Veronique's presentation was very nice. I wanted to bring up one of her comments for further discussion. She stated that the 'duty of art is to be controversial.' I disagree with this sentiment. I would say that if there is any duty for art (which is in itself highly debatable), it would be for it to be open, intellectually curious, and sincere. In being open and honest, the work may turn out controversial; and then the artist must have the courage of their convictions to carry it through. However, I feel that art which focuses on just being controversial is formulaic, shallow, dishonest. To create such work, artists merely need to find a widely respected belief or tradition, then exploit it by transgressing it with a kind of dismissive insouciance. This has been the modus operandi of at least some artists in the past. Art as controversy then becomes the favored explanation in visual studies classes, because it is an easy explanation. As a result, it begins to appear that artists' only intention was ever to be controversial...
As to the question of whether or not the federal government should fund art, I don't have very strong feelings on this matter, but tend to think that it has a negative effect in general. Such funding was certainly used as cannon fodder by the neo-conservatives, and helped them regain power of Congess in the 1990's. So it appears that having the government connected to art helped to create a backlash against a more liberal and open society. I don't see how the federal government can mingle with art without politics seeping in. I do feel sorry for theatre and dance companies that need the money to put on their elaborate productions. I wouldn't really mind the federal government funding them.
-JP
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
My exact words are :" It is the virtue and duty of art to be controversial, to question, to challenge, to disturb or destroy."
A virtue is something that often becomes a burden. God knows my art is far from controversy, but it questions. And art that doesn't raison any question at all is really poor. Remasticating reality for the pleasure of the artist only.
Taking things to an extreme is never a good way of approaching life. Yes, if the only purpose of a work of art is to create controversy (Andres Serrano's Piss Christ in my opinion is doing only that) it is very poor. But art as communication is about opening a discussion. If every discussion we start is one that agrees with everything and every trend, well we may as well not talk and listen to American Idol for Simons to tell us what is good or bad, what to wear and eat and how to think. Good luck with that.
Who is this Simon fellow. He sounds interesting.
Art does not have to be controversial to be meaningful. However, it is possible that it will be controversial by virtue of being meaningful. As you said, it's all about sincerity.
Post a Comment