![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
likethebeerWe formally received our grant on Tuesday and jujupees had presented the Swiss Miss ahead of time with Swiss baseball caps--red w/white crosses. We wore them through the whole evening.*
The grant is for "Breaking the Habit" 2006. thanks to all and good night.
One of the Misses had the idea of singing our "cheer" when we were complete. No, not "Milkshake", but jujupees' cheer--"Swiss Miss action brings satisfaction." That was so freeing, to be able to stand in front of the menopausal and long-toothed crowd and say something so silly.
We did get reamed out by a nun, though, for one of the "artists" at "Breaking the Habit" 2005 (a piece** that none of us liked) and I found it to be an interesting experience. Because there was this point. This point when she said something (to which of course I did not have a proper reply) that had that "nun" thing going on. I explained it to mda this way:
As she was reaming us out in her own way, there was this little part of my brain that thought, "Wait. I've heard this before." And I've been amazed thinking about it ever since. How did this woman in WI manage to sound in tone and verbage just like the nuns I grew up with in Pennsylvania and New Jersey??? I wondered almost immediately--do they all go to a special school to learn how to talk like that?
And of course, one of her points of contention was that there was content in the show that she found offensive (she didn't come to the show herself), and I couldn't help but reflect immediately that, well, in the world right now there are people who are being violent over something that they find a visual offront to their religion (which is what this woman was saying). Just a connection made there.
Of course, I also told mda that this nun did exactly what I would hope that Muslims around the world would do in reaction to theDutch Danish cartoons--she expressed her dissatisfaction to us, in words, not in violence.
I have also thought, since this exchange, that there is this reaction from people about "art" or "social products"--they think everyone wants to be "shocking". And I've thought--rarely is good art just made with the intent to be shocking. Good, shocking art, is often made with the intent to make good surprising art. And if it shocks you? Ok, that's the chance you take. Maybe it will do some good. But art made just to shock rarely lasts. It may have it's place, but when I think of the art that I like that was shocking for its time, the artist was going for something more, definitely more.
And I've decided that I'm getting a little tired of people telling me that "oh, all artists want to shock people, and all artists want us to pay for their outrageous pieces of crap." Manet didn't want to shock when he painted Olympia. Mapplethorpe, despite what people think, really didn't mean to shock people with his work (not from what I've read or come to understand). Ok, so the guy was into S&M, but if that's part of your life, do you think people are going to get into trials over the whole damned thing? I mean, I freak out people when I see them in PA b/c I don't have a $600 hutch in my dining room--I don't have $600 to spare on a dining hutch, not to mention the fact that I don't have a dining room. This is just my life.
Shock was not, I do not believe, Andres Serrano's intention, not if you have seen his work over the years. I was lucky enough to see Piss Christ in a retrospective of his, and I really did like it and think it was, yes, beautiful (and none of the photos I've found really convey it). Plus, it's not like it's the only statue he's ever photographed in urine, and it's not the only body*** fluid he's ever explored (this has been fun by the way, b/c I've got to see a few of his later things, and man is that guy pushing the envelope--I like him, though).
Ok, I should end this
*Which mda loves, but I think it's just the Swiss Miss thing.
**She objected to "the room of porn," which was an artist's desire to, visually, describe the, uh, painful paradigm of women as sex objects. It was an installation, most of which was women's mags and regular ads and computer cables, and, the thing she objected to, "the porn closet"--a power point presentation w/some raunchy porn. You had to walk into the room to see it. THe thing all of the Swiss Miss object to isn't the porn. It was just bad art. No depth.
***In a tribute, I believe, to abstract expressionism (the famous "mark of the artist"--Lichenstein did the same thing), this is "the artist's mark." In this case, and perhaps in a few others, Serrano is showing semen--not under a microscope, but shooting semen. And, really, in a way, he's referencing a few people here (ha ha). Duchamp did the same thing, in a way. One of Duchamp's "Boite en Vales" [sp] pieces included semen (believed to be Duchamp's). So I think Serrano was referencing both the "gesture", and Duchamp. If it seems out there, in art history circles, it's really not. At. All. I learned this shit before grad school--"the gesture" is a well known tropism and anyone who studies Duchamp at all knows some of the legends of what he did. I have mentioned before how much I love that man, haven't I? [To the point were I hoped for years that I was his incarnation but alas he died in June? 1968 and I was born in Feb.]
The grant is for "Breaking the Habit" 2006. thanks to all and good night.
One of the Misses had the idea of singing our "cheer" when we were complete. No, not "Milkshake", but jujupees' cheer--"Swiss Miss action brings satisfaction." That was so freeing, to be able to stand in front of the menopausal and long-toothed crowd and say something so silly.
We did get reamed out by a nun, though, for one of the "artists" at "Breaking the Habit" 2005 (a piece** that none of us liked) and I found it to be an interesting experience. Because there was this point. This point when she said something (to which of course I did not have a proper reply) that had that "nun" thing going on. I explained it to mda this way:
It was a combination of anger, disappointment, and moral outrage conveyed in this quiet, slightly passive aggressive tone.
As she was reaming us out in her own way, there was this little part of my brain that thought, "Wait. I've heard this before." And I've been amazed thinking about it ever since. How did this woman in WI manage to sound in tone and verbage just like the nuns I grew up with in Pennsylvania and New Jersey??? I wondered almost immediately--do they all go to a special school to learn how to talk like that?
And of course, one of her points of contention was that there was content in the show that she found offensive (she didn't come to the show herself), and I couldn't help but reflect immediately that, well, in the world right now there are people who are being violent over something that they find a visual offront to their religion (which is what this woman was saying). Just a connection made there.
Of course, I also told mda that this nun did exactly what I would hope that Muslims around the world would do in reaction to the
I have also thought, since this exchange, that there is this reaction from people about "art" or "social products"--they think everyone wants to be "shocking". And I've thought--rarely is good art just made with the intent to be shocking. Good, shocking art, is often made with the intent to make good surprising art. And if it shocks you? Ok, that's the chance you take. Maybe it will do some good. But art made just to shock rarely lasts. It may have it's place, but when I think of the art that I like that was shocking for its time, the artist was going for something more, definitely more.
And I've decided that I'm getting a little tired of people telling me that "oh, all artists want to shock people, and all artists want us to pay for their outrageous pieces of crap." Manet didn't want to shock when he painted Olympia. Mapplethorpe, despite what people think, really didn't mean to shock people with his work (not from what I've read or come to understand). Ok, so the guy was into S&M, but if that's part of your life, do you think people are going to get into trials over the whole damned thing? I mean, I freak out people when I see them in PA b/c I don't have a $600 hutch in my dining room--I don't have $600 to spare on a dining hutch, not to mention the fact that I don't have a dining room. This is just my life.
Shock was not, I do not believe, Andres Serrano's intention, not if you have seen his work over the years. I was lucky enough to see Piss Christ in a retrospective of his, and I really did like it and think it was, yes, beautiful (and none of the photos I've found really convey it). Plus, it's not like it's the only statue he's ever photographed in urine, and it's not the only body*** fluid he's ever explored (this has been fun by the way, b/c I've got to see a few of his later things, and man is that guy pushing the envelope--I like him, though).
Ok, I should end this
*Which mda loves, but I think it's just the Swiss Miss thing.
**She objected to "the room of porn," which was an artist's desire to, visually, describe the, uh, painful paradigm of women as sex objects. It was an installation, most of which was women's mags and regular ads and computer cables, and, the thing she objected to, "the porn closet"--a power point presentation w/some raunchy porn. You had to walk into the room to see it. THe thing all of the Swiss Miss object to isn't the porn. It was just bad art. No depth.
***In a tribute, I believe, to abstract expressionism (the famous "mark of the artist"--Lichenstein did the same thing), this is "the artist's mark." In this case, and perhaps in a few others, Serrano is showing semen--not under a microscope, but shooting semen. And, really, in a way, he's referencing a few people here (ha ha). Duchamp did the same thing, in a way. One of Duchamp's "Boite en Vales" [sp] pieces included semen (believed to be Duchamp's). So I think Serrano was referencing both the "gesture", and Duchamp. If it seems out there, in art history circles, it's really not. At. All. I learned this shit before grad school--"the gesture" is a well known tropism and anyone who studies Duchamp at all knows some of the legends of what he did. I have mentioned before how much I love that man, haven't I? [To the point were I hoped for years that I was his incarnation but alas he died in June? 1968 and I was born in Feb.]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-11 04:46 am (UTC)I love the sexy new icon, too.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-11 04:50 am (UTC)The icon is Dita von Teese (http://www.dita.net/galleries.php)--a stripper (and Marylin Manson's wife). She's got some nice fashion going for her, and some great corsets.