Art and Politics

[CWL]

As reported by BBC News here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3406041.stm, the Israeli ambassador in Sweden was recently expelled from the Stockholm Museum of History after he threw a spotlight at an exhibit displaying a pool of blood with a sailboat, in which the picture of a suicide bomber (who killed herself and 19 Israelis in Haifa) has been placed as the sail. The ambassador has further requested that the Swedish goverment procures that the exhibit is removed from the museum.

Although I find the work of art in question (made by Israeli-born artist Dror Feiler and his Swedish wife Gunilla Sköld Feiler) in extremely poor taste, I also - at least in princple - object against physically attacking any work of art.

My thought with starting this thread is to initiate a discussion on the relationship between art and politics. Should there be limits to what can be done in art? Is it ever right to vandalize a work of art? What about freedom of speech?

[Giz]

There are probably a few different strands here, in general:

1) All democratic/individual liberties depend on our freedom of expression. In general how do we think the balance should be struck between causing offence and free speach? Should there be an "if in any doubt it should be allowed"?

2) Art would presumably be subject to the same restrictions as freedom of speech. As Art is generally polemical rather than a factual reportage this would perhaps be more comparable to editorials than pure news journalism?

3) Specifically with this example, was the Swedish government tacitly condoning (via hosting) the Art? Does this have similarities to the situation between Killroy and the BBC?

[Tmy]

The things that pass as "art" nowadays. My ruel of thumb: If i can make a copy it, it aint art. Alot of these "artists" arent making pretty things, theyre just trying to get a rise out of people. If you want to do that then start some political rock band or sumthin.

Look, if your getting govt money then you cant just do any old artwork. This is true for everything that uses govt grants. The money comes with strings attached. If you dont like it then dont take the money.

[Jessica Blue]

Alot of these "artists" arent making pretty things, theyre just trying to get a rise out of peopleThat's what they used to say about the Impressionists.

[sophia8]

Originally posted by Tmy
The things that pass as "art" nowadays. My ruel of thumb: If i can make a copy it, it aint art.
Any idiot can copy something - even you. But could you have (a) thought it up in the first place (b) had the technical skill to design and build it?

[Tmy]

sail boat in a pool of blood? Not impressed.

Most of this modern art stuff is ridiculous. I love going into art musems and seeing these pieces of crap with thosuand dollar pricetags. Real art should look like things.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Tmy
sail boat in a pool of blood? Not impressed.

Most of this modern art stuff is ridiculous. I love going into art musems and seeing these pieces of crap with thosuand dollar pricetags. Real art should look like things.

Heh. You're in a small minority if you really think "art should look like things". That's not art, that's just pretty pictures. Much of art is not done for the sake of beauty, but rather to convey meaning (hint: this same concept applies to music too). And that's what we have here. An interesting symbol (a woman floating in a pool of blood) that is open to several angles of interpretation...as the Israeli ambassador clearly showed.

Maybe it's not particularly good art, but to call it "not real art" is ridiculous.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Tmy
sail boat in a pool of blood? Not impressed.

Most of this modern art stuff is ridiculous. I love going into art musems and seeing these pieces of crap with thosuand dollar pricetags. Real art should look like things.

It's a shame you're in the States. To anyone within easy reach of London, I highly recommend the Tate Modern. There's so much different stuff that you can always find something to like, and it's also fun wondering around with like-minded cynical people laughing at some of the more ridiculous things.

[Tmy]

Silly me. I expect artists to have some skill.

You know I cant play the piano. I can bang on the keyboard I can make some nosie that youll really need to interpret. Doesnt make me a musician.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Tmy
Silly me. I expect artists to have some skill.

You know I cant play the piano. I can bang on the keyboard I can make some nosie that youll really need to interpret. Doesnt make me a musician.

You still think art is about pretty pictures. I give up.
However, you can write a song with uninspired music but great, thoughtful lyrics. Yeah, that's a relatively "modern art" too, unless you count poetry.

[Tmy]

Well some modern art is good. But I find that most modern art is terrible. I imagine most modern artists to be talentless people who cant make pretty things. So they put together nonsense and rely on highbrow avant guard types for praise. Yoko Ono comes to mind. Can anyone really listen to a Yoko Ono album. We ought to tourture Saddam with the stuff.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Matabiri


It's a shame you're in the States. To anyone within easy reach of London, I highly recommend the Tate Modern. There's so much different stuff that you can always find something to like


I'll second that. I visited Tate Modern about 2 weeks ago while in London. I enjoyed it very much, I especially liked the room with all the Soviet propaganda posters.

When was the last time you went?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Tony
When was the last time you went?

Popped in last weekend to see the Sun, then sloped off down to the Aquarium...

[CWL]

Originally posted by Tmy
Silly me. I expect artists to have some skill.

You know I cant play the piano. I can bang on the keyboard I can make some nosie that youll really need to interpret. Doesnt make me a musician.

You're confusing art and handicraft there.

The purpose of art is often to create controversy or to spark a debate. The purpose of handicraft is merely to entertain. See the difference?

[Tmy]

Hmmmm NO. Look u p the definition of art and it will talk about skill and such.

I believe true art doesnt depend on whether its in a musem or not. Some of this modern art is "art" when its in some fancy gallery, move it to the street corner and all of a sudden its garbage.

[Ed]

I am appaled that it actually took two people to create that display. Two? What, did they have one arm each? Anyway...

If you take a very broad view of what art is, so broad as to include the thing in question, you must, catagorically view any response to that art as art too. It is disengenious to suggest that rearrangeing art such as that, in a way that might be viewed by a philistine as destructive, does not have the same validity as the original work.

If art can outrage and, in effect, destroy my Wa, then it seems reasonable that my destructive energy has equal validity. To suggest that the santity of corporal nature of a given work trumps the sanctity of my own internal state is unsupportable.

I think that some level of skill is a necessary component for a definition of a work of art. Otherwise everything is art and the word ceases to have any meaning.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Matabiri


It's a shame you're in the States. To anyone within easy reach of London, I highly recommend the Tate Modern. There's so much different stuff that you can always find something to like, and it's also fun wondering around with like-minded cynical people laughing at some of the more ridiculous things.

There are some OK things in Tate Modern. The Sun exhibit is excellent.

It was funny to see some people looking at the ventilation grate with furrowed brows saying 'fascinating'..... :p :D

Mind, I found myself looking at one of those hydraulic door-closing arm things and wondering what that was all about.....

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Ed


If art can outrage and, in effect, destroy my Wa, then it seems reasonable that my destructive energy has equal validity. To suggest that the santity of corporal nature of a given work trumps the sanctity of my own internal state is unsupportable.

I think that some level of skill is a necessary component for a definition of a work of art. Otherwise everything is art and the word ceases to have any meaning.

Hmm so its art if 1) outrages and 2) makes you think.

In that case I made some "art" in the toilet this morning. It was really offensive and it made me think.........what the hell did I eat yesterday!?!? :p

[jimlintott]

A piece of art is someone's property. It is always wrong to vandalise someone's property.

One person's art is another person's trash. I, personally like modern art but not all of it. Similarly, I like classical music but not all of it.

There are some who would love to burn the works of Bosch because of the images he painted. There are others who consider his works to be the greatest masterpieces ever put to canvas.

I've never been in an 'Art Museum' that had price tags on the pieces.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tmy


Hmm so its art if 1) outrages and 2) makes you think.

In that case I made some "art" in the toilet this morning. It was really offensive and it made me think.........what the hell did I eat yesterday!?!? :p You seem to know a lot about what art is not. Perhaps you can tell us what it is.

[Tmy]

Art is like porn. I know it when i see it!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
Art is like porn. I know it when i see it!


In otherwords, anything he can spank the monkey to. :p ;)

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tony

In otherwords, anything he can spank the monkey to. :p ;) You think he's doing it to this?

http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/20/V115VANG.jpg

[Tony]

Originally posted by hgc
You think he's doing it to this?

http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/20/V115VANG.jpg


I dunno, the curves on that vase are pretty sexy. ;)

[Tmy]

Originally posted by hgc
You think he's doing it to this?

http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/20/V115VANG.jpg

WHat!? You mean cant see the naked women in this painting.:p

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by CWL


You're confusing art and handicraft there.

The purpose of art is often to create controversy or to spark a debate. The purpose of handicraft is merely to entertain. See the difference?

This reminds me of an old saying down at Skull Farmers' book publishing and sales...

They who work with their hands would be a laborer. They who work with their hands and head would be a craftsperson. They who work with their hands, head and heart would be an artist. And they who work with their hands, head, heart and feet would be a door-to-door salesman.

[Snide]

Originally posted by Tmy


Hmm so its art if 1) outrages and 2) makes you think.

In that case I made some "art" in the toilet this morning. It was really offensive and it made me think.........what the hell did I eat yesterday!?!? :p If you did so for the purpose of #1 and #2 above (pun intended), then yes, that is art.

Have you saved your masterpiece? I'll start the bidding at $.01.

Someone, anyone, please outbid me! :)

[Tmy]

I tried to perform my "art" in some bushes in the park. The police had the nerve to ticket me! CENSORSHIP!!!!

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by Snide
If you did so for the purpose of #1 and #2 above (pun intended), then yes, that is art.

Have you saved your masterpiece? I'll start the bidding at $.01.

Someone, anyone, please outbid me! :)

I think you would need to add something substantial to the definition.

Probably most suicide bombers or Timothy McVeigh committed their crimes to (#1) provoke outrage and (#2) make people think. Does that make it art?

Suppose someone painted a gorgeous painting that provokes no outrage and little in the way of intellectual thought. Is it art?

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Bluegill
Suppose someone painted a gorgeous painting that provokes no outrage and little in the way of intellectual thought. Is it art?

Absolutely. This is the "display of sheer skill" that a few people here seem to think is the only kind of valid art, which would include works by great composers as well. They are making no political statement, but it is still "great" art because of impressive level of technical and creative skill displayed.
Art should evoke some kind of emotional response; in this case, it might be awe.

[Bluegill]

“ outrages and makes you think.” (from tmy)

“display of sheer skill” (from Bad Religion)

“The purpose of art is often to create controversy or to spark a debate.” (from CWL)

From Jessica Blue Alot of these "artists" arent making pretty things, theyre just trying to get a rise out of people

That's what they used to say about the Impressionists.

Doesn’t it seem like we’re talking about two or more very different, but sometimes overlapping concepts? I’d say we are. It’s like arguing whether a bug is an insect, or a bug is a spider, or a bug is a hidden electronic listening device.

But more on topic, I think the Israeli ambassador should have kept his cool.

[Snide]

Originally posted by Bluegill


I think you would need to add something substantial to the definition.

Probably most suicide bombers or Timothy McVeigh committed their crimes to (#1) provoke outrage and (#2) make people think. Does that make it art?

Suppose someone painted a gorgeous painting that provokes no outrage and little in the way of intellectual thought. Is it art? My admittedly broad definition of art comes from the word itself. Art; of "artifice," the counterpart of nature. An expression of something natural, whether abstract, surreal, or whatever...is art.

The Mona Lisa is to a real woman as red dye #9 is to tomatoes.

OK, so it needs work...remember, it's about the expression, not the practical use of the thing (red dye).

And don't confuse me with, "What about the expression of something artificial?" :p

[CWL]

Originally posted by Bluegill
But more on topic, I think the Israeli ambassador should have kept his cool.

Agreed. Although his emotional response to the installation in question was justified (any subjective emotional response to art is IMO justified - "in the eye of the beholder" and all that) I hardly think vandalism is justified in this case. One interesting point that someone made in Swedish media is however that the work in question would never have gotten all this attention if it wasn't for the ambassodor's actions. Intrestingly enough, I think the whole debacle is a more telling illustration of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the mere work of art on its own. In a paradoxical way, the Israeli ambassador has thus made the exhibition in question more interesting and - dare I say - better "art" than it was originally...