Health Warning, the sign reads. The contents of this
exhibition may cause shock, vomiting, confusion, panic, euphoria
and anxiety. If you suffer from high blood pressure, a nervous
disorder, or palpitations, you should consult your doctor before
viewing this exhibition.
This warning sounds eerily similar to those ridiculous 1950's
advertising gimmicks announcing the latest Roger Corman horror
movie. But noooooo. Instead it's an advisory for the prestigious
Brooklyn Museum of Art's exhibit- ``Sensation: Young British
Artists from the Saatchi Collection''. The exhibit includes dead
animals in formaldehyde and other works designed to provoke
outrage.
The most controversial piece in the show is an elephant dung
splattered painting of the Madonna festooned with clippings from
porn magazines. Since Mayor Guiliani has threatened to cease
funding for the BMA if they proceed with the exhibit he has been
accused of playing politics. Charges of censorship have been
leveled at him by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and
museum officials.
I've been a member of the art community for many years and what I
have to say about this issue is this-Don't believe the hype. It's
all a bunch of elephant dung!
I was the exhibition chairperson for the Artists Federation for
several years and I was responsible for acquiring free exhibition
space throughout the city for our membership. Most of the
galleries and buildings offering the space had specific
guidelines for the artists. No nudity, political or religious art
were permitted in galleries open to the general public.
The members of our group who specialized in this genre simply did
not participate in the restricted exhibits. There are many, many
galleries in Soho and the Village that welcome controversial
artwork and our members are free to exhibit there.
What the mayor has chosen to do is express an understandable
outrage at what he deems offensive art. Unfortunately for some,
because the mayor also has the power to stop the exhibit, they
view it as censorship. I think he's a savvy politician. He is an
elected official and he knows who put him in office and he also
understands that this type of art offends them. Aren't
representatives in government obliged to represent their
constituency?
The mayor is also an attorney who knows that legally he is on
solid ground. The museum building is owned by the city and
derives the bulk of its budget from a $7 million subsidy from the
city. Its contract with the city states that certain exhibits are
subject to the mayor's approval. The mayor did not approve so the
museum has to either accept the mayor's terms or forfeit the
city's support.
Now every politician has to weigh in on the debate. Hillary
Rodham Clinton straddles the fence by stating that she believes
the artwork is indeed offensive but that Guiliani is wrong to
punish the museum. What else can she possibly say? Her supporters
are the civil libertarians and art elitists that she dare not
offend. On the other hand she can't say she's in favor of this
type of art or she'll risk alienating the Catholic vote. Oh what
a tangled web Rudy's spun.
Is Guiliani genuinely offended or is he using this as a weapon to
box Hillary in? The answer is both. I'm sure that Guiliani would
have made the same fuss even if he weren't in a senatorial battle
with Mrs. Clinton. But I'm pretty sure he's enjoying the
difficult position Hillary now finds herself in.
From an artist's point of view, I'd just like to clear up one
matter. This is not about art. This is not about talent. This is
about the kind of art that public money should fund. This is
about setting standards. This is also about money and notoriety.
This exhibit originated in London and was hosted by a financially
strapped British museum. When a member of BMA's board of
directors saw the line of visitors waiting to watch the London
exhibit, a light went off in his head. Who cares if the art is
trash or offends a large segment of the community? What does
matters is the fact that it will sell. It will put the Brooklyn
Museum of Art on the front pages and increase attendance at the
museum.
Strange. I always thought it was the epitome of artistic
achievement to have one's work displayed in a reputable museum.
Apparently, this no longer applies.
Consider the fact that we would never have heard of Andres
Serrano unless he had put a crucifix in a jar of his own urine
and photographed it, calling it ``Piss Christ.''. Would
performance artist Karen Finley still be performing if she hadn't
smeared her naked body in chocolate and angered Jesse Helms into
forcing the National Endowment of the Arts to withdraw her grant?
I doubt it.
Those civil libertarians who are protesting over my right as an
artist to paint whatever I want and have the public pay for it
are frauds. They will only defend me until I decide to desecrate
a leftist icon. If I decide to paint an anti-abortion poster, I
doubt I'll get much support from the NYCLU. However if I choose
to clip out various pictures of genital organs from porn
magazines and affix them to a sorry rendition of a female and
call it, ``The Holy Virgin Mary'', then fame and fortune is mine.
City Councilman Peter Vallone was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on
Fox News and stated that while he believed that the painting was
despicable he would not withdraw funding from the museum. He
believes that it sends a terrible message to the future of the
art world.
That's right, Peter and that message is, ``Elephant Dung is not
Art and the public doesn't have to pay for it.""
Thanks, Rudy.