Kate's thoughts

After reading about Andres Serrano's piece, Piss Christ, I began considering all of the symbols that artists manipulate and how the public reacts to them.  We already read about Chris Ofili's 
piece, The Holy Virgin Mary, just another example of a piece that mixes religious imagery with excrement--an explosive combination that seems to always make the headlines and spark censorship crusades.  My Sweet Lord, Cosimo Cavallaro's chocolate sculpture of Christ, took the charged symbol of Christ on the cross and recast it--in chocolate, referencing the consumption of Christ, both through the Eucharist and indirectly, through commodities like chocolate Easter bunnies.  This exploration made me examine the uproar these pieces caused.   I feel conflicted, because I find religion of all kinds beautiful and try hard to treat religious subjects with the respect they deserve, but I also hate censorship and closed-mindedness. I think the knee-jerk reaction to censor the artists is misguided.  The answer is not to close the exhibit down, but to see what the artist is pointing out about our society.  But what about pieces like Guillermo Habacuc Vargas' starving dog piece.  It turned out that he did not starve or mistreat the dog at all, but just wanted to reveal our hypocrisy.  The very same people who signed the massive online petition against the piece pass people in the streets who are just as badly off as that dog, and they do nothing.  Banksy does the exact same thing--and can anyone blame him for keeping his identity a secret when these other artists have suffered death threats and persecution?  These artists are so hated because they show us things about ourselves that we would rather not realize.

"There's an elephant in the room
There's a problem we never talk about.
The fact is that life isn't getting any fairer.
1.7 billion people have no access to clean drinking water.
20 billion people live below the poverty line (he must have meant 2 billion as we are a population of about 6 billion)
Every day hundreds of people are made physically sick by morons at art shows telling them how bad the world is but never actually doing something about it.
Anybody want a free glass of wine?"

Lauren, Banksy, and TDCA

Banksy

Banksy is an interesting figure, and not just because he works anonymously. The fact that he specializes in graffiti and performance art that breaks laws is what makes him interesting to me. Here in the US, we’ve had cases recently about grafitti taggers being shot in the act, and some people think that’s acceptable because the owner is protecting their property. It makes me wonder…I enjoy Banksy’s work and I love his sense of humor, but I think he gets a free pass because his work is quality and his concepts are evocative. I admit, I’m a bit conservative when it comes to grafitti and vandalism—I think it’s a crime that should be prosecuted. But I really like Banksy’s work because it’s not just scrawling his name on a wall a dozen times. It’s not ugly, it’s not obnoxious. It’s funny, clever, and decorative. Yet ultimately, there is no difference between what he does and what a “bad” vandal does. I’m not sure if it’s inspiring that we can give something as culturally “low” as graffiti a value if it’s well done enough, or if it’s a little insulting that we are so judgmental about something’s worth depending on who does it. People will argue that Banksy’s work is art simply because he’s Banksy.


TDCA

This reading raised the issue of what purpose art has in the public, and what the artist’s responsibilities are in communicating to the public. To begin with Serrano’s “Piss Christ”, there are a few different thoughts that cross my mind. I do not think art should be limited, but I do believe that anyone who creates art they know will be offensive is, as Mr. Helms put it, a jerk. Shock value has no artistic integrity, and although Serrano’s piece can be explained and interpreted in a conceptually interesting and perhaps even acceptable manner, that is not the reaction the majority of people who see it will have. And it is evident. I strongly dislike people who do things just to get a knee-jerk reaction; trying to explain away that petty attention-mongering with grandiose meaning is both insulting and pointless. Art like Serrano’s pisses me off (no pun intended), and it’s not because my faith is insulted--I’m an atheist and I wish religious folks would stop acting so affronted every time their faith is questioned or put in a bad light. But I’m insulted by Serrano’s work nonetheless, because it insults my own integrity as an artist and degraded the validity of art as a means of communication.

It comes down to communication. Weber made some very good points about the responsibility and challenge a mural artist has to be both universal and community-specific in their works. In other words, they must be sensitive to how their art speaks to others. That sensitivity needs to be considered by all artists, not just muralists. We create art in order to communicate, and we need to be aware of how our work will be interpreted by different people. I refuse to believe Serrano was unaware that his “Piss Christ” wouldn’t offend people. He wasn’t making a statement, he was just trying to get some attention. Unfortunately, some fine art is currently at a place where offensive means effective--a pity indeed. Why communicate when you can insult?

cody and weber

The excerpt from Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art speaks about art as a defining tool for class structure. Art is not a necessity, therefore becomes a product that is bought for pleasure by people who can afford it. This escalates to a point where those consumers make a hobby out of collecting, and the art that acts as a message or catharsis to an artist acts as no more than bragging rights to others. This view on the art world is completely negative, yet fairly accurate. I agree that art is the world to the creator, him having almost a parental relationship with it. This personal expression can be bought or traded to uninvolved patrons that see it as an opportunity for income.
Weber talks about transformation of the artist in the process of creating public art. He seems to preach to the reader to surpass the unrealistic dreams of making it “big in the art world” and following the “white cube trends”. Weber expresses what he feels matters the most is touching base with society that won’t turn to the next popular craze and leave another behind. There is more fulfillment in having your art viewed by a mass audience and being free of the rules and restrictions of the ever-changing gallery world.
Serrano speaks of the opposing side of displaying art in public. His piece, “Piss Christ”, had a large amount of negative press surrounding its unveiling. Even Congress became involved as the religious world felt scandalized and attacked by the image of a crucifix submerged in urine. Serrano points out that it was a misinterpretation of his work, bringing up the question of limitations in art depending on higher authority.

James G: TDCA and Banksy write ups

Theories and Documents of Contemporary Art
I am not really surprised by reading Jesse Helm’s outrage. Throughout his career in the Senate he tried to block legislation creating MLK Day, tried to block the Civil Rights Act, and was generally a pretty horrible person who championed the continuation of racial segregation. Throw in a dash of religious intolerance, and you have all the markings of the radical Republican right. The kind that even John McCain has had to distance himself from this election cycle.
The issue at hand, or at least the way Jesse Helms tried to frame it in order to thinly veil his bigotry, is whether or not the government should have paid for it, or what role government has in the making and funding of art. Jesse Helms comes from a school of thought that thinks government has no role in social issues and should not fund anything that isn’t in the name of national defense. They are champions of the free market, who spout phrases like “the freer the market, the freer the people” and their deregulatory bravado is directly responsible for much misery for many people the past few months. But, the market isn’t created in the interest of the people, as talked about by Marx and as exemplified by the racially targeted predatory lending of the large banks that has thrown our economy into a huge recession.
The government, as opposed to the markets, is erected with the people in mind. Thomas Jefferson, for example, would talk specifically about the role of government being for the benefit of the people. Whether or not Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ” was obscene shouldn’t matter. The government’s role should be to advance the cultural and artistic achievements of the people. The subject matter should be inconsequential. John Webner seems to realize this modern disconnect between government’s interest and the people’s. He calls for action in the community in creating art to give the artist and the community a voice. The people need to work for themselves in an age of big business interests.


~~~


Banksy and the Communist Manifesto
Banksy works in the community rather than in the gallery walls. In doing this, he is talking directly to the people, forgoing the institution of the museum and avoiding setting a price on his work. Graffiti also has other connotations as being vandalism and illegal, so it immediately sets itself up against the establishment. Marx talks about how the establishment as it is set up is corrupt and broken and actively works against the people. Banksy, when he is working in the street rather than in a gallery, is working against the government.
When he carried his work into the museums and hung it on the walls, he was working against that establishment. Rather than working for the people in this instance, he works against the establishment, becoming a thorn in their side. Banksy is the thorn in the side for the sake of being the thorn. He is not a hacker who works maliciously against the establishment in order to point out flaws and eventually improve it. He is not a reformer who docilely works against a system to change it’s rules. He is just a mosquito, a nuisance who every now and then you think about because he is making you think about him.

BannedKSY

Banksy being the notorious jokester in Britain has come along way from the
controversy, vandalism ,and mischief of his work. Banksy creates these loops of comical
and serious political, cultural, or ethnic issues with his graffiti I find fascinating. I’ve
been a fan of Banksy for quiet some time understanding his method with the stencil
technique and realistic style of his graffiti. The fact that he mysteriously puts up these
pieces of work for public attraction and interaction is purely so people expand they’re
knowledge on whatever issue Banksy wants to address at the moment. He’s done a resent
piece in New Orleans where hurricane Katrina hit, making stenciled works of the
situation of the surrounding area. His style being criminal in the eyes of law because of
his medium which are public and private areas. This act of vandalism I believe gets his
point or option across being judged as art, crime, or revelation.
His background information and identity isn’t truly identified because of his
security towards revealing himself. This makes Banksy and his work more appealing
because the artist doesn’t commend his work and credit. A lot of viewers speculate this as
a act for fame and being mentioned but I believe like any artist its his own unique right
whether or not to show himself. I believe exposing himself would break the act he’s
portrayed for years and would ruin the essence of what he’s trying to explain. Stenciling
being just one of his styles also include more intense acts which bend or break the rules of
authority. He went around museums in the United States in disguise and propped fake
comical pictures of famous art paintings. This controversial act of insulting the artist has
been claimed in high remarks as crude, and unjust towards the art world. Banksy being
the wildcard breaks this law of authority because none else has been noticed for it.
Authority is always something which we believe in high regard to follow and drone
through. Like many guerilla artist Banksy claims become noticed more frequently.
Banksy believes in the quote, “rules are meant to be broken” and I cannot help
but thinking about a reference to the movie, The DARK KNIGHT where authority and
rules are thrown out the window and introduces chaos into everything that is set in
motion of right and wrong. I picture Banksy as Heath Ledger (THE JOKER), in the
movie being a rebel and breaking ties to what is accepted and what isn’t. Of course not to
the extremes as in the movie, but I just get that sense from Banksy and his work.
Banksy’s forceful push of work being everywhere in Britain and extending across the
world might not be the traditional way of attention but its successful none the less. Even
if he’s considered a vandal and doesn’t deserve the praise hes embellished over the years
people have to realize his dedication to his work. He hasn’t been caught or exposed in his
identify which is key toward his success.
Banksy’s inspired many artist traditional, fine, and freelance especially my
work where I look for more of a political or cultural idea to create a statement of crisis
and issue surrounding the world. The idea to make viewers think and address what I’m
conveying in the statement. The article wants a face with Banksy but I believe the symbol
of his work has struck the many possibilities of who this man is and what he looks like;
and behind his symbol and work that’s the only face we’ll need to know Banksy.

James Stevens

Cody and Banksy

Banksy calls himself a “quality vandal.” I tend to disagree, for what he does is generally considered art. The act of creating these pieces is more as “art” than Duchamp’s work by a large portion of the society. Graffiti is one of the newer fads in the gallery world and Banksy is doing the same thing. He lets his humor and antics guide his actions into the art world and by the amount of press he’s gained, it seems to be working. I picture a man in a phony beard with quite a smirk on his face for his behavior.
The gallery world is very pretentious at times, going to lengths to even purposefully make the viewer feel small with towering white ceilings and walls. This directly relates to Marx and his theories, where the “art world” becomes the bourgeoisie and all the struggling artists transform into the labor class. Banksy is just taking his comical stand about the prejudice of exhibitions in large museums. That would be the intellectual spin on things. This guerilla style has been done for a number of years by other artists who feel they have a right to display their pieces. Banksy does the same as any other guerilla or graffiti artist, he just aims higher.

Michelle & Banksy

In response to the media’s obsession over “British graffiti artist and public prankster” Banksy’s anonymity, his artwork has gotten even more popular. The New York Time’s article, “In the Land of the Beautiful People, an Artist Without a Face” by Edward Wyatt, with its alluring man of mystery appeal title, already encourages the reader into questioning Banksy’s identity.

            Has Banksy’s work gotten the attention it deserves? Better yet, has his habit of not revealing himself in public turned into a horrible publicity ploy that intrigues the media more than the artwork itself? Due to the media, Banksy’s anonymity has become his assumed identity. This unseen but heard artist consistently critiques society and modern culture, in a style that is easily recognizable as his own voice. Banksy’s artwork becomes his identity, but alas the media fetishes upon his anonymity. Wyatt spends two paragraphs discussing the main attractions of Banksy’s latest show in Los Angeles, and the rest of the article is dedicated to the possible faces of Bansky. He may not give a face to his pseudonym, but he is far from silent and the traces of his presence do not go unnoticed.

            Banksy’s “pieces” may be seen as pranks or desecration of public property, but they are valid sources of social commentary that provide content and information to the public viewer. This content is located in the most perfect inappropriate places around cities and screams at its viewers. Why must Banksy need a spokesperson like Mr. Munnery to say he “request[s] the right to remain silent” when his works speak for him and themselves?

            I believe an artist should be able to communicate to a person through his artwork. Banksy’s popular “anonymity” illustrates his ability to let his guerilla art demand a presence within the public atmosphere even if he insists to remain “silent”.

Michelle's Response to Excerpts from T&DCA

This week’s excerpts from Theories & Documents of Contemporary Art discussed the justification and validity of art within public spaces. When an artist creates a piece of work for a community, his/her internal or external sourcing is not only challenged by the social interactions needed to collaborate with a neighborhood, but he/she must face the criticism and feedback during and after its creation.

            “The artist is transformed in the process of creating public art. He must abandon his private self-examination to speak as a citizen in society, and to become a voice for others. He is rewarded in becoming an artist for the people, by gaining a living relationship with the people”(271). John Pitnam Weber’s murals required members of communities he was working in to help him create a piece that would be unique to each neighborhood. I related to these reflections because of my own personal experiences in painting a mural for an inner city public space. Weber stresses that a public mural is more than just the artist’s vision, but the community’s as well. He also highlights the aspect of community connection. If the form of public art becomes accepted, the piece can transform into a valuable piece of work that a community will protect and take pride in.

            Weber addresses the role of art within public spaces and the valuable interaction it can have in stemming a greater appreciation for art in members of that community. Another aspect of creating art is the ability to raise questions about society and the culture one lives in. Through these questions, an artist provokes the viewer to think. In some cases the artist’s provocation sparks more than reflection. Andres Serrano’s’ “Piss Christ” for example, outraged Senator Jesse Helms enough to address congress to make the National Endowment for the Arts reevaluate its criteria and procedures in selecting artists to support. Helms’ own interpretation of the “Piss Christ” made it offensive to him and the Christian faith. This heated discussion not only raises the question of what is acceptable art, but also highlights the restrictions laid upon art due to who is funding it.

            Both Weber and Serrano created art intended for the public to view. In both cases, each artist was funded by an external source and was given certain liberties as an artist. It is through these public interpretations of the liberties an artist takes which can either be praised and rewarded or quite oppositely rejected and condemned.

            

anna's theory&documents-Helms/Serrano

In reading the letters by Jesse Helms and Andres Serrano, it brings to mind the ignorance of speaking out about something without bothering to learn more about it.

Jesse Helms' letter exudes typical self-righteous rantings. Amazingly, more outrage is aimed at what has been done to a religious symbol than something serious like pedophile priests. Somehow, I think God would take less offense with Serrano's piece than say, the injustices done against so many civilizations in the name of Christianity.

Serrano's letter is more lucid and level-headed. He brings up valid points, especially when he states "in a free society, ideas, even difficult ones, are not dangerous. The only danger lies in oppressing them."

I have more of a problem with his work in the creative sense than a moral or religious one. Somehow fifteen grand for a glass, a crucifix, and urine, seems a bit excessive.

Ryan on Jesus and Pee

In response to the outrage cause by a piece entitle “Piss Christ”, Andres Serrano composed a letter to the National Endowment of the Arts and it was one far better articulated and as a whole than its opposing letter written by Jesse Helms. In this battle of the pen, the authors argued their respective points, but it seems that the only thing in question was the age-old debate of what constitutes a piece of art. This is a question that has been greatly discussed in the eye of the art world, but because of many shows that have been in the public eye, it is now one that needs to be further discussed. A top of conversations that need to be held with the general public it also seems that the idea of politics has seeped into the funding of artists and their pieces. It is this point that is brought to the surface by these two letters.
The National Endowment of the Arts funded Serrano a fairly well-known artists. And under such funding, the artist created a piece called “Piss Christ” which is a photograph of a small crucifix emerged in a glass of his own urine. The image divulges little of the placement of the figure other than its title and creates a grotesque, but intriguing and beautiful glow around the sunken crucifix. It is brought up by Jesse Helms that Serrano has created a piece of tastelessness that is both insulting and should not be called art. Here is where the question of art comes to the forefront as well as the question of funding. Helms says that such pieces should be ignored by the public and should definitely not be funded by the money of tax payers of America who would also be incredible offended. Senator Helms ignores the purpose of art however, and seems to be blinded by his beliefs and a lack of comfort in his said beliefs.
Art can be questioned and questioned again, but one common and well agreed upon theme in art is that its purpose is to evoke some type of emotion. Whether it is simply that of visual pleasure or of a more evoking emotion that is meant to force contemplation of a message, art is meant to speak to the viewer. It is this aspect that Senator Helms missed. Might this piece have upset him? Yes, and it probably upset many others as well, but that only talks of the piece’s success. If this is where the pieces influence ended however, its end only speaks upon the ignorance and closed minded nature of those who let beliefs halt their exploratory process. Instead of staying in a closed-off sense of loathing the viewers should have searched for the answers to the questions of why the artist might try to raise such emotions and what messages they might be trying to speak upon. It is for this reason that if this piece has become a failure that it is only due to the ignorance of few who have been blinded by their beliefs and closed off their minds to other interpretations of the world around them, whether it be spiritual or otherwise.

Ryan and his friend Bansky

The British artist Bansky has become quickly well known for his pranks and his works of graffiti art. In this New York Times piece on the show “Barely Legal” it becomes a bludgeoned point that this artist is one that avoids the so-called spotlight. Although Bansky’s works create a wide array of publicity as do his thought provoking pranks, the artist himself has another reputation that follows in the shadow of his pieces. This is the fact that Bansky is an artist that has decided to keep his identity out of the public and quite top secret, a decision that can be said to draw even more attention to his identity. It is also one that can bring about many question of why the artist would do such a thing.

Within the article, featured in the New York Times journalist Edward Wyatt writes that the artist keeps his identity secret as “part survival technique and part publicity ploy”. Mr. Munnery then goes on to say that Bansky insists on remaining silent. Here is where the piece seemed to get interesting. As an artist and one that is very interested in commenting on the positions of modern society, Bansky is almost anything, but silent. And as an artist who is becoming more and more of a household name, he is also anything but lacking an identity. It seems that, in fact, the only thing the artist is lacking is a face. It was this statement about silence that brought up these contradictions and the irony of an artist saying that he would like to remain silent, for in the field of the arts it seems that the common theme is for an artist to use their works as a channel to shout their ideas upon the viewing public. With stunts that swarm with media attention it also seems that Bansky is following the same trend. So it becomes more of a question as to why an artist wouldn’t want their face to be divulged to the public and why they would speak of such a silence in such a demanding manner.

As artists, it can be easily recalled that art is an almost direct channel to the public world surrounding us. It is one that can cause awe, anger, and envy, but also one that carries strong messages and thought provoking ideals. It seems that the last thing an artist would want would be silence. That one would desire a piece to stand in complete lack of message and meaning, unless this was to inspire some other message, seems quite contradictory to the essence of what art is in today’s society, a society where the question “what does it mean?” falls all too easily off the lips of the public. So it was this call by Bansky for silence that intrigues me, and not the want to keep a private identity. Like it was said above, Bansky has already created an identity for himself with his pranks and artist messages, what he has not created is any sense of silence and lets hope that art keeps striving to create constant noise as well.