1

Joe Carter: “…the visual arts are in the toilet.”

Joe, before you outline your “modest proposal”, be sure first to wrestle with the fact that there are many, many influential people who have a pecuniary interest in making sure that the arts stay in the toilet.

And have you heard of The Art Renewal Center?

2

Excellent points, Joe.

Think of the evolution of art like this: beginning with the classical art of the ancients, with something of an artistic freeze (at least in the west) during the middle ages, then through the Renaissance, through the impressionists, through the modernists and the surrealists to . . . a urinal.

If nothing else, it's proof that evolution doesn't always produce the highest and best being possible.

3

thanks Joe, this is a great comment. I had a related thread on my blog last week. (it points to comments about this British artist using public money to spit soap on a bathroom performance, plus the big New York museum lawsuit that involves Hillary, and a few bits on the Christo orange curtains.

It's here:
http://alessandrab.blogspot.com/2005/02/best-anecdotal-moment-re-christo.html

4

You are SO RIGHT ON, Joe. Thanks for undertaking this challenge! To see a work of art that is the opposite of 'urinals' & 'without theory' no doubt, check this painting out.
http://www.artinliverpool.com/blogarch/4news/000104.html

5

Art in general has gotten too "technical" these days IMHO and has forgotten its roots. Too many artists driven by some abstract aesthetic have forgotten that first they have to engage the viewer/listener. Viewers aren't going to spend the time to understand the intricacies of the underlying message if the result is crap.

To put it bluntly, who cares about the underlying complexities if the work isn't interesting and engaging? Why put in the effort to plumb the depths (assuming they exist at all), if the shallows are wretched, ignored, or just plain dumb (e.g., the photo Joe supplied)?

6

Ah, yes, so Duchamp's art is still stimulating to human minds around the world nearly a century after it's creation, i.e., Duchamp's art is still "working." Duchamp's art is a success.

How about Mark Rothko's work? That certainly seems to fit the bill for "respite" in these "confusing" times.

http://www.rothkochapel.org/visitor.htm

7

Interesting thoughts. I've referenced your post on our blog, although our readership is tiny (or, if you prefer, select ) so you won't see much of a blip because of it.

Among other things I said that:

Schaeffer and others have noted that in the past, great artists were trying to communicate, and artist and viewer met in the middle. An inability to understand the meaning behind a work of art might be seen as failure on the part of the artist to communicated his message. Now, it seems that all the work must be done by the viewer. If the viewer does not agree with the artist or does not guess properly what the artist is communicating, than the viewer is a stupid, provincial, redneck who should probably have stayed home and watched a sit-com. The artist has little or nothing to say, or if he does, he looks down condescendingly upon his public, and encodes his meaning or couches it in insulting terms, expecting the public to guess at his meaning without any shared dialogue. Indeed, since even the artist's words have no standard meanings, the viewer can only guess.
---------

I'm looking forward to reading your next post on the subject.

8

What a bunch of drivel! I guess that makes the plumbing supply outlet a world class 'art museum' and bathrooms 'art galleries'.

'Two things are infinite: the universe and stupidity, and I'm not sure about the first.' ~A.E.

9

Art in general has gotten too "technical" these days IMHO and has forgotten its roots.

Too sweeping a generalization. There are plenty of artists now doing 'real art'.

To address the main post: I think most of the cited commentary misses Duchamp's point: the point isn't about the 'creative process creating art,' but rather that art is generated through its institutionalization. In other words, stick a urinal in a museum and *voila!* it's art.

Duchamp was trying to isolate the external and institutional supplements of what art is. As one can tell from previous posts about Kinkade's painting, we certainly don't agree on whether that's art. Some see art where others see commerce. Given that disconnect about the value of a painting, it's reasonable to suggest that the value may be located somewhere outside the work of art itself.

10

“This is wholly out of sync with what people want or need in the current age,” adds Henniger, who argues that what we need in this age of global terrorism is “respite.”

Shorter version: all this modern art confuses me. I mean, it doesn't look like something else.

11

There is no such thing as the "evolution of Art". One form of art is not higher or lower than the other. The only distinction you can really make is whether it's Art that you like. But if you don't like it, that doesn't mean it isn't art, or even bad art. It's just art you don't personally like. The appreciation of Art is a purely subjective experience.

Think about a statue by Michaelangelo. It's constructed of shapes, lines, color and texture. And it's pleasing to the eye of most people, but not all. It's Art. However, note that my description also would apply to the photo of the urinal above. What's the difference? Why would you think one is beautiful and the other is not? Is the difference in the object itself or in your head? And did the person who designed and created the urinal spend any less imagination and craft than Michaelangelo?

To me the urinal as presented is Art. It's lazy and stupid Art, but Art nonetheless. And actually, as a guy, I wouldn't mind having that particular sculpture installed in my bathroom at anytime. It's also very convenient Art. ;- )

12

Before you start outlining how a revival in art can only be achieved by the religious, go back and read Duchamp and understand what he was trying to say. And then look around and see what the real art world is doing today, not just the stuff art critics like (as most of us know, art critics' taste is rather despised by the vast majority of thinking people). The art world doesn't need saving. The art world needs to be able to continue unfettered by censorious tendencies that keep cropping up in society.

13

I don't know how this rumor started, but I assure you that Marcel DuChamp has never been creative.

In any event, I think the selection of a toilet as an important work of art shows you what the extreme left really thinks of human institutions and conventions. Was it so long ago that in order to be considered a work of art, something had to be a union of technical skill and touching profundity? Of course there is great art that makes us sad or angry or other negative emotions, but it always touched us at least. Who is touched by a toilet? Who is inspired or challenged or enriched or edified by a toilet? I'm sure Mr. DuChamp thought he was making a statement with the toilet. The only statement he made was "You are stupid and I have no respect you or art in general". It's time to stop calling these hacks artists and start calling them what they are: insignificant posers.

I have my problems with Kinkade and his trinket-art, but at least he's attempting to produce something technically good and somewhat touching.

14

Of course everyone here is familiar with the incredibly beautiful and sublime paintings of Gerhard Richter. Check out this fantastic gallery of images at this site.

http://www.sfmoma.org/richter/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Richter

15

Phil A

"Who is touched by a toilet? Who is inspired or challenged or enriched or edified by a toilet?"

If I may be so bold as to quote another great artist from the 20th century, a singer named Robert Plant: "Does anyone remember laughter?"

16

This Marcel Duchamp website is excellent, one of the better sites on the Internet on any topic -- lots of great animation!

http://www.understandingduchamp.com/

17

If you ever visit the National Mall, be sure to stop by the National Gallery and see Dali's breathtaking "Last Supper" -- it's right around the corner to the left as you enter!!!!!

http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/SDal_The_Last_Supper.html

18

Ah, yes, so Duchamp's art is still stimulating to human minds around the world nearly a century after it's creation, i.e., Duchamp's art is still "working." Duchamp's art is a success.

A success at what? Jack the Ripper's "work" is still stimulating to many minds over a century later. Was he a success? And do we need such successes?

19

I like a lot of modern art, but this sort of thing strikes me as lazy.

20

Larry -

Dali's "Last Supper" - Now there's some art I can get behind. I have a print of it hanging in my room.

21

Ed

"Was he a success? And do we need such successes?"

Was Duchamp a success? Um, yeah. Wasn't his success the inspiration for this post?

Do "we" "need" such successes? I have no idea what the question means, frankly. But I do know that whether or not "we" "need" people like Duchamp (i.e., artists who challenge the way we think about art) "we" do not have a choice in the matter.

So whose next on the evangelical scorn list? May I suggest John Cage, another immortal figure in 20th century art that professional wrestling fans are likely to "not get".

22

Was Duchamp a success? Um, yeah. Wasn't his success the inspiration for this post?

Successful at getting a rise out of people is not necessarily successful at creating true works of art.

Do "we" "need" such successes? I have no idea what the question means, frankly. But I do know that whether or not "we" "need" people like Duchamp (i.e., artists who challenge the way we think about art) "we" do not have a choice in the matter.

Let me put it this way: does it offer any redeeming value to put a urinal on a pedastal and call it art? I don't think so.

So whose next on the evangelical scorn list? May I suggest John Cage, another immortal figure in 20th century art that professional wrestling fans are likely to "not get".

I hate professional wrestling almost as much as I hate your constant lame attempt at labeling people.

23

Before you start outlining how a revival in art can only be achieved by the religious, go back and read Duchamp

Go back and read Joe's post. He said it may best be achieved by Christians, not that it could only be achieved by Christians.

The art world can continue however it wants. And it will continue to be utterly and completely marginalized.

24

Wait! I just had a thought. Larry Lord's posts are to EO what Duchamp's urinal is to the history of art. Ah, maybe that's a bit to generous. But it is true insomuch as they are both just pseudo-intellectual tripe meant to get a rise out of "the establishment"; they both evoke the sense of a foul odor; and they both leave people standing around, scratching their heads and wondering why they all spent so much time on such drivel.

25

DuChamp's work challenges the way I think about in art the same way that scat-porn sites challenge the way I think about romance.

26

In his book Degenerative Moderns, E. Michael Jones asserts that one's professional life is a direct result of one's personal and private life.
I tend to agree. Of particular interest and relevance is Ch. 7 of his book where he discusses Picasso as a degenerative modern. This chapter deals at its core primarily with the twentieth century’s movement in thought, idea, and especially art, towards modernism. Picasso, the highly-celebrated 20th century artist and the chief developer of cubism, is said to have had a global impact on the essence of art, as well as a heavy influence on movements such as futurism, Dadaism, and surrealism. As the main artistic trendsetter of his day, the cubistic portrayals of Picasso became trademarks of the modern era, which was branded by imaginative freedom and uninhibited deviation from conventional and classical artwork. From the formalist approach especially, cubism was seen as the artistic method of debasing objective truth and value, since the works were ambiguous in nature and had no complete or correct interpretation. This was quite a contrast to formalist Western art, which was predictably guided by the larger rules of “metaphysics, theology, and psychology, rules having to do with the inviolability of the person, rules that in this regard were as sexual as the content of the picture so intent on violating them” (134).
Picasso’s cubism can also be largely tied to his promiscuous sexual behavior. In most of his love affairs, what would begin in the form of realist love would end in indistinctive Cubism. As Jones puts it, Picasso’s “love/hate relationship with the visible world was a visual expression of his love/hate relationship with the particular woman in his life at the time” (134). The sexual revulsion Picasso submitted himself to became evident in his artwork, which functioned as a monitor of the relationship he help with the particular mistress of the moment. The emergent pattern utilized a form of realism towards the beginning of his affairs, while employing Cubist distortion at the end (as seen in his artistic progression of the portraits made of his first wife, Olga Khoklova). Apparently for Picasso, artistic realism was his expression of affection, but upon the decay of his relationships, Cubist distortion was employed, signifying “lust, rage, and the desire to mutilate and destroy” (140).
Unfortunately, Picasso cycled through this pattern on occasion after occasion through his lifetime, making the relationships he involved himself in virtually destined for failure. Picasso seemed to make artistic distortion his release for failed relationships, even going as far as to mutilate the female form in his artwork as result of the breakup with his first wife Olga. Picasso’s works of artistic dismemberment and mutilation in his Cubism were attacks on the traditional Western fundamentals and they visually paved the way for the “concentration camp, the abortion clinic, and the pornographic film” (143). He seemed to work against the adherence to traditional objective morality and realism in his paintings in a way that destroyed the foundations of Western culture and art. Picasso had become involved in a war involving the most critical values of humanity, and sadly enough, “subversion of all rules and values had become his métier; sexual seduction his modus operandi; sexual disgust his characteristic emotion” (145). Jones clearly depicts the rut that Picasso found himself in, noting that
“Cubism, born out of sexual disgust and dragging all modern art with it in
this terrible birth, would reassert itself over Picasso’s openness to truth
and beauty and the nobility of the human form time and time again in a
oft-repeated cycle of attraction, conquest, and disgust” (145).
Clearly, Picasso’s work carried with it implications for modernity that lay subversively under the surface of his culture, forming the breadth of the age of relativity and moral subjectivity.
Picasso’s divorce from Western tradition indicated his hatred towards the high value that was placed on body and spirit by formalists. The Western culture, deeply rooted in devotion to reality and God, attempted to maintain its grasp of absolute standards for morality and spirituality despite the undercurrent of relativism and subjectivity, present in Picasso’s ideology and clearly demonstrated in his artistic endeavors. Through cubism, Picasso demonstrates and communicates the ideology that reality and truth are subjective and can be interpreted as pleased, according to one’s own wishes, lusts, and passions. This was at the heart of the modern movement that made the sharp attack on all aspects of life, which would drastically affect the realms of culture, morality, intellect, and physicality.
The case against Picasso is replete with the essence of moral degeneration, manifest through his many sexual undertakings and the expressions of artwork that would typically ensue. The distortion and relativism that his works are latent with are the results of problems that lay deeply rooted within the heart of modernism that reject the notion and claim of absolute truth and morality. The sexual frustrations that Picasso experienced were the outgrowth of a cancer that was eating away at the very core of the essence of humanity and reason. And yet, realism was almost always distorted to cubism in Picasso’s works, as the beauty of objective value was exchanged for the uncertainty and disgust of relativistic distortion. Degeneration has become the destination of modern art, and unfortunately it carries as a passenger the culture of fundamental Western tradition.

27

I couldn't agree more.

What the tired and agitated, those who feel anxious at the pace and ferment of the 20th and 21st Centuries, those who can't bring themselves to keep up, those who feel threatened by the new, need more than anything is . . . respite. Daniel Henninger, Francis Shaffer, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Bill Bennett, Antonin Scalia, Allan Bloom, Phyllis Schlafly, Michael Powell, Parents Television Council, Edwin Meese, Kenneth Starr, John Ashcroft, and all the rest of you: please - for your own sakes and ours - get some respite.

Go away. Calm down. Shut up. Close your eyes. Quit agitating over things you can't understand and don't feel comfortable with. Quit injecting yourself where no one wants you. Quit obsessively recording and poring over every exposed nipple you can find and then complaining about "pornography." Quit buying tickets to Mapplethorpe exhibits and then complaining you didn't like the pictures. Quit objecting that other people are living lives that you don't like. Quit your prying, peering, snooping, wiretapping, panty-sniffing, and theatrical hyperventilating. Take a breather.

See how easy it is? If you'd just stop working yourselves into a frenzy over other people's private lives, you'd have . . . respite. You'd still be boring, immature, and neurotic, but you'd be calmer and a lot less annoying. Go ahead. Take a break. You deserve it.

28

Kevin,

Quit your prying, peering, snooping, wiretapping, panty-sniffing, and theatrical hyperventilating. Take a breather.

Can we take our federal funding and grants with us when we go? If it wasn't for public funding, none of this "art" would ever see the light of day. But I take it that you want us to go away but leave our tax dollars behind, right?

29

May I suggest John Cage, another immortal figure in 20th century art that professional wrestling fans are likely to "not get".

Heh.

30

Kevin -

I don't think we're saying that trash like PissChrist and DuChamp's Crapper should be censored. We're just saying they're an embarrasment to society and deserving of scorn and mockery. DuChamp has the right to write his name on any piece of plumbing he wants and I have the right to call him a lazy hack-poser for it. It's the circle of life!

31

May I suggest John Cage, another immortal figure in 20th century art that professional wrestling fans are likely to "not get".

Larry doesn't appear to "get it." The difference between fans of Cage and fans of professional wrestling is that 'rastlin aficionados are in on the joke. The people who admire Cage, on the other hand, don't seem to be aware of the fact that they are being duped.

32

We're just saying they're an embarrasment to society and deserving of scorn and mockery. DuChamp has the right to write his name on any piece of plumbing he wants and I have the right to call him a lazy hack-poser for it.

Exactly!

33

"Quit agitating over things you can't understand..."

I understand this: it's a piece of old plumbing passed off by the snobs to the wanna-bes as art. You'd believe anything they told you if it fed your desire to feel superior to everyone else.

34

"Can we take our federal funding and grants with us when we go? If it wasn't for public funding, none of this "art" would ever see the light of day. But I take it that you want us to go away but leave our tax dollars behind, right?"

All right, I'll make you a deal. You give up "faith-based" funding and tax-breaks for churches and I'll give up the NEA.

35

Go away. Calm down. Shut up. Close your eyes. Quit agitating over things you can't understand and don't feel comfortable with.

Are you familiar with this story, by any chance?

36

All right, I'll make you a deal. You give up "faith-based" funding and tax-breaks for churches and I'll give up the NEA.

What do tax exempt non-profit organizations have to do with state-funded programs designed to promote the arts? That sounds like a bit of a stretch. But I'd gladly give up the Bush faith-based program if both NEA's went with it.

37

Oy. Joe writes

"The people who admire Cage, on the other hand, don't seem to be aware of the fact that they are being duped."

Talk about shooting from the hip (to put it nicely)!

I have CDs of Cage's music that you could play in your church and no one would bat an eye except to say "Wow, that is beautiful -- who wrote it?"

Cage himself was instrumental in securing the reputation of William Billings, one of America's most important composers and surely its most important composer of religious music.

Educate yourself here:

http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:xwRxB2X9U8cJ:www.newworldrecords.org/linernotes/80539.pdf+john+cage+william+billings&hl=en

and here

http://www.music.princeton.edu/~jwp/texts/choral.html

38

Can we take our federal funding and grants with us when we go? If it wasn't for public funding, none of this "art" would ever see the light of day.

Well, the only artwork you mention is French and wasn't funded by the (French or American) government.

As for American art, most of the things our professional bluenoses agitate against aren't publicly funded, either. And when there is a public link, the attack is almost invariably on all art, not just the piece the intentionally offended reactionaries went out of their way to be offended by: when the Corcoran Gallery hosted an exhibit of photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe, Jesse Helms attempted to cut off all federal funding for the museum entirely; when the NEA made grants to 4 artists who produced works he personally was offended by, Helms again attempted to wipe the NEA completely out of existence; when the Brooklyn Museum of Art displayed paintings Rudi Giuliani personally didn't like, he threatened to cut off all funding for the museum entirely. And note that none of the works that prompted this reaction was itself created with federal funds. The attempt was not to prohibit federal funding for creating art some people are offended by, but to prevent anyone who wanted to see such art from being able to see it by destroying - not the institutions that created it (the individual artists did that, at their own expense) - but the places in which it could be seen. (In protection, it should be noted, of absolutely no one: in each case, you had to go out of your way, make a deliberate effort, and pay money to see the artworks in question - yet grandstanding reactionaries proclaimed themselves offended by art that, in most cases, they themselves had never seen, and which nobody could see who didn't want to.)

Note also that killing federal funding for art is hardly likely to keep it from seeing the light of day. Mapplethorpe didn't need federal money to make a living (he was making a pretty good one off book sales to me alone); neither did Marcel Duchamp, or for that matter Karen Finley. What you achieve is to make it impossible for people who want to see it - and don't live near a major public museum or can't afford fees to a private museum - to do so. You're not protecting anyone, you're not removing subsidies for bad art (there is almost no federal subsidy for art in this country - there are subsidies for museums and for teaching art to children - these are the things conservatives are trying to destroy), you're not improving the art that does get made. You're only - as usual, as always - removing the choices other people are allowed to make, and imposing your values on their lives.

As for your incredible art-based tax burden, the 2004 NEA budget was $122.5 million; the total federal budget for that year was $2.23 trillion. For every $1,000 you paid in taxes, your NEA contribution came to 5.5 cents. Assuming that 1/10 of all installations at all times at all NEA-funded institutions across the country consist of French toilets, elephant dung, urine, or Robert Mapplethorpe's anus, your personally-offensive-art tax burden is about half a penny per $1,000 taxes paid.

Assuming you make $40,000 and have a net effective tax rate of 25%, I'll send you a nickel if you'll just leave other people alone. OK?

39

In what sense is John Cage both 1) beyond the ken of evangelical fans of professional wrestling and a likely target of their scorn, and also 2) surely to be appreciated by the same people both for his own music and for promoting religious music they are sure to appreciate?

I admit that I don't "get" the point Larry is making about John Cage.

Or is he just shooting from the hip?

40

KAM asks

"In what sense is John Cage both 1) beyond the ken of evangelical fans of professional wrestling and a likely target of their scorn, and also 2) surely to be appreciated by the same people both for his own music and for promoting religious music they are sure to appreciate?"

In the sense that John Cage wrote pieces like 4'33" and "Living Room Music" and he also wrote pieces like "Apartment 1776" and "Hymns and Variations".

Any other questions?

Evidently you didn't take my advice to educate yourself and read the links I graciously provided to you. Now you have a second chance. Do the right thing.

41

"Wait! I just had a thought..."

Mr. Ed,

Now that was worth reading!

42

Larry, I think we'd all appreciate it if you would buy the sheet music to 4'33" and keep practicing it over and over again...for the rest of your life. BTW, although I haven't seen "The Last Supper", I did see "The Last Pancake Breakfast" a few years ago. It was much ado about virtually nothing. It wasn't worth protesting, but then again I don't know why a gallery would display it. The best part of my visit to the gallery was the design display titled "Kitchen 2000: Kitchen of the Future" - this was in 2001!

Kevin wrote:
"...those who feel threatened by the new..."

Dobson, et al, is what's new. Get used to it.

"...for your own sakes and ours - get some respite."
"Quit injecting yourself where no one wants you."

Please stop making me laugh...please!!!

43

I talked to the parent of a brilliant young man who is an art major at Calvin College, the college of the Christian Reformed Church in America. This mom said that her son created an art project that involved mailing the construction to someplace in Africa, someone in Africa does something to it, and mailed it back to the artist. It's all conceptual art. These guys are talented people, but they've gotten into goofiness.

44

On the "evolution/devolution" of art...

Could the critical event simply have been the dissolution of Christendom?

The Reformation moved away from sacred art, leaving art to the realm of the secular; the reaction against a super-national Church ignited nationalistic movements, fostering the emergence of the "secular" order; the so-called "Renaissance" (do people realize just what was being hailed for being "reborn"? Paganism) and "Enlightenment" gave critical mass to a secular order, and as Francis Schaeffer points out, the shift from God-centered to man-centered led to the diminishment of man.

Harry Turtledove writes "alternate history" novels; one wonders what a story like this might look like: suppose the printing press had been invented much earlier (and not coincided with Luther's complaints and coalescing political, social and religious events)? What if Luther had been reconciled--had agreed to accept the judgment of a general council? What if a general council had been called much earlier--would Luther had found Trent acceptable at an earlier date (the complaints of his 95 theses are not really at odds with Trent's findings on justification, and other reforms)? Many other "what ifs" might be proposed, with a similar result: Christendom did not face the crisis it did, at that time. One can only speculate.

45

For a century, art has been in crisis. In this, art has been at one with much of our civilization. A relevant discussion, written by a Catholic on a Catholic issue, but shedding light beyond its stated topic is A Letter from Romano Guardini on the Essence of the Liturgical Act - 1964.

An excerpt:

"A great deal of thought and experiment will, of course, be needed to get modern man to 'perform' the [liturgical] act without being theatrical and fussy. Nor must we forget that many who should be teachers and leaders are quite inexperienced in this field themselves; some even resist because they are inclined towards an individualistic way of devotion, regard these new demands as unreasonable and think in their hearts that it is just a question of waiting for the 'fashion' to pass - 'no doubt in the end everything will remain as it has always been.'"

At least we may hope to hear accused more often: "You're still living in the 20th Century!"

46

I admit that I don't "get" the point Larry is making about John Cage.

It'd probably help to rephrase Larry's comment thusly:

Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! May I suggest John Cage, another immortal figure in 20th century art that professional wrestling fans are likely to "not get". Let's get ready to rrrrrrummmmmble!

47

"Larry, I think we'd all appreciate it if you would buy the sheet music to 4'33" and keep practicing it over and over again...for the rest of your life."

Even if I did that, I'd never top Zappa's version of it.

48

See what you think of this Christian artist...www.texasbelleart.com . I promise, no urinals.

49

There are a lot of artists, that are believers and that create great art. Another example: Conni Tögel .



Original Oil Paintings by Conni Tögel

50

Conni Togel's work seems nice enough; I didn't notice anything particularly "Christian" about the subject matter, which is not a bad thing, but it raises the question: what is the relevance of her being "a believer"? Is Charisma Art's point that given if I want pictures of butterflies, or landscapes, I "owe" it to the believer to throw some work his or her way? Why? Should "believers" all wear FUBU sweatshirts?

Septimus