Hi folks – I decided to recap what I told you in class here, just to be on the safe side. It was a bummer that the electricity on campus kept us from having a real class. As you know, I sent along two power points to your email addresses – one on surrealism and one on the Atrocity Exhibit, both of which I was going to discuss in class. Try to look through both as best you can and get the gist of what I was trying to get across.
I’m posting the links to the power points here, as well:
- Surrealism lecture / Surrealism (Wikipedia)
Also – check out these videos on Hans Bellmer:
- Abstract the Human
- The Anatomy of the Image (Drawings of Hans Bellmer)
- The Bizarre and Erotic Doll Art of Hans Bellmer
Your assignment for these (above that I was going to show/discuss in class) is to write either a blog response or written response sent to me by email about your thoughts on surrealism, the atrocity exhibit, and Hans Bellmer. Please cover each of these to some extent. What you write is open – you can write a response to the art itself, the connections you are making between surrealism and contemporary transgressive art, and/or a discussion of each of these as framed through the lens of the readings and discussions we’ve had thus far. I’m basically looking for a thoughtful, informed response and an indication that you are getting the influences/connections to transgressive art today. This assignment will count as an “in-class” assignment and is due either on this blog or to me via email by the time class begins on Wednesday.
For Wednesday, July 28th please read/view the following:
- YouTube clip on Polynesian Tattoos.
- Shulevitz, Judith “Shock Art: Round up the Usual Defenses,” New York Times, March 23, 2003.
Also – read (or re-read) previous student blog posts and comment on something discussed previously (expand/extend the conversation), as well as the tattoo video and article above from Shulevitz. This blog response is for Wednesday’s class and is in addition to the assignment above and will count towards your blog response grades.
At 1:30 next Wednesday, we’ll be going to the tattoo gallery in town (Marlow Ink). But we will meet at 11 a.m. in the classroom first and go over some of this week’s materials. We’ll leave together from campus to the tattoo gallery around 1 p.m.
Friday will be spent on final presentations, and your final integrative essay (the guidelines for which can be found here) is due on Sunday, August 1st by NOON (no exceptions!).
Eric your first blog post was very interesting to read. I agreed with a lot of the statements that you made about how transgressive art sort of breaks or pushes boundaries by bending the lines or twisting it. It reminds me of Bellmer’s work where the bodies are twisted every which way and legs where there shouldn’t be legs or buts where there shouldn’t be buts. In your evaluation of Rosemary Covey’s work you dubbed it as a theme of death and/or dishonor indicated by the black and white world we live in. This was different from what I saw which was the pleasure and pain that she talked about, but then again I may have just let what she said influence me when I looked at her artwork. Your interpretation of it however makes some sense when I went back and looked at her work from the pictures that I took, especially the one with her sister in the crucifix image with what looked like stiches in her arms. I could now see the death theme from the black and white images strewn across her studio. With the dishonor part however, I’m still trying to figure it out. With your evaluation of the STD work, you said that it was “the devil that lies within-secret keeper of knowledge and lies that we try to hide but never seem to keep invisible.” This statement was very profound, and I wish I had that kind of insight to come up with stuff like that because when I saw the STD work, I was thinking of like the Joker who is sinister and the most powerful, but yet thinks everything is a joke as the woman is sitting on top of her STD as though she has control over it. In your second blog post you talk about how transgressive art is a portrayal of the artists disconnect between childhood and adulthood and how we sometimes yearn to go back to childhood. I totally agree with this statement because childhood is when there were no worries. It was all about enjoying life. In adulthood we are almost left to fend for ourselves and figure out life, which can be a drastic change for some people. However, I do not think that all transgressive art can be seen this way because not all have something to do with children. Some transgressive art as I have seen can be a struggle between other types of themes such as pleasure and pain, life or death, religion etc which are not disconnections between childhood and adulthood, but you still make a good point though.
Maryanne I loved your “ode” to Kant. I could not have said it better myself. How can somebody tell another person how to look at a work of art. Sometimes we cannot even control our desires. Like when I saw the Chapmans’ brothers work, I almost wanted to throw up. If I look at an artwork and feel sad or happy, Kant cannot tell me that I cannot do so otherwise. Freedom of speech is not just about what you say, but to me it’s the freedom to feel how we want to feel without somebody ridiculing our emotions. However, I can’t fully dismiss Kant, because who knows what was going on in his life and environment during the time that he was making these statement, but by making it public in writing we are ridiculing him for his thoughts so who is really right?
Andrew, I too had no idea that this type of shock art existed. Maybe I had seen it before, and was one of those people who used Julius’s five defenses as a way to get past the gruesomeness that I saw. It’s amazing how our minds can change things so that we are not disturbed by the images that we see. When you mentioned Erykah Badu’s video, I immediately remembered what a stir it had caused and how I myself was shocked by her walking naked in front of children and then acting as though she was shot down at the same spot that John Kennedy was assassinated. I was almost appalled, but at the same time, I could see that she was trying to send a message. This made me think of transgressive artists and how this is exactly what they are trying to do. In this way then, I came to see Badu’s music video as performance art where she was pushing boundaries and violating something that was taboo such as the assassination site for John F. Kennedy.
Sarah, just like you I was also expecting something different when we went on our field trips after the shocking videos we had just seen, and I was almost disappointed that nothing we saw really came close to those videos. It is understandable however as you said considering that the DMV area is not as radical in art as some other places. It makes me want to go to Chicago and New York now and seek out these type of shock art just to compare. In your second blog post you talked about how the article on Bellmer was easier to understand given the background that he worked during the time of the Nazis. I remember the book going further to explain Bellmer’s distorted work as a fight against the perfection that the Nazis sought. Seen in this way, I can understand Bellmer’s work because I can see the taboo he was breaking and why. He just found a special way to fight this perfection through breaking taboos and showing imperfection in his dolls that were childlike yet abused.
Sasha, one statement that you made that caught me was when you wrote: “… it is lack of exposure that makes misunderstanding more apparent.” This was in your response to the lack of exposure to transgressive art as in some other places. I definitely agree with this statement. Because we have not been exposed to this type of work, when confronted with it, it becomes difficult to process it. This probably makes it easier for us to settle for the one of five defenses. Also as you pointed out, there is no clear definition of what transgressive art is. As I said in one of my blog posts “just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” what counts as art can be in the eye of the beholder as well.
Watching the Polynesian Tattoo video, I did not get that shocking feeling or anything that told me that this was transgressive. The tattoos of the Polynesians were something that was tradition. It had been handed down for thousands of years maybe, who knew. Their art was a part of their culture; a part of a boy becoming a man; a part of protection of the people. I’m sorry, but I just did not see the transgressiveness in this. Maybe because this tradition was an old one, and I think of transgressive art as something much more new, I could not make a connection between something old and something new. Using the animal bones to tattoo themselves does not jive with violating taboos. But then again something that may be taboo to one person may not be to another. Isaiah, the main tattoo artist referred to his art as new tribal which might be considered by those who are more traditional as transgressive, but who is to say.
The Shock Art article was much like what we have been reading about the five defenses of transgressive art. Battaile felt that the only way to be truly free internally was to violate taboos. I can see how this makes sense, but at the same time I feel like who would really want to violate those taboos unless they were the rebellious type who did not want to live in a society that was all about everybody hoping along to the same tune. Some people are happy just living the ignorant life as long as their senses are not shocked, and they can go on thinking that life is just happy goes lucky. Others are disturbed by this way of life and want to shock people out of believing that there aren’t disturbing parts of our subconscious that need to be realized. Only in realizing these odd constructs hidden in us can we truly be free. With Julius saying that the Holocaust is the ultimate taboo, I’m not sure that I agree with this statement. I say that nothing should be viewed as the ultimate taboo. Because if the Holocaust is the ultimate taboo, I’m sure that there is somebody out there who would believe that slavery is the ultimate taboo, or the slaying of the Native Americans during the conquering of the United States is the ultimate taboo.
Twisting Unadulterated Kaleidoscopes – “God Made Food, The Devil The Cooks” (James Joyce, Ulysses)
“But people highest up got the lowest self esteem. The prettiest people do the ugliest things for the road to riches and diamond rings. We all self conscious I’m just the first to admit it.” (Kanye West, All Falls Down)
I thought a lot about what I read from last time and also some of the blog responses, but from what I learned from this blog, I found that I agree with Sarah in that, “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.” I agreed with her because I think if whenever we saw a piece of transgressive art and we instantly knew the history and message the artist was trying to send with this piece, it might make more sense to us. That was kind of proven to me when I learned more about Bellmer and also did other research on Chapman and Goya.
The more I thought about Bellmer, the more I respected and understood his work because, “his dolls served as a reaction against the Nazi’s obsession with the perfect body.” I thought this made me respect his work much more because he was trying to go against the Nazi Party. He was like the Captain America of artists and all the people he inspired, which he even inspired the Beatles, were sort of like the Avengers that followed his lead. The way he messed up the bodies kind of symbolized to me how naturally we are all beautiful and that there is no such thing as a perfect body. I kind of find it funny how nowadays if I was to make an artistic representation of mutilated bodies, I would be going against plastic surgery instead of the Nazi Party. I thought he was very brave, especially during that time period when the Nazi Party tried to eliminate anybody with any sort of imperfection in their minds. Just how self conscious people were to how they looked and how that topic is still relevant today. He almost created a sort of new type of people with these disfigured dolls and to me it seemed like he was saying that everyone who looks at themselves can find something wrong with them and that if these dolls were to be alive then if they saw us they would think we were disfigured, instead of them.
I think the transgressive defense can be problematic if people are not able to see the connection between the references and the work of art that is trying to reference them. The most telling about the transgressive defense is that people will go against anything that they don’t understand immediately and are not willing to look at possible influences or inspirations for it because that would require research. I think it is amazing though how almost everything today is based off of something before and therefore uses something similar to the transgressive defense. For example, there are many people that go against Chapman’s piece, “Great Deeds Against the Dead” because it emphasizes on the genital area of the mutilated bodies being missing. I thought it was interesting how it was deemed to terrible during Goya’s time because of the realistic depiction of the mutilated bodies during war and now was being criticized for being too shocking for the genitalia being removed. I think that it should be commended for the Chapman brothers for having introduced Goya again and also having referenced him, as if putting a new twist to a previous work of art. I mean it might not be the same or it might be a bit different, but it is a new take on an idea. This reminded me of how the song, “Singing in the Rain” by Gene Kelly was used again with a whole new twist in the movie, “A Clockwork Orange” by Stanley Kubrick. I remember how most people were said to have criticized, “A Clockwork Orange” because it used the song during a rape scene. I thought how creative it was to use that song during that particular scene because that is what made the scene creepier and more unique to create movie history. If Goya would have seen the Chapman’s piece, he would have laughed and nodded his head in approval at the whole new take they had of his work.
Gene Kelly’s Version of “Singing in the Rain”
A Clockwork Orange’s Version of “Singing in the Rain”
I think the “Zygote Acceleration” was controversial because it was young girls shown naked with genitals or other body parts mixed up in areas they were not supposed to be in, like the penis where the nose should be. I think it is feasible because it raises questions about its terms and conditions by presenting the viewer with a puzzle. I don’t think their art is about letting people understand their message right away, but they sort of refuse to offer an aesthetic experience right away to the viewers. I think the shock that they try to give the viewer is a great combination for them because it exhilarates people with a flood of emotions and their own personal memories to relate to. This piece and all their other pieces don’t really seem to be made for everyone, but for those willing to take a journey or ready to solve their puzzle or at least attempt to. I think their attitude makes the art more than the actual work of art. I think the whole work of art is transgressive art because it is trying to talk about the sexualization of children in the world of advertising and fashion with shock and awe. It may be problematic to use aesthetics to defend transgressive work because just saying that since it is art, it can be as shocking or raw as possible may not be enough to convince people that the shock was used just to get everybody’s attention.
I didn’t think that the Surrealist Movement has such a long history, but it was very interesting to see all the different works of art and how there were so many ways it was implemented. A lot of the pieces made lots of sense to me, like, “The Rape” by Magritte made sense to me because I think when the people that are raped probably do feel like they have no face and the rapists probably only see certain parts of the female anatomy rather than the person’s face or even care about the person’s face. I think it must have been really exciting to have read about surrealism in magazines or even heard about the movement getting bigger and bigger. I thought that this part was also really interesting when, “surrealist formlessness erases categories of sexuality” because Brancusi’s “Torso” was really interesting because it was unique and made me wonder if it was that of a woman or a man. For some reason, this inspired my final Creative Individual Project. One of my favorite works of art was from Salvador Dali, “The Lugubrious Game” because it kind of described transgressive art to me in how it is probably thought of. The quote, “repugnance is the sentry standing right near the door to those things that we desire most” is most interesting to me because it is kind of show how transgressive art makes us reconsider things such as sexuality and body. Kahlo’s “My Birth” was the most shocking piece of art to me because it confused me and I think it is the first time I saw a painting depicting birth like during the actual process. Alberto Giacometti’s “Woman With Her Throat Cut” was a very creative way to show a throat being cut and was done so artistically that I don’t think I would have known what it was if it weren’t for the title.
Bibliography And/Or Citation
A Clockwork Orange. Dir. Stanley Kubrick. Perf. Malcolm McDowell and Warren Clarke. Warner Bros., 1971. A Clockwork Orange. YouTube, 3 Apr. 2008. Web. 27 July 2010. .
Singin’ In The Rain. Dir. Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen. Perf. Gene Kelly and Donald O’ Connor and Debbie Reynolds. MGM, 1952. Singin’ In The Rain. YouTube, 7 June 2007. Web. 27 July 2010. .
West, Kanye. The College Dropout. Kanye West. Rec. Apr. 2004. Roc-A-Fella Records/Hip Hop, 2004. CD.
The Irreplaceable Galatea of Modern Society: Aesthetic RealDoll Face #11
Hans Bellmer asks this one interesting question in the description of his Plate 12 of Les Jeux de la poupée (The Games of the Doll), “Who, one wonders, is responsible for the naked and abject condition of the doll?” I thought this was an interesting question because that question never really crossed my mind when I looked at this particular image and in fact, to me the eyes are the scariest part of the doll. Contrary to what the description says that the doll is, “a blank, unseeing eye suggests a loss of consciousness” I found that the eye was looking right at me and through me, making me believe that the doll was alive.
Observing these surrealist women dolls that had no heads, arms, or legs, made me think of the movie Toy Story. For example, in the movie Toy Story, there is this character named Sid, who takes apart toys and turns them into these mutant toys with different limbs going into places that they normally wouldn’t belong. The more and more I thought about it, these toys that Sid tortured and mixed parts with explained a lot about this article on Hans Bellmer. I think the character Sid is a surrealist because he, like Bellmer, “created several dolls with fragmented bodies that could be dismantled and arranged in various configurations.” He might not have, “created sexualized images of the female body–distorted, dismembered, or menaced in sinister scenarios, or photograph the dolls in a range of grotesque-often sexual-positions,” but he did convey scenes of “death and decay, abuse and longing” when he tried to kill Buzz Lightyear with a rocket and the other toys were just in decay, being abused, and wanted an toy that liked them, instead of tortured them. I think that Sid is similar to Hans Bellmer because he seemed to be discovering, “what was hidden in the darkness of the psyche (where it is far from safe)”. I think what Sid did to the viewers of the movie and also to Woody and Buzz was have a, “psychological confrontation and violence may constitute a spiritual jolt that liberates from habit and known codings. He dragged terrible desires out of the darkness and into cognition so that we could assimilate the full reality of our passions and the content of evil in them. How else were we to transcend them (in whatever way we ought) if not by first knowing them?” A good villain or evil character is a person that can make viewers and heroes think about themselves internally and externally.
Another aspect of the article that I liked was how the disturbing doll images related to real life, such as, “mutilated bodies the bodies of children living in detention centres that are run as prisons by private enterprise.” I liked it because this type of art was sending a message and making people think about moral issues when it came to topics such as how prisoners are treated or dealt with in prison. I also thought that how, “the current glorification of the pornographic that is everywhere and which is anything but emancipatory” because I think if even these dolls were shown everywhere constantly, it might not be as liberating as it once was.
I thought the other article The Wandering Libido and the Hysterical Body, helped explain more about Hans Bellmer’s background story as to why his art was about these dolls. The inspiration that he received from events in his life was quite astounding because, “his attendance at a performance of Jacques Offenbach’s Tales of Hoffmann, in which the protagonist falls tragically in love with the lifelike automaton Olympia; and a shipment from his mother of a box of old toys which had belonged to him as a boy” explained a lot about why he chose to do this type of artful expression. His essay, where he, “imagined little girls engaged in perverse games, playing doctor in the attic; he meditated lasciviously on “their bowed and knock-kneed legs” and “the casual quiver of their pink pleats”; and he despaired “that this pink region,” like the pleasures of childhood itself enjoyed in the maternal plenitude of a “miraculous garden,” was forever beyond him.” I thought that was kind of creepy, but understood how much he longed for some sort of emotional response from girls. His obsession with it almost seemed like he was Jack the Ripper, with how he, “took revenge on little girls for their unavailability, envisioning the manufacture of the doll in their image, which he probed “with aggressive fingers” and “captured rapaciously by [his] conscious gaze.” He seemed to draw or create the feelings that he felt and all these emotions seemed to be hard for him to keep deep inside of him. The peep show mechanism was a brilliant idea because it was almost symbolizing curiosity and something that I think even now would make a lot of people hesitant in looking through.
In Chapter 3: “Atrocity Exhibition” in Aftershock: The Ethics of Contemporary Transgressive Art, I was surprised at the Zygotic Acceleration because it had penises, anuses, and vaginas mixed in with the faces. I thought that was interesting because it was marked as extremely controversial and condemned so much that there was discussion as to whether it could properly be defended by the artists. I think the artists do have to a certain extent a responsibility to defend their art, but I think at some point there will be discussions and debates created at a massive rate that it will soon become impossible for the artist to defend for every single critique against their art. I thought the Canonic Defense was a good way to defend a work of art by referring to a previous work of art and show the connection they have with one another. I thought this was pretty funny because it’s almost like these artists have to appear before some artistic judge and present evidence in front of their critics to defend their work of art. It is like their work of art is a murderer that has killed or committed some sort of crime against some viewers’ opinions or beliefs, so the artist is given a chance to defend their work of art. These artists become lawyers for their work of art.
Jake and Dinos Chapman’s, “Great Deeds Against the Dead” was a really creative work of art that was sort of paying homage to Goya’s, “Grande Hazana Con Muertos” so an argument can be made that they are just trying to highlight a certain part of a previous piece of artwork. They even mention it by saying, “Our interest in Goya is the degree in which he constantly attempts to territorialize transgression to try and somehow represent something which is within the limits of prohibition, within the law, but he constantly exceeds the limit.” I think that it is almost like remixing a song, but adding your own twists. I agree with Emelia’s thought that, “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.” I agree with this because this moral shock may be in connection with how they are trying to pay homage and it needs to be taken into account as to what kind of shock is given or meant to be given, so as to see the creative stance they may take to a similar work of art.
Reading through the rest of Chapter 3, I wondered just how it was decided that mannequins in clothing stores were decided upon because in a way everyone is naked under their clothes so if every mannequin was to lose the clothes on them, I think they would be capable offending everyone and making me laugh. I also think that the canonic defense can be used because I think everything refers back to something or will in the future be referred to. For example, I think in the past, actions like castration were done and since it was done more publicly, people didn’t seem as shocked because they might see something like Goya’s “Grande Hazana Con Muertos” in real life instead of just a representation of it. I was kind of confused because I thought that shock and controversy would be less now since in the present more people are desensitized, but that may not be the case. For example, I was watching a movie from1967 called, “Bonnie and Clyde” and I was shocked to realize that there were scenes then that today might be even gruesome, such as the ending scene where Bonnie and Clyde get killed by getting shot up. I thought that from that time movies have now gotten crazier with gun murders, but for some reason, just because the movie had an old feel to it, it just gave me chills for some reason. That is why during this present time I think it is kind of hypocritical to say something is too offensive to the world because back then it might not have been and something else may have been offensive which isn’t today. I really liked Eric’s thought of , “the connection, or disconnection, of one’s childhood and adult lives” because I think that is essentially why there seems to be gaps missing in the past, present, and future relationships, especially when it comes to what we see as controversial and how we deal with it.
Check this out:
Bibliography And/Or Works Cited
Chapter 3: “Atrocity Exhibition” in Aftershock: The Ethics of Contemporary Transgressive Art
http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/archives/001154.html
http://www.artic.edu/reynolds/essays/taylor.php
Bloody Execution – Bonnie and Clyde 1967. Dir. Arthur Penn. Perf. Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway. Warner Bros. Seven Arts, 1967. Bonnie and Clyde. YouTube, 16 June 2008. Web. 25 July 2010. .
Toy Story. By John Lasseter. Perf. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen. Pixar Animation Studios/Walt Disney Pictures, 1995. Videocassette.
Well, this is my 2nd Blog Post, and I tried to post it under the 2nd Blog Post Area when it was due multiple times, but it just keeps refusing me with something about duplication, so I just decided to try to post it here, just so I can post it. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Andrew Park
The Irreplaceable Galatea of Modern Society: Aesthetic RealDoll Face #11
Hans Bellmer asks this one interesting question in the description of his Plate 12 of Les Jeux de la poupée (The Games of the Doll), “Who, one wonders, is responsible for the naked and abject condition of the doll?” I thought this was an interesting question because that question never really crossed my mind when I looked at this particular image and in fact, to me the eyes are the scariest part of the doll. Contrary to what the description says that the doll is, “a blank, unseeing eye suggests a loss of consciousness” I found that the eye was looking right at me and through me, making me believe that the doll was alive.
Observing these surrealist women dolls that had no heads, arms, or legs, made me think of the movie Toy Story. For example, in the movie Toy Story, there is this character named Sid, who takes apart toys and turns them into these mutant toys with different limbs going into places that they normally wouldn’t belong. The more and more I thought about it, these toys that Sid tortured and mixed parts with explained a lot about this article on Hans Bellmer. I think the character Sid is a surrealist because he, like Bellmer, “created several dolls with fragmented bodies that could be dismantled and arranged in various configurations.” He might not have, “created sexualized images of the female body–distorted, dismembered, or menaced in sinister scenarios, or photograph the dolls in a range of grotesque-often sexual-positions,” but he did convey scenes of “death and decay, abuse and longing” when he tried to kill Buzz Lightyear with a rocket and the other toys were just in decay, being abused, and wanted an toy that liked them, instead of tortured them. I think that Sid is similar to Hans Bellmer because he seemed to be discovering, “what was hidden in the darkness of the psyche (where it is far from safe)”. I think what Sid did to the viewers of the movie and also to Woody and Buzz was have a, “psychological confrontation and violence may constitute a spiritual jolt that liberates from habit and known codings. He dragged terrible desires out of the darkness and into cognition so that we could assimilate the full reality of our passions and the content of evil in them. How else were we to transcend them (in whatever way we ought) if not by first knowing them?” A good villain or evil character is a person that can make viewers and heroes think about themselves internally and externally.
Another aspect of the article that I liked was how the disturbing doll images related to real life, such as, “mutilated bodies the bodies of children living in detention centres that are run as prisons by private enterprise.” I liked it because this type of art was sending a message and making people think about moral issues when it came to topics such as how prisoners are treated or dealt with in prison. I also thought that how, “the current glorification of the pornographic that is everywhere and which is anything but emancipatory” because I think if even these dolls were shown everywhere constantly, it might not be as liberating as it once was.
I thought the other article The Wandering Libido and the Hysterical Body, helped explain more about Hans Bellmer’s background story as to why his art was about these dolls. The inspiration that he received from events in his life was quite astounding because, “his attendance at a performance of Jacques Offenbach’s Tales of Hoffmann, in which the protagonist falls tragically in love with the lifelike automaton Olympia; and a shipment from his mother of a box of old toys which had belonged to him as a boy” explained a lot about why he chose to do this type of artful expression. His essay, where he, “imagined little girls engaged in perverse games, playing doctor in the attic; he meditated lasciviously on “their bowed and knock-kneed legs” and “the casual quiver of their pink pleats”; and he despaired “that this pink region,” like the pleasures of childhood itself enjoyed in the maternal plenitude of a “miraculous garden,” was forever beyond him.” I thought that was kind of creepy, but understood how much he longed for some sort of emotional response from girls. His obsession with it almost seemed like he was Jack the Ripper, with how he, “took revenge on little girls for their unavailability, envisioning the manufacture of the doll in their image, which he probed “with aggressive fingers” and “captured rapaciously by [his] conscious gaze.” He seemed to draw or create the feelings that he felt and all these emotions seemed to be hard for him to keep deep inside of him. The peep show mechanism was a brilliant idea because it was almost symbolizing curiosity and something that I think even now would make a lot of people hesitant in looking through.
In Chapter 3: “Atrocity Exhibition” in Aftershock: The Ethics of Contemporary Transgressive Art, I was surprised at the Zygotic Acceleration because it had penises, anuses, and vaginas mixed in with the faces. I thought that was interesting because it was marked as extremely controversial and condemned so much that there was discussion as to whether it could properly be defended by the artists. I think the artists do have to a certain extent a responsibility to defend their art, but I think at some point there will be discussions and debates created at a massive rate that it will soon become impossible for the artist to defend for every single critique against their art. I thought the Canonic Defense was a good way to defend a work of art by referring to a previous work of art and show the connection they have with one another. I thought this was pretty funny because it’s almost like these artists have to appear before some artistic judge and present evidence in front of their critics to defend their work of art. It is like their work of art is a murderer that has killed or committed some sort of crime against some viewers’ opinions or beliefs, so the artist is given a chance to defend their work of art. These artists become lawyers for their work of art.
Jake and Dinos Chapman’s, “Great Deeds Against the Dead” was a really creative work of art that was sort of paying homage to Goya’s, “Grande Hazana Con Muertos” so an argument can be made that they are just trying to highlight a certain part of a previous piece of artwork. They even mention it by saying, “Our interest in Goya is the degree in which he constantly attempts to territorialize transgression to try and somehow represent something which is within the limits of prohibition, within the law, but he constantly exceeds the limit.” I think that it is almost like remixing a song, but adding your own twists. I agree with Emelia’s thought that, “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.” I agree with this because this moral shock may be in connection with how they are trying to pay homage and it needs to be taken into account as to what kind of shock is given or meant to be given, so as to see the creative stance they may take to a similar work of art.
Reading through the rest of Chapter 3, I wondered just how it was decided that mannequins in clothing stores were decided upon because in a way everyone is naked under their clothes so if every mannequin was to lose the clothes on them, I think they would be capable offending everyone and making me laugh. I also think that the canonic defense can be used because I think everything refers back to something or will in the future be referred to. For example, I think in the past, actions like castration were done and since it was done more publicly, people didn’t seem as shocked because they might see something like Goya’s “Grande Hazana Con Muertos” in real life instead of just a representation of it. I was kind of confused because I thought that shock and controversy would be less now since in the present more people are desensitized, but that may not be the case. For example, I was watching a movie from1967 called, “Bonnie and Clyde” and I was shocked to realize that there were scenes then that today might be even gruesome, such as the ending scene where Bonnie and Clyde get killed by getting shot up. I thought that from that time movies have now gotten crazier with gun murders, but for some reason, just because the movie had an old feel to it, it just gave me chills for some reason. That is why during this present time I think it is kind of hypocritical to say something is too offensive to the world because back then it might not have been and something else may have been offensive which isn’t today. I really liked Eric’s thought of , “the connection, or disconnection, of one’s childhood and adult lives” because I think that is essentially why there seems to be gaps missing in the past, present, and future relationships, especially when it comes to what we see as controversial and how we deal with it.
Check this out:
Bibliography And/Or Works Cited
Chapter 3: “Atrocity Exhibition” in Aftershock: The Ethics of Contemporary Transgressive Art
http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/archives/001154.html
http://www.artic.edu/reynolds/essays/taylor.php
Bloody Execution – Bonnie and Clyde 1967. Dir. Arthur Penn. Perf. Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway. Warner Bros. Seven Arts, 1967. Bonnie and Clyde. YouTube, 16 June 2008. Web. 25 July 2010. .
Toy Story. By John Lasseter. Perf. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen. Pixar Animation Studios/Walt Disney Pictures, 1995. Videocassette.
Here is the 2nd Blog Response that I tried to post last time, but it refused me, so here is another try!
Sincerely,
Andrew Park
The Irreplaceable Galatea of Modern Society: Aesthetic RealDoll Face #11
Hans Bellmer asks this one interesting question in the description of his Plate 12 of Les Jeux de la poupée (The Games of the Doll), “Who, one wonders, is responsible for the naked and abject condition of the doll?” I thought this was an interesting question because that question never really crossed my mind when I looked at this particular image and in fact, to me the eyes are the scariest part of the doll. Contrary to what the description says that the doll is, “a blank, unseeing eye suggests a loss of consciousness” I found that the eye was looking right at me and through me, making me believe that the doll was alive.
Observing these surrealist women dolls that had no heads, arms, or legs, made me think of the movie Toy Story. For example, in the movie Toy Story, there is this character named Sid, who takes apart toys and turns them into these mutant toys with different limbs going into places that they normally wouldn’t belong. The more and more I thought about it, these toys that Sid tortured and mixed parts with explained a lot about this article on Hans Bellmer. I think the character Sid is a surrealist because he, like Bellmer, “created several dolls with fragmented bodies that could be dismantled and arranged in various configurations.” He might not have, “created sexualized images of the female body–distorted, dismembered, or menaced in sinister scenarios, or photograph the dolls in a range of grotesque-often sexual-positions,” but he did convey scenes of “death and decay, abuse and longing” when he tried to kill Buzz Lightyear with a rocket and the other toys were just in decay, being abused, and wanted an toy that liked them, instead of tortured them. I think that Sid is similar to Hans Bellmer because he seemed to be discovering, “what was hidden in the darkness of the psyche (where it is far from safe)”. I think what Sid did to the viewers of the movie and also to Woody and Buzz was have a, “psychological confrontation and violence may constitute a spiritual jolt that liberates from habit and known codings. He dragged terrible desires out of the darkness and into cognition so that we could assimilate the full reality of our passions and the content of evil in them. How else were we to transcend them (in whatever way we ought) if not by first knowing them?” A good villain or evil character is a person that can make viewers and heroes think about themselves internally and externally.
Another aspect of the article that I liked was how the disturbing doll images related to real life, such as, “mutilated bodies the bodies of children living in detention centres that are run as prisons by private enterprise.” I liked it because this type of art was sending a message and making people think about moral issues when it came to topics such as how prisoners are treated or dealt with in prison. I also thought that how, “the current glorification of the pornographic that is everywhere and which is anything but emancipatory” because I think if even these dolls were shown everywhere constantly, it might not be as liberating as it once was.
I thought the other article The Wandering Libido and the Hysterical Body, helped explain more about Hans Bellmer’s background story as to why his art was about these dolls. The inspiration that he received from events in his life was quite astounding because, “his attendance at a performance of Jacques Offenbach’s Tales of Hoffmann, in which the protagonist falls tragically in love with the lifelike automaton Olympia; and a shipment from his mother of a box of old toys which had belonged to him as a boy” explained a lot about why he chose to do this type of artful expression. His essay, where he, “imagined little girls engaged in perverse games, playing doctor in the attic; he meditated lasciviously on “their bowed and knock-kneed legs” and “the casual quiver of their pink pleats”; and he despaired “that this pink region,” like the pleasures of childhood itself enjoyed in the maternal plenitude of a “miraculous garden,” was forever beyond him.” I thought that was kind of creepy, but understood how much he longed for some sort of emotional response from girls. His obsession with it almost seemed like he was Jack the Ripper, with how he, “took revenge on little girls for their unavailability, envisioning the manufacture of the doll in their image, which he probed “with aggressive fingers” and “captured rapaciously by [his] conscious gaze.” He seemed to draw or create the feelings that he felt and all these emotions seemed to be hard for him to keep deep inside of him. The peep show mechanism was a brilliant idea because it was almost symbolizing curiosity and something that I think even now would make a lot of people hesitant in looking through.
In Chapter 3: “Atrocity Exhibition” in Aftershock: The Ethics of Contemporary Transgressive Art, I was surprised at the Zygotic Acceleration because it had penises, anuses, and vaginas mixed in with the faces. I thought that was interesting because it was marked as extremely controversial and condemned so much that there was discussion as to whether it could properly be defended by the artists. I think the artists do have to a certain extent a responsibility to defend their art, but I think at some point there will be discussions and debates created at a massive rate that it will soon become impossible for the artist to defend for every single critique against their art. I thought the Canonic Defense was a good way to defend a work of art by referring to a previous work of art and show the connection they have with one another. I thought this was pretty funny because it’s almost like these artists have to appear before some artistic judge and present evidence in front of their critics to defend their work of art. It is like their work of art is a murderer that has killed or committed some sort of crime against some viewers’ opinions or beliefs, so the artist is given a chance to defend their work of art. These artists become lawyers for their work of art.
Jake and Dinos Chapman’s, “Great Deeds Against the Dead” was a really creative work of art that was sort of paying homage to Goya’s, “Grande Hazana Con Muertos” so an argument can be made that they are just trying to highlight a certain part of a previous piece of artwork. They even mention it by saying, “Our interest in Goya is the degree in which he constantly attempts to territorialize transgression to try and somehow represent something which is within the limits of prohibition, within the law, but he constantly exceeds the limit.” I think that it is almost like remixing a song, but adding your own twists. I agree with Emelia’s thought that, “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.” I agree with this because this moral shock may be in connection with how they are trying to pay homage and it needs to be taken into account as to what kind of shock is given or meant to be given, so as to see the creative stance they may take to a similar work of art.
Reading through the rest of Chapter 3, I wondered just how it was decided that mannequins in clothing stores were decided upon because in a way everyone is naked under their clothes so if every mannequin was to lose the clothes on them, I think they would be capable offending everyone and making me laugh. I also think that the canonic defense can be used because I think everything refers back to something or will in the future be referred to. For example, I think in the past, actions like castration were done and since it was done more publicly, people didn’t seem as shocked because they might see something like Goya’s “Grande Hazana Con Muertos” in real life instead of just a representation of it. I was kind of confused because I thought that shock and controversy would be less now since in the present more people are desensitized, but that may not be the case. For example, I was watching a movie from1967 called, “Bonnie and Clyde” and I was shocked to realize that there were scenes then that today might be even gruesome, such as the ending scene where Bonnie and Clyde get killed by getting shot up. I thought that from that time movies have now gotten crazier with gun murders, but for some reason, just because the movie had an old feel to it, it just gave me chills for some reason. That is why during this present time I think it is kind of hypocritical to say something is too offensive to the world because back then it might not have been and something else may have been offensive which isn’t today. I really liked Eric’s thought of , “the connection, or disconnection, of one’s childhood and adult lives” because I think that is essentially why there seems to be gaps missing in the past, present, and future relationships, especially when it comes to what we see as controversial and how we deal with it.
Check this out:
Bibliography And/Or Works Cited
Chapter 3: “Atrocity Exhibition” in Aftershock: The Ethics of Contemporary Transgressive Art
http://www.sauer-thompson.com/junkforcode/archives/001154.html
http://www.artic.edu/reynolds/essays/taylor.php
Bloody Execution – Bonnie and Clyde 1967. Dir. Arthur Penn. Perf. Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway. Warner Bros. Seven Arts, 1967. Bonnie and Clyde. YouTube, 16 June 2008. Web. 25 July 2010. .
Toy Story. By John Lasseter. Perf. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen. Pixar Animation Studios/Walt Disney Pictures, 1995. Videocassette.
“My Body is My Journal and My Tattoos are My Story” (Johnny Depp)
I remember from the last field trip, before our unfortunate power outage class, Professor Scott was telling me about how she loved the art of graffiti. I enjoyed graffiti too because to me, graffiti, is just the tattoos of buildings, streets, walls, and the world.
I don’t think tattoos are as transgressive today as it was when they first started appearing, but I can see how it could be seen as transgressive art. I can see Emelia’s point when she says that she “did not get that shocking feeling or anything that told me that this was transgressive.” I think it was more of the time frame and perspective when it comes to whether this is transgressive or not. For instance, this is part of their culture and it is a tradition, but in other countries or different areas in the world where this is not the case, it might be seen as transgressive art because it shocks them.
Maybe Tattoos are not Transgressive Art, since it has become too mainstream and popular……
In General
In Movies
Also, I think the stories behind the tattoos, such as the one guy in the video who mentions his reason for getting his tattoo was because it is to, “honor his dad after he passes away, that’ll be the last pure Hawaiian in his line.” I think it is the mix of reason and story that makes it transgressive art because it is shocking, in your face, since it is on the body and tries to tell a story with the images or words. I thought it was interesting how Emelia made the point that, “maybe because this tradition was an old one, and I think of transgressive art as something much more new.” I thought this was interesting because I think transgressive art has no age, but fits into whatever time period and keeps going. For instance, if getting your ears pierced was considered taboo during one time period, but later in the future everyone does it, then that means it was transgressive during that earlier time period, but maybe in the later time period it may be where you get it pierced that becomes transgressive art. I think this type of art really though was about the process, tools, and reactions because of how it all seemed to get reactions, even based on how much it hurt for someone to get a tattoo this certain way. For instance, getting a tattoo on the beach with a feast at the end and just how they talked about the pain and how everyone, “shared the pain.” I liked how each of the symbols meant something like wind or water. The tools were sort of the transgressive experience for me with this art. I felt more shocked at the way they got the tattoo and also just how much pain some of the recipients were in. I think I shared the pain with them just by how painful it looked. I think another thing Emelia mentioned was true which is, “But then again something that may be taboo to one person may not be to another.” This is true because if another person across the world saw this video who thought tattoos were just for criminals and then was shocked by this, then it would be different reactions throughout the world.
Maybe in other countries, it might be more shocking or less shocking. There might not even be a story behind the tattoo’s meaning but how they may have gotten it.
“It is still possible to shock” and I think that is a correct statement because shock is like a science, there are new things and ways found every day. I thought it was interesting how they went over the five most common defenses of scandalous art with the discussion of insult and shock. I think both would be transgressive art, but like my classmate Emelia says, “Who is to say.” I agree with Emelia because Georges Batille says, “true internal freedom can be achieved only by violating taboos” which is why I agree with her when she says, “but at the same time I feel like who would really want to violate those taboos unless they were the rebellious type who did not want to live in a society that was all about everybody hoping along to the same tune.” I think transgressive artists may be artistic rebels and might just be either sick of way things are or are really trying to shock people into thinking more deeply about issues. I agree with the article’s point that, “It will, or ought to, make it impossible for art critics and curators ever again to utter the word ”transgressive” in a tone of unqualified admiration or to make fun of the ”taboos” of bourgeois society.” I agree with the article because the book does create defenses and seems to give transgressive art a place forever in not just art history, but history in general. “Taboos can be bad as well as good,” is an interesting statement because I agree with it in how taboo is usually seen as bad, but at the same time seems to attract people to whatever it is labeled with. For instance, when you tell a child or anybody they can’t do a certain thing or have a certain thing, then the child or anybody tend to be curious so it leads them to want to do whatever is taboo. I think Emelia drops some knowledge in this last blog post, so I got to quote her again because she says, “Some people are happy just living the ignorant life as long as their senses are not shocked, and they can go on thinking that life is just happy goes lucky. Others are disturbed by this way of life and want to shock people out of believing that there aren’t disturbing parts of our subconscious that need to be realized. Only in realizing these odd constructs hidden in us can we truly be free.” I completely agree with that because it describes how the viewers of transgressive art are, which is they ignore the art, are shocked, disturbed, and some become more liberated by it. I think Emelia is right because when Julius talks of the ultimate taboo as the Holocaust, I think saying that there is an ultimate taboo might be impossible since there might not be an ultimate taboo. Not just slavery or the Native Americans, which were very taboo subjects, along with the Holocaust as well, but I think every area, race, country, and individual person has their own unique ultimate taboo. For instance, a person who experienced the Holocaust may have that as their ultimate taboo, but a South Korean Woman who was raped by a Japanese soldier during Japan’s Occupation of South Korea may see Japanese Soldiers as the ultimate taboo.
Bibliography And/Or Works Cited
Girl Wakes Up With 56 Stars Tattooed On Her Face. YouTube, 16 June 2009. Web. 27 July 2010. .
Tattoos Take Off In Omaha. KETV, 26 July 2010. Web. 27 July 2010. .
‘The Expendables’ Tattoo. YouTube, 22 July 2010. Web. 27 July 2010. .
Like Emelia, I didn’t find anything about the Polynesian tattoo video to be very transgressive. I really don’t have much to comment on from this video….
I thought the NY Times article was interesting, especially after reading and learning about Surrealism. The way the article highlighted current criticism of Transgressive Art almost makes it seem like we are moving backwards (or at least being stagnant) in what we consider acceptable or appropriate art. I think I found the Surrealist art from almost 100 years ago more compelling than what is supposed to be Transgressive Art today. Somewhere in the NY Times article, it brought up the idea that rule-breaking has become banal, and I wonder if that makes artists step away from there true creative energy, focusing too much on pushing the boundaries. With some of the art we’ve seen by contemporary artists, I do get the feeling they are trying too hard, whereas the work from the Surrealism movement appeared much more natural to me, and the fact that something could be both natural and insulting makes it much for intriguing to me as a viewer.
I like how the NY Times article started with, “It is still possible to shock.” It’s kind of disheartening to hear constantly about how we’ve been desensitized by constant visual stimulation. If we look at some of the recent reactions to current Transgressive Art though, it’s obvious that there are still many boundaries for artists to push.
Eric Vahouny
evahouny@gmu.edu
I do not think I shall ever embark on getting a tattoo but deeply respect those that have and what it means to them. The Polynesian tattoos were symbols of protection, a right of passage, and a step into an unknown world that helped them move forward as productive members of society. It helped define your role and often gave insight into where you have been in the past.
Reading about Julius I resonated with the statement about how transgressive art “aren’t intended merely to shock. They are meant to insult.” This says to me that breaking taboos and cultural norms is more difficult than we all might have thought.
I personally enjoy thinking about the idea that this surrealist artwork is an artifact first and foremost, and then art and personal gain after. This artifact will be around to enlighten people in later years about the struggles and tribulations these individuals were going through and the medium in which they had chosen to express it. Rather than putting up walls the artists of the surrealist movement were making a strong statement that we are all in this together and brought a sense of commune about what the political realm looked like and also a evolutionary idea invested in the community itself.
Thinking about some of these quotes on wikipedia about surrealism, i began having a profound vision. i was asking myself what is real. Am I real? This bowl of cereal in front of me is real. It looks real, taste real, sounds real, the orange juice is real. My hands looks real too i think. Or, I thought. i thought that beginning to think i am not real might be a better way to approach life at this point, in my life.
This quote…”It is living and ceasing to live which are imaginary solutions. Existence is elsewhere,” makes me feel that my ‘feelings’ may be imaginary. A mere means to an end. Also, if existence is elsewhere, somewhere we can’t see or perceive, how could we all be here, discussing our existence?