NEA 4 Panel Discussion w/ Tim Miller, Holly Hughes & Karen Finley B-Word Project
Shouts from the audience "speak-up!" as Karen
Finley responds "this is as loud as I'm going to get". Ridiculous and
rude all at the same time. They all spoke clearly and eloquently despite
these rude spouts. The introduction swallowed most
of
our enthusiasm as it went on and on explaining the government's legal
positioning. We were at a University! Leaving the artists to sit
uncomfortably in the spotting lights. Which Karen mentioned when first
she spoke. "I feel like I'm being interrogated" she said without issue
as the lights blinded her and the other NEA4 artists on stage. They
finally dimmed the lighting making the panel a bit more proportionate
for the panel and the audience. The artists continued to share their
dynamic and very personal battle stories fought in the culture war.
Tim told the tale of how he and many other artists were arrested for
protesting just before his hearing. Holly spoke a great deal about the
many misconceptions of her work at the time by people on all sides of
the censorship issue. How, she was viewed as a kind of obstruction for
other artists in receiving grants. As well as the rumored
misinterpretations of her work and identity as an artist/person. Using
as an example her performance in which she was a lesbian who slept with a
man. Not a true lesbian!
Karen described the dehumanizing tone of
interrogation by then sexually repressed/depressed Senator Jesse Helms. A
man so deeply bent he could give himself fellatio. She went on talking
about how the SF MOMA returned her work for fear of repercussion and
that it was LA MOCA willing to take those risks.
All of these significant artists experienced an out of context moral contempt and a kind of baseless critical casting. That which inherently affected their personal lives and the shape of not only their work, but contemporary art and issues of today.
Karen described the dehumanizing tone of
interrogation by then sexually repressed/depressed Senator Jesse Helms. A
man so deeply bent he could give himself fellatio. She went on talking
about how the SF MOMA returned her work for fear of repercussion and
that it was LA MOCA willing to take those risks. All of these significant artists experienced an out of context moral contempt and a kind of baseless critical casting. That which inherently affected their personal lives and the shape of not only their work, but contemporary art and issues of today.
photo credits: Karen Finley (flavorwire.com), Holly Hughes (citypaper.com), Tim Miller (sfgate.com)
Facebook Thread:
A) is she the one who smeared chocolate on herself on the NEA's dime?
Eric) Yes it is A)
A) public funding of art is always problematic. it's guaranteed that someone's going to be angry. Of course stuff like Andres Serrano is clearly beyond the pale... you wanna pee on religious symbols, do it on your own dime...
Eric) Look a little deeper than the pee and you will discover there is more to the work than a one-liner. Seriously, if one, especially the government one, is going to have a position, one should actually see the work. If they still haven't got it, inquire further. An informed position is more of a valid position...
C) more worrisome is how we have slid so far to the right as a society that we can now be in this position - enfants terrible or not...
D) So odd to me when people characterize part of a show like 'smearing chocolate on herself' and 'on the NEAs dime.'. Like, that sounds so utterly stupid, so scandalous. Of course that's not just what it is any more than poetry and novels aren't just some words strung together about love and families and stupid everyday stuff that everyone already knows. Sure, art quality is subjective, but we need people who prompt different feelings and thoughts and experiences than the usual. That's how a culture grows and learns itself. I didn't see the chocolate thing, but I saw her 'smear' honey on herself once it was one of the most beautiful moments I've ever seen on stage. Its a shame for all of us to lose those things because they're not easily explainable or some 'don't get it.'
Eric) It is true what you say C). Yet, artist like these and many not so well known continue to push the envelope opening new doors for the rest. That is about as optimistic as I dare get.
A) is she the one who smeared chocolate on herself on the NEA's dime?
Eric) Yes it is A)
A) public funding of art is always problematic. it's guaranteed that someone's going to be angry. Of course stuff like Andres Serrano is clearly beyond the pale... you wanna pee on religious symbols, do it on your own dime...
Eric) Look a little deeper than the pee and you will discover there is more to the work than a one-liner. Seriously, if one, especially the government one, is going to have a position, one should actually see the work. If they still haven't got it, inquire further. An informed position is more of a valid position...
C) more worrisome is how we have slid so far to the right as a society that we can now be in this position - enfants terrible or not...
D) So odd to me when people characterize part of a show like 'smearing chocolate on herself' and 'on the NEAs dime.'. Like, that sounds so utterly stupid, so scandalous. Of course that's not just what it is any more than poetry and novels aren't just some words strung together about love and families and stupid everyday stuff that everyone already knows. Sure, art quality is subjective, but we need people who prompt different feelings and thoughts and experiences than the usual. That's how a culture grows and learns itself. I didn't see the chocolate thing, but I saw her 'smear' honey on herself once it was one of the most beautiful moments I've ever seen on stage. Its a shame for all of us to lose those things because they're not easily explainable or some 'don't get it.'
Eric) It is true what you say C). Yet, artist like these and many not so well known continue to push the envelope opening new doors for the rest. That is about as optimistic as I dare get.
Eric) D), the
artists talked about how Helms and all the other civil critics had
never even seen the work they were trying to censor. All they could
stand upon were the unacceptable words such as vagina, penus, chocolate
and honey on da body. I saw and wrote something on the piece with the
honey. She left me somewhere between the couch and the bed whispering
"Shut Up and Like Me".
A) What have lost in "public" art is the repository of taste and elegance and deep knowledge that the old aristocracies had. Their patronage produced everything from the Parthenon, Laocoon, the Pantheon, St Peters, Venus de Milo, the Mona Lisa, to Bach and Mozart and, of course, Shakespeare (who enjoyed the patronage of the greatest of English sovereigns -- who was, herself, a work of art). But those aristocrats are long gone, as well as the conditions which produced them. And we have produced nothing, NOTHING remotely comparable to them.
Eric) To each one's own A). For myself, your recent response actually gave me a bit of a quickening. A little light in an otherwise pitch black abyss. I can appreciate your preference for the classics. As well as your nostalgic championing of the good old days. The masters engaging in timeless mastery along side the cultivated golden aristocracies. Not as juggling Jesters jerking jokers discharging at their rose pedaled feet.
I feel relatively fortunate that I was not alive in these grandiose times. As I may have been burned alive, beheaded, crucified, imprisoned or worse! For so so so many reasons. And if I was lucky!
Sadly, I, being but a peasant, would not possess the luxury of artisan-ship, education or even literacy. For I would be a peasant. Unworthy, of these things and possibly undeserving of existence. If I was truly blessed, I may have been honored with the responsibility of carrying a golden cross into the conquered holy land for the honorable nights. I suppose even as a peasant or a slave it would be less painless than if I were a woman, a black woman, a homosexual, a Jew, a scientist, a philosopher, a gypsy, a scholar, and a critical thinker. Ah yes, the days of old! "For some a dream, to others a nightmare!". Yes, I did just quote Merlin from the movie Excalibur. No, history is fine and good and necessary.
For me I am pleased the days of White Wig Wearin' pompous pieces of oppressor shit only exist as a memory. Based on history and of common sense, I cannot and never will see the connection to "deep knowledge" and "aristocracy". Only accessibility and non accessibility, pink cheeks and untouchables, mobility and caste systems. You should feel content A). The conditions are actually very similar today. The patrons and institutions just have new names and titles. For many of these notable patrons have bred and inbred throughout the ages. Continuing this angelic lineage of which you revere.
Contemporary art remains very exclusive and pretentious as the greats would have had it. The peasants are only made aware of new art if there is a naked woman or man doin' sex-stuff with like chocolate or somethin'...ya know. Oh, and I see art very similar to the works you've mentioned in Westwood malls, Las Vegas and even the park.
Ironically enough, just recently in a park, some guy popped out of the bushes completely naked. Covered entirely in chocolate! I think it was chocolate? He was holding something in his right hand and mumbling something about fallatio and that he knew me or something. Anyways, his name was Hamlet and he was gay.
A) What have lost in "public" art is the repository of taste and elegance and deep knowledge that the old aristocracies had. Their patronage produced everything from the Parthenon, Laocoon, the Pantheon, St Peters, Venus de Milo, the Mona Lisa, to Bach and Mozart and, of course, Shakespeare (who enjoyed the patronage of the greatest of English sovereigns -- who was, herself, a work of art). But those aristocrats are long gone, as well as the conditions which produced them. And we have produced nothing, NOTHING remotely comparable to them.
Eric) To each one's own A). For myself, your recent response actually gave me a bit of a quickening. A little light in an otherwise pitch black abyss. I can appreciate your preference for the classics. As well as your nostalgic championing of the good old days. The masters engaging in timeless mastery along side the cultivated golden aristocracies. Not as juggling Jesters jerking jokers discharging at their rose pedaled feet.
I feel relatively fortunate that I was not alive in these grandiose times. As I may have been burned alive, beheaded, crucified, imprisoned or worse! For so so so many reasons. And if I was lucky!
Sadly, I, being but a peasant, would not possess the luxury of artisan-ship, education or even literacy. For I would be a peasant. Unworthy, of these things and possibly undeserving of existence. If I was truly blessed, I may have been honored with the responsibility of carrying a golden cross into the conquered holy land for the honorable nights. I suppose even as a peasant or a slave it would be less painless than if I were a woman, a black woman, a homosexual, a Jew, a scientist, a philosopher, a gypsy, a scholar, and a critical thinker. Ah yes, the days of old! "For some a dream, to others a nightmare!". Yes, I did just quote Merlin from the movie Excalibur. No, history is fine and good and necessary.
For me I am pleased the days of White Wig Wearin' pompous pieces of oppressor shit only exist as a memory. Based on history and of common sense, I cannot and never will see the connection to "deep knowledge" and "aristocracy". Only accessibility and non accessibility, pink cheeks and untouchables, mobility and caste systems. You should feel content A). The conditions are actually very similar today. The patrons and institutions just have new names and titles. For many of these notable patrons have bred and inbred throughout the ages. Continuing this angelic lineage of which you revere.
Contemporary art remains very exclusive and pretentious as the greats would have had it. The peasants are only made aware of new art if there is a naked woman or man doin' sex-stuff with like chocolate or somethin'...ya know. Oh, and I see art very similar to the works you've mentioned in Westwood malls, Las Vegas and even the park.
Ironically enough, just recently in a park, some guy popped out of the bushes completely naked. Covered entirely in chocolate! I think it was chocolate? He was holding something in his right hand and mumbling something about fallatio and that he knew me or something. Anyways, his name was Hamlet and he was gay.
Comments
Post a Comment