.jpg)
VANISHING
pastel + gold leaf
SOLD - PRIVATE COLLECTOR
A couple of days ago I shared on Facebook, a saying that
stated "Put some whiskey in my coffee for it's Ireland
somewhere. "I'm Irish / Hungarian and found this
quite amusing. But the following day received a message
from an individual wishing me to delete the post for found
it insulting. Now if I was Italian, then I would think it
was being a bit insulting, but hey . . . my Grandfather
was from Ireland.
So where does one draw the line . . . can one step
over it? And what happened to freedom of speech?
As it is, so many artists are extremely opinionated and create
works of explosive subjects. One such is Andres Serrano's
Piss Christ which was created in 1987, with turmoil following
it to this day. For those that are unfamiliar, Serrano photographed
a submerged crucifix in a bottle of (his) urine. He stated that
the piece was not to denounce however to convey commercialism
of religion. Many said if the written statement had not
claimed the fluid was urine, no one would have known.
I truly believe that after a completion of art, the piece embodies
each viewers individual perception, which may be a reversal of
the artists original intention. Serrano's Piss Christ was awarded
money from the National Endowment for the Arts for it's
brilliance and yet scandals followed with death threats,
injunctions and vandalization.
So do we censor?
stated "Put some whiskey in my coffee for it's Ireland
somewhere. "I'm Irish / Hungarian and found this
quite amusing. But the following day received a message
from an individual wishing me to delete the post for found
it insulting. Now if I was Italian, then I would think it
was being a bit insulting, but hey . . . my Grandfather
was from Ireland.
So where does one draw the line . . . can one step
over it? And what happened to freedom of speech?
As it is, so many artists are extremely opinionated and create
works of explosive subjects. One such is Andres Serrano's
Piss Christ which was created in 1987, with turmoil following
it to this day. For those that are unfamiliar, Serrano photographed
a submerged crucifix in a bottle of (his) urine. He stated that
the piece was not to denounce however to convey commercialism
of religion. Many said if the written statement had not
claimed the fluid was urine, no one would have known.
I truly believe that after a completion of art, the piece embodies
each viewers individual perception, which may be a reversal of
the artists original intention. Serrano's Piss Christ was awarded
money from the National Endowment for the Arts for it's
brilliance and yet scandals followed with death threats,
injunctions and vandalization.
So do we censor?
Je vous souhaite une très bonne journée... Gros bisous
ReplyDeleteYou could be opening a big can of worms here! Do we censor? I want to say no. Will some take this over the top? I want to say yes. There exist such a broad definition of art in some people's eyes. Some of us seek fine art. Some art has nothing "fine" about it...
ReplyDeleteI liked your irish quote.
That seems an odd comment for someone to get riled up on, but maybe my inner lush is showing.
ReplyDeleteOn a personal level I do of course sensor myself depending on my company, but I think artists are given more leeway through their work to tow that line if they wish. Art becomes that external expression, a product that others can cast their full feeling on without the consequences those feelings would have directed at an actual person. Controversial art, then, becomes an interesting psychological vehicle in the sense that it provokes the viewer's own uncensored thoughts. I admit I rarely find the controversial art as interesting as the reactions to it.
Thank you all for your comments - which were so insightful and interesting!
ReplyDeleteI'm still straddling on the fence on what's appropriate. Have noticed since living in California, many more stress what's "PC".