The Brooklyn College Fiasco
I've been hoping the dust would settle and a clear image of what exactly is going on with the shuttered Brooklyn College exhibition at the World War II memorial hall near the Brooklyn Bridge would emerge before I rung in (see here and here for Times reports, and here for an up-to-the-minute first hand account by the students involved). I had hoped to get some images of the supposedly offensive art (bloggy.com posted one here). I'm a big believer in getting as many facts as possible before forming an opinion, and there did (from available accounts) seem to be some merit to the Park and Recreation Department's argument that Brooklyn College violated a verbal agreement to only exhibit family friendly work in the space, assuming of course, that penises are somehow unfriendly toward families, a notion a basic education in human reproduction would seem to dispute, but I digress....
But now the situation has evolved to where the College is clearly making grotesque mistakes. As reported in the Times, on James Wagner's site, and with images and details on the Students' site, without co-ordinating with the artists, the College sent movers (apparently not art handlers, mind you) to de-install and haul away the work. The artists, rightfully, protested the ambush. Reports indicate also that some of the work was damaged beyond repair. From the Times:
But now the situation has evolved to where the College is clearly making grotesque mistakes. As reported in the Times, on James Wagner's site, and with images and details on the Students' site, without co-ordinating with the artists, the College sent movers (apparently not art handlers, mind you) to de-install and haul away the work. The artists, rightfully, protested the ambush. Reports indicate also that some of the work was damaged beyond repair. From the Times:
Yejin Jun, who created the foam-and-pins sculpture, said it took her more than a year to complete the 52-pound work, with tens of thousands of pins placed by hand. She said it was damaged yesterday when it was put on the floor of a flatbed truck, with nothing covering or protecting it. "The foam is damaged, it's destroyed," she said. "I cannot fix it." She added: "Our college did not support us."And from the Students' website:
No one can describe how it feels to see the fruits of all of your labors taken down and dismantled in the span of hours.Many critics here are laying blame at the feet of the city officials, but I ultimately agree with Yejin Jun and blame the College. It was their responsibility to deal with the verbal agreement in a way that would have prevented the city from over-reacting, and it was most definitely their responsibility to co-ordinate any de-installation with the artists. There are issues of censorship and support for the arts here, but more than that, an institution of higher education sorely let its students down and needs to make things right.
posted by Edward_ at
7:57 AM
16 Comments:
I am continually surprised at how poorly the college and the city officials are handling this situation. Especially when they know the media is involved. And I think it's great that the students have been so vocal about what has happened to their show and their work.
Any idea if this Julius Spiegel person is planning to run for mayor?
I'm fairly sure most of New York doesn't care that much. There's an art controversy in the city at least once a year, probably -- Virgin Mary being made of elephant poop, crucifixes suspended in urine, whatever -- and I'm pretty sure most New Yorkers don't care aside from feeling mildly superior when they read the snidely anti-art article in the Post or Daily News.
I haven't seen word one on this on the TV news yet. Granted I only watch one channel. Still, this is another tempest in a teapot.
It does sound to me like a lot of people -- city officials and college administrators -- are acting like idiots. But, hey, that's bureaucracy!
I feel bad for the artists. They don't deserve to have their work wrecked. That's what critics are for.
Ed, keep us posted in case there's a rally or something we can show up for. I'd consider making an appearance to support them.
Right here:
http://carlferrero.blogspot.com/2005/11/pray-for-your-pleasure-first-draft.html
According the the NYT, the Dick Cheney one was the problem. The text describes getting a blowjob from someone they met in a chat room. If the students agreed to do a "family friendly" show, then the person who hung this one fucked up. But I don't understand why they had to close and take down the entire show.
Thanks for the link and info Paul.
I'm still convinced the College is the culprit here. The students didn't make the verbal agreement with the City...the College did, and as such it's their responsibility to monitor that committment. I don't think Carl should be asked to sacrifice his work alone by taking it down but leaving the rest up either. The College should/could have explained long before hand that work with graphic sexual content would not be acceptable in this context and left it to Carl to submit other work or not participate.
If there was a "family friendly" agreement between the city & the college, then of course they should abide by any such agreement.
But in light of such an agreement, the college really shouldn't be having end-of-the-year graduate shows in the space. These debut shows should really be about representing the students' work... and as such, the students' artistic voices should not be muted in any manner.
yeah, you're totally right Ed. A lot of MFA shows end up with a bunch of artists that just don't do edgy work and would be fine in the space. But I think it's unlikely that Carl's work was all kittens and ice cream until this show. They should have anticipated that there would be problems and sought a different venue.
yeah, you're totally right Ed. A lot of MFA shows end up with a bunch of artists that just don't do edgy work and would be fine in the space. But I think it's unlikely that Carl's work was all kittens and ice cream until this show. They should have anticipated that there would be problems and sought a different venue.
The whole situation was inherently flawed. How can you have an art exhibit with the proviso that nothing can be challenging or provocative?
Challenging and provocative isn't necessarily family unfriendly. Usually family unfriendly means genitalia, homosexuality, or innards and blood. None of those are required for challenging work; and none of those guarantee challenging work.
I agree that this is stupid. But it's perfectly possible to put on a show which is family friendly yet provocative.
At least, I imagine it is. I'm having trouble coming up with anything really provocative at all, though. What's going to shock the jaded art community? I'm not even sure someone setting themselves on fire would make a dent in Chelsea.
It is always easy to create a shock and get censored -- especially in American public spaces. In the Netherlands, the response is different -- oh, just some more artists trying to be provocative -- but the result is the same. Is this the best way to convey a message, or does it replace the message? The bigger challenge for the artist is to convey a statement in a form that appears acceptable, but sacrifices none of its content.
It is always easy to create a shock and get censored -- especially in American public spaces.
I don't agree. I think, in America, it's easy to piss off a vocal minority of people who make it seem like you've created a shock. I think most Americans don't shock or surprise that easily -- I think the default reaction towards most of what is called art in America is contempt. The teapot tempests of the past -- Serrano, Mapplethorpe -- evaporate quickly, and the artists continue to show and create work without a ripple.
I think the reaction to Mapplethorpe, for example, is less one of "This must be buried and never seen again!" and more one of "That's ugly and stupid, I don't want to look at it, and I don't want my taxes supporting it."
I think this attitude of contempt towards art is a 20th century phenomenon and is very unfortunate. It hurts both those who create art and those whose lives would be bettered by it.
Okay, I buy your interpretation. But where does this contempt come from? Is it fair to say it comes because artists try to shock, rather than communicate?
I've been thinking the contempt might be a fair reaction by the public to the attitude of artists. Do not artists have contempt for the public?
I'll give an example. I've been discussing here and there the idea of painting on commission, which I have found to be a great experience. But the reaction I almost always get (from art types) is: ugh, patrons are horrible to work for, etc etc etc.
Well, who are these patrons, except art buyers who want to have a little say in what their art is about? If artists think patrons are hopeless at making aesthetic decisions, then why should other art buyers be any better? And yet, these are the people who we expect to appreciate and buy our creations. The general contempt for patrons indicates a contempt for art buyers in general. Perhaps contempt breeds contempt.
I've been thinking the contempt might be a fair reaction by the public to the attitude of artists. Do not artists have contempt for the public?
I think some artists do have contempt for the public. I think, also, that there are a lot of artists out there, and what the public thinks of as artists are actually a really small minority. Posterity will determine which artists from today are truly important, and they may not be the names we know. There are a lot of people toiling away in relative anonymity who may very well be this era's Caravaggio or Van Gogh.
That said, I think the cycle of contempt is real and realistic. A lot of art today is made in defiance of audience standards -- to shock, or annoy, or just to avoid being bourgeois. At the same time, audiences today are woefully ignorant about art. My psychiatrist told me a story about his cousin, who is an artist. The doctor visited his cousin's studio to find his cousin raging around the place. "My mother was here with her friend!" he shouted. "When will you get over this thing with your mother?" the doctor asked. "That bitch! I'll kill her! I told her never to come here, but she came with her friend! She told her friend to buy a painting, and do you know what she said to me? She said, 'My sofa's blue'!"
She told her friend to buy a painting, and do you know what she said to me? She said, 'My sofa's blue'!
Hannah and her Sisters (sort of)
I just had a glass of wine, so I'm not sure if the wine is speaking, or I'm incredibly clever right now. The Brooklyn College MFA students have a fantastic opportunity for lots of great publicity. Yes, the College clearly screwed up, they should have vetted the exhibition and have been ready for any kind of negative publicity. I'm certainly not saying that they shold have been part of the curatorial process, but they got caught with their pants down. The idiots should have know what the students what doing, they should have supported them, or they should have offered a venue that was not going to be so controversial. The students have turned this around into something that will only be good for them. As they say in the news industry, "I don't care what the hell you say about me, as long as you spell my name right".
That pinot noir is really good! Next time I'll offer y'all a glass!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home