the image because it is so disturbing to me. The idea of penises as noses and the anal as a mouth is like a smack in the face to me and nothing I would have ever expected could be done and accepted as art, but just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess the same can go for art. Although some use the canonical defense to justify the work of the Chapman brothers using Goya’s work, I really do not see how they can because although Goya may have mutilated bodies, I feel like the Chapman brothers went way beyond in violating the bodies by using sex parts in places where they do not belong. Even Batille’s work, which I can see more being compared to Goya’s, does not touch on the theme of the Chapman brothers work. I can understand the Chapman brothers admiring Goya for constantly exceeding the limits of prohibition, but for people to say that what they are doing has a precedence in Goya’s work is a little hard for me to understand, and I agree with the author about it being pointless because it has nothing to do with the sexualized nature of their work.
Belmer’s Die Puppe is another disturbing image that although not as repulsing as Zygotic Acceleration, still has that pedophilia component that is implicit. Sue Taylors’s description of it as “a kind of sex toy created to gratify specifically pedophilic desires,” makes it seem even worse because whatever people may have thought, she is stating it clearly for the world to see. On page 104, Bataille says, “the taboo would forbid the transgression, but the fascination compels it.” This statement made a lot of sense to me because at first when I looked at Die Puppe, I knew that it was wrong but because it was not explicit, I kept taking peaks at it. For me Belmer’s work seems more implicit than Zygotic Acceleration, because of the whole penis and vaginas and anus that are less implicit. One thing that I disagree with a statement that was made on page 105 that said, “We sense the wrong; but Bellmer, because there is no evidence of wrongdoing, no proof of harm, ensures that the fascinated appalling desire that his images evoke in us comes, disturbingly, from ourselves.” I definitely do not think that I am the one who is imagining that his doll is an image of a sexually molested child. I think that he created this image with this idea in mind of violating taboo which in this case is child pedophilia. As for the whole authentic versus inauthentic transgressive art, who can really say, because transgressive art is not made to be analyzed as formal art would. How can it be inauthentic if it is different in a transgressive way.
As for the aesthetic defense of the Chapmans’ work, as being a representation in order to give it aesthetic value, the people using this defense are just basically fooling themselves and ignoring the real issue of the themes reflected in their work. Maloney put it best “when confronted with Zygotic Acceleration: ‘It seemed hard to be abstract when there was a cock staring me straight in the face.’ At first I could not stop laughing, but he was absolutely right, how could people try to overlook the meaning of the work by using aesthetic defenses when it’s so clearly in your face and not hiding. It is part of their artistic expression so how dare people even me try to look past that and just see that it’s a bunch of mannequins when there are penises for noses. It’s almost impossible.
All in all these defenses from canonical, transgressive and aesthetic are just ways for people to not have to think about the moral issues that are brought up in the Zygotic Acceleration. But like the author said, we have to think about the moral issues concerning the artwork. Just because it’s not an image of adults with penises, vaginas, and anuses as other body parts but the taboo of innocent children with these same parts, does not mean that we can just push that aside. The moral shock of the artwork is just as important as the aesthetic component or we would not really understand what the Chapman brothers were trying to convey.
Eric Vahouny
evahouny@gmu.edu
This morning I would like to open with my interpretation of the reading and then comment a bit on my other classmates blog material.
First off, the reading. I want to start off discussing the main theme that I seem to be picking up from this course’s reading material, which is the connection, or disconnection, of one’s childhood and adult lives. Both as a child and as an adult we seem to perceive our world differently in some ways, and the same in other ways. For example, as a child we see things in their purest form, innocent, forgiving, and stable to fit our needs both emotionally and physically. As adults, we seem to have a tendency to try and change what is around us, for we begin to see the flaws in nature, the ugliness, the masks, the evil, and the guilt festering in the shadows of our creation. Coming to this realization, we yearn to be and think child-like again. Sometimes I get angry or frustrated I can never go back and have that same innocence again, but I still think about it. Sometimes I am happy and content that I can never go back and have those same experiences again, because in growing up one has to look for new experiences and potentially groundbreaking views about the world. This duality, or split in power, is a main theme in art. The adult vs. the child seems to resonate in the galleries we have explored so far. Whether it be expressed through the way the modern renaissance woman is portrayed as guilty, yet hiding some innocence, or in the manner in which male performance artists exude a great boastful confidence on stage to make up for their utter lack of confidence and manliness off stage. While society and time push us in one direction, linear, always…and our imagination and free will in the mind takes us in many multiple directions backwards drawing off memories and dreams of what we were when we were younger. There seems to be a yearning for immortality through artistic expressions. a never ending place that the artist creates where he/she/it/us can live or die together without any parameters or boundaries. It seems that the ownership of a child is placed more in the hands of society and the boundaries it has established than that of the parent.
While Freud’s psychoanalysis may be approved by some and disproved by others, it is still relevant in discussing others art work, morals, and transgressions, or lack there of. My idea of ‘transgression’ could be your idea of ‘God’, and your idea of ‘transgression’ could be my idea of ‘the Devil.’ I know my thoughts are still good vs. bad and black vs. white and up vs. down. But then again, looking at the world as a dichotomy might be the only way we can perceive and understand what is going on around us.
In response to Miss Glascock’s first blog post about Georges Bataille, I think that no matter how blunt or to the point your intent is at displaying what you have to bring to the table, you will still be misunderstood or perceived in a way you might not have thought of before or intended. I think this is one of the main challenges for us as artists. No matter how hard we try and attract one set of people, or open our mind to as many ideas as possible, everyone is not going to react the same. Also, in your first section on Kant you seem to not enjoy all of the black and white talk, yet later in the second paragraph you praise the transgressive art idea that the artists are either very direct in their message or completely ambiguous.
In response to Miss Solomon’s first blog post, I found Paul McCarty’s video disturbing as well but realized his intent was deeper than just the surface material, but at the same time glorifying how tremendously powerful that surface material is in an of itself. I agree with your statement on art and either wanting it because of its beauty or not because of its ugliness, but disagree with your statement on looking at art objectively as Kant points out. I beleive we have the ability to do both, in looking at the art as an object, as well as its picturesque qualities.
In response to Mr. Park’s first blog post, I enjoyed your opening quote on Erykah Badu. This made me think of the struggle we all face to find ‘ourselves’ and discover our own true destiny: individuality. This topic comes up repeatedly in art as well. The constant battle to become me, and distinguish myself as different from you. I think metaphorically of myself as an onion with many many layers and no matter how many you peel back to think you are at the center of the universe and know-it-all, really, you are just breaking the surface.
In response to Miss Rose’s first blog post, I particularly resonated with your choice of Julius’s definition of transgressive art in terms of specifically violated illegals taboo subjects. I particularly find an adrenaline rush in illegal taboo subjects that can sometimes only be expressed through art and its specific legal mediums to explore. also, I do think that Virginia is conservative, but that in a sense is good for it offers a place for more liberal ideas and transgressive art to flourish.
In response to Miss Vido’s first blog post, I fully agree with you in terms of your statement on the media and how much it drastically puts a cover or veil over our eyes almost blinding us to the reality of the artwork we are seeing. It is as if part of us wants this fantasy-middle-class-everything-is-kosher-mentality to open the door to transgressions and taboos that keep our humanity sane and our society progressing. I think that fear has a lot to do with how we perceive our surrounding and what we can appreciated aesthetically all together. I feel you on your discussion on how wide open art, and transgression, can be in our eyes..and more importantly in others’. Like I said earlier, I think that most transgressive art deals with the child vs. adult, and like your said Freud vs. post Freud. There is a sense to move past these basic concepts and ‘grow up’ yet there is something still there in the back of our minds that plays a primitive role in our development without a doubt. I shall conclude with attempting to answer your question: what is art? Art is wefhapeghpahhawsdhjawhfpwo;jfehlkefhpwefh, and hjhhhhhhhefiweuuuuuuuuuuuuudwdgggggggg, and 247430783407894302-0, all together or separate. Art is whatever you say it is. Art is now, then, again, and forever. Art is you before you were born, and art is you when you leave here. Art is the trying and failing, the succeeding and the denying is what is real, fake, and everything in between. It is what it is. Simply, and, complicated. Art is art. And ‘that’s all she wrote.’