Graffiti Art: Sacrosanct or Sacred Cash Cow?

Should really good graffiti art be treated as a rare and valuable artistic resource to be preserved or should it be left in it's original environment and let whatever happens to it happen, as part of the validity (or invalidating in some cases) of the piece? 


That question, as well as who really owns the art has been a big arts world debate this past month. 

The heated discussions have been sparked by our quirky friend, Mister Banksy. Who no doubt is having quite the chuckle over all this. I think I'm in love with this guy. His self-effacing and contradictory sense of humor definitely makes him as intriguing as his art. So I take back everything I ever said about the art always being more important than the artist. It's no surprise that the artist Banksy is becoming as much an artistic product as the art he produces.  I do believe whether this is intentional or not depends on which brand of coffee he drank on a particular morning. And that makes me smile.


Banksy defies, resists, hops in and out of, any and all boxes the public, including art critics, try to place him in. The thing is he doesn't do it in a vapid "look at me" way. If you study his art with its political, ecological and social commentaries you can see that he creates to provoke thought. Isn't that what art is supposed to do. From this is born the conundrum. Should it be preserved and protected so generations can be exposed to its thought provokedness... or by removing it and turning it into a commodity, does it invalidate the purpose of the art? 
Is it like the process of living: you're either lucky you got to experience something by being in right place and time or you weren't?


Banksy recently left four works in Detroit. One was "removed" by a non-profit gallery, one was destroyed during attempted removal and one was power-washed away by a building owner (ouch). 

The lone remaining painting is of a cartoon rat balancing on a tight rope (which is really a rusted old chain that hangs there.) The Tightrope Rat has become a favorite for Banksy fans and undoubtedly an arts destination since the exact location is now well publicized for visitors.


The "preservation" of the "Packard Plant Mural" has created an uproar with the arts world (once again) dividing on each side of the crumbling graffiti splattered wall.  The gallery that removed the painting from the original site has had to hide the art after receiving numerous threats. The mural's removal touched off an impassioned debate about the meaning, legality and ownership of graffiti art. It's a valid question. Once the artist walks off... who does it belong to? The building owner, the city, whomever finds it and claims it?

In a recent and rare interview Banksy gives his thoughts on permanence of graffiti art.

"Graffiti isn't meant to last forever.... I've always been uncomfortable with the way galleries put things on a pedestal. I think art should be a two-way conversation, not a lecture from behind glass. I'd like to say I'm politically motivated but the reality is I'm just far too lazy for capitalism. If Banksy has become a brand, then it's a brand that doesn't believe in itself. There's probably a contradiction in hiding your face while shooting off your mouth. But I don't think it's terminal."

So according to Banksy, anything that happens to the art he leaves behind - whether it is enshrined on site as an altar to the gods of graffiti or destroyed by random or intentional "accident" is all a part of the dialog with the art. Just don't let the galleries put it behind glass.

Some additional off topic thoughts on Banksy:
For someone who makes a mockery of being high profile and tries to hide his identity Banksy has been garnering quite the share of publicity. In the last decade, Banksy's name has appeared in more than 720 New York Times articles. This year, Banksy was named one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People, and "Exit Through the Gift Shop" - a self-documentary, opened to gushy reviews and to date has  grossed more than $1 million in only 31 theaters." 

Does he deserve all the attention? The innovativeness of some of his thumb his nose at art and society antics are definitely creative. Banksy once printed counterfeit currency in London, replacing the Queen's head for that of Princess Diana's. Where the bill would normally read "Bank of England" he printed "Banksy of England." In disguise, armed with a hammer and nail, he hung re-imaginings of the Mona Lisa inside the Louvre. His escapades go on and on. It's really quite fun following his mad hatter dance in the news.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100529/ENT05/5290305/Gallery-that-took-Banksy-mural-puts-it-in-hiding

http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/detroit/index.ssf/2010/05/banksy_bombs_detroit_sorting_t.html
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/drawn-from-the-shadows-wanted-man-comes-out-to-play-20100528-wlcx.html

DAMage Report - The Artistic Glass Ceiling

Show postponed until tomorrow - same place, time, topic. Gives y'all time for.... HOMEWORK!!! (Evil laugh) Tell me your five favorite female artists - in any genre... and if you don't know of five - FIND some. Seriously.


____________________
We tend to think of gender discrimination as something that is reflected mostly in the corporate world, or even an issue that is no longer that much of a problem. The days of female artists being repressed and unrecognized are over... right? Wrong. Truth is that women artists are still way the hell down on the art totem pole - in all the genres of art. 


"...half of trained artists in the U.S. are female, but women make up only two percent of the artists featured at the National Gallery of Art and seven percent at the National Portrait Gallery."  The imbalance isn't just historical though.  "At the Hirshhorn Museum, which specializes in contemporary art, women are five percent of featured artists."
Some hard cold glass facts from the 90's thru current day:

•  There have been only eleven female winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature over the last 100-plus years
• In 2008, women comprised only 16% of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors working on the top 250 domestic grossing films
• In 2000, of 18 modern-dance choreographers who received grants from the National Endowment for the Arts, 13 were men. The men received a typical grant of $10,000; the women $5,000
• In 53 weeks of the New York Times Book Review in 2002-03, out of 807 books reviewed, only 28% were authored by women. 
• 51.2% of all artists in the U.S. are women 
• 59% of Ph.D.s in Fine Arts go to women.
• 66.5% of Ph.D.s in Art History go to women.
• 59% of trained artists and art historians are women.
• 33% of art faculty are women.
• 5% of works in museums are by women.
• 17% of works in galleries are by women.
• 26% of artists reviewed in art periodicals are women.
• Women artists' income is 30% that of male artists'.
• 30% of Guggenheim grants go to women.
• 25% of $25,000 NEA grants go to women.

The numbers go on and on and on.... except maybe in basket weaving, similar numbers are reflected in all areas of the arts as well as in all areas of arts grants and support. Obviously by the number of women artists getting degrees in the arts, there are a large percentage of dedicated women artists in our society. Oh, and by the way - if you throw race into the mix, for example black female authors or painters and the numbers completely nosedive. 

These statistics demand some hard questions. Is it because of what women paint, write, how they create? Does gender choices in subject matter affect "acceptability" or popularity?
Are they less talented in the arts than their male counterparts? 
What could possibly account for a continued bias in male versus female created art?


Now to be fair, if the majority of women are painting babies, puppies and ballet dancers and flowers - yeah, they're not going to get the gallery space and recognition of male artists who are painting contemporary art or even landscapes. Cute and art don't necessarily mix in the fine art world. But But we're not talking hobby artists - we're looking at the serious artists who are actively making a living, or trying to, with their art. They are educated artists, passionately pursuing their craft. So why can't they get equal recognition? 


Jerry Saltz said, while criticizing MoMa for it's lack of representation of female artists in its collection: "Art should be bought on merit, not the sex of the artist. The sex of the artist is the last thing on my mind when I'm looking at good art."  To be fair, MoMa has heard the outcry over the past decade and is featuring a major exhibition of female photographers, as well as releasing a book this month, "Modern Woman," about women artists. http://www.artbook.com/9780870707711.html
Glad to know someone is taking the problem seriously.


If you think this is all hyperbole and female hysteria... name five nationally recognized female visual artists in the United States. The majority of people will probably name Georgia O'Keefe, maybe even Frida Kahlo (a Mexican artist) if they remember any female artists at all... but beyond that... not so much unless they happen to follow particular female artists works. It certainly doesn't come from encountering it in school or mainstream media. 
REF Story: http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/05/17/female_filmmakers/


Top 50 Female Visual Artists According to Someone: http://www.faqs.org/shareranks/811,50-Female-Visual-Artists

Lucy Hunnicutt - Art Shown in Story: http://www.southernbreeze.net/tour152.htm

BOOK GIVE AWAY: Author Teresa Roberts Logan is sending me an extra copy of her illustrated book "The Older i Get, The Less i Care" (you can find out more here: http://www.laughingredhead.com/links.html. Sooooo - in keeping with celebrating women artists, i'll be giving away a copy today on the DAMage Report on Hollywood Outlaw Radio at 2pm PST/5pm EST (http://www.horadio.com). You gotta listen to find out how to win it. I also recommend adding the DAMage Report facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#!/thedamagereport

Newest Drawing(s)

DAMage Report - The only good artist is a dead artist

The only good artist is a dead artist. At least that is what some people believe as indicated by what they will spend on original artwork. Once you die your value increases a hundred or even a thousand fold ... assuming of course that you were a halfway talented and collectible artist.

A 1932 painting by Pablo Picasso sold Tuesday night in New York for $106.5 million dollars. This is a new world record auction price for a work of art. The price for Nu au Plateau de Sculpteur (or Nude, Green Leaves and Bust for those of us that butcher the french language) had been estimated at around $70 million  before the sale. The painting was purchased by the Brodys in 1950 for $17,000. I suck at math - what kind of return on investment is that anyway? Something like a bazillion percent? You know Pablo is probably looking up from that special place reserved in hell for artists, yelling "WTF!"


The most expensive private sale was Jackson Pollock's No. 5, 1948, which sold for $140 million in 2006. He died at age 44 in 1956. 


According to the experts that sit around calculating this stuff, "dead artists tend to retain their value better than living ones. Some insurance companies have an automatic increase of the insured value of items if an artist dies.” It makes you wonder exactly how many famous artists had contracts taken out on them by impatient  collectors who were afraid they would die before the artist did. 


Before the Economy decided to nose dive and took everyone including the art market down, there was some interest in the fact that certain living artists were pulling in some major bucks at auctions. Contemporary artists Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons became symbols of speculation when prices for their work soared 175% between 2000 and 2008. But then the bubble burst, especially for the contemporary art market, which experienced a fall of about 40% as speculative bidders vanished. Let's hope Hirst and Koons had stuffed their  easels with some cash for a rainy day, because it is unlikely that living artists will experience that potential return on their creations... at least while they're alive.... anytime soon.


Not to be morbid but do you think the people holding onto Frank Frazetta originals are secretly rubbing their hands together and calculating how much profit they just made? There is definitely something goulish about the fact that an artist will never TRULY know the worth of their work, because they rarely achieve their pinnacle of success until they're six feet under. Doesn't do them a damn bit of good then. No wonder artists have a rep for being nutcases. We're never truly appreciated until we're dead. 


Here's a thought to make it a bit more fair on the artist, who after all poured their soul into creating these great works of art: they need to tack on a death tax to their paintings when they sell them to collectors. It could be  a projected percentage of value increase applied. Example: The price of the painting is $500 with a projected 1000% value death tax applied at a calculation of 100 years and.... oh nevermind - i suck at math. No wonder artists starve.


http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2010-05-10/dead-artists-are-still-a-better-bet-than-living-ones

Also a nod of respect and sorrow at the passing of artist Frank Frazetta on Monday night. He was considered the grandfather of fantasy art. If you don't recognize the name, I promise, you'll recognize the art. He did the covers of the Conan novels as well as the gorgeous busty women chained to stone pillars that inspired more than one lusty male... and a few females as well,  I'm sure. I have yet to encounter an artist who didn't appreciate his wonderful illustrations. Many of us were influenced by him on some level - whether by the fire of his imagination or his exquisite use of light and color. His passing is a great loss to the art world.

Just Finished

Photoshop painting - title: Alone

DAMage Report - Shut Your Mouth and Close Your Eyes - Censorship

Artist Jaesun Duggan had the joy of discovering his oil paintings in the Norfolk Public Library, as part of a display by the Franklin Art Association, were taken down and placed in a closet by a religious group that meets in the library.

The congregation for Providence Baptist Church, which holds Sunday morning services in the library, objected to the nature and deemed them unsuitable for their children. "One of the paintings, "Loa Offering," depicts red-shrouded skeletons. The other, "Dream Adrift In a Sea of Abyss," features a doll's head with a flower sticking out of it."


The religious group found the paintings objectionable and removed them, sticking them in a closet. While meeting in a public place. Uh-huh. Censorship and imposing your values on others doesn't get much more obvious than that. If the group wants to control what their members see and don't see (hello, can you say cult) then they should NOT be meeting in a public space. The artist naturally was a bit torqued. 


Censorship is a subjective topic. What is and isn't appropriate is often open to interpretation, dependent on a person or society's beliefs and self-image. Is censorship EVER appropriate? Sure. There are certain things that are and never will be deemed acceptable by common sense and humane morales. Anything that victimizes another such as child pornography, murder, abuse, racism - these are all things that most of us agree are unacceptable. The common denominator being that they involve one or more attacking a person or specific group that they have targeted. The sticky-wicket comes when censorship is applied outside the areas of criminal behavior. And it is. Often.Then censorship becomes an subjective imposing of what is and is not appropriate based not on accepted criminal behavior but on personal preference.  The definition of  what is “appropriate” varies depending on one’s religious, moral, ethical, and cultural background. 

A censor denies an individual's right to know, access, and come to their own conclusions on a topic. There really is only one purpose for any form of censorship: to enforce ignorance about a targeted topic. It is most often an abused tool used by those imposing their own ideas on others.


Nudity in art is one of the quickest visuals censored and has the highest double-standard. What is and isn't porn is subjective. Subjective equals personal opinion. What is and isn't appropriate for children is also subjective to a degree. A painting of bare booty should not automatically get the "OMG it's porn" stamp. We are getting ridiculous with our censorship bans in this society and allowing the uptight puritanical views of one or two people (or a gossipy clutch of hens) to dictate what we are and are not allowed to view and enjoy. 


I have found out what it is like to be silenced, my voice taken away and my right to share my ideas tossed in the closet. It is unbelievably frustrating.


Answer me this - Except for censorship of anything criminal in nature, what gives any person the right to dictate to others what they can and cannot look at, read, enjoy, and say - based on what they think is inappropriate? 

We need only allow a little censorship to become acceptable and before we have realized it, those little bricks of discrimination will become the blank wall that divides us from the real beauty of our True individual nature and ultimately ourselves. - Jaesun Duggan 

REF: http://sunchronicle.com/articles/2010/03/13/news/7092615.txt

DAMage Research - Plagarism or Tribute?

http://flavorwire.com/48319/alma-thomas-watusi-gets-the-white-house-kibosh

The 1963 painting by Alma Thomas (to the right) is extremely similar to a 1953 piece by Matisse (below).

it would be interesting to find out what the Hirshhorn Museum paid for Watusi.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/04/AR2009110405053.html

Thomas's painting was first exhibited in the '60s. At that time, you could no more plagiarize a Matisse collage such as "The Snail" than you could pass off the "Mona Lisa" as your own.

Elaborations on earlier artists' work, even full appropriation, have been common practice in art for hundreds of years. Artists long learned their craft by copying the works of older masters; even among high artists, it was standard.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_1_90/ai_82012872/

the 73-year-old artist found herself staring at the hollyhock shadows she had known her entire life and calculating

how to use them in her paintings. A year earlier, she had seen the late Matisse cutouts at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Matisse's work had prompted her to paint an acrylic-on-canvas version of his collage The Snail (1953), in which nearly all the original colors were reversed. Thomas named her painting Watusi (Hard Edge), after Chubby Checker's dance hit "The Watusi." As well as marrying high modernism with the popular culture of black America--then entering the American mainstream--the title she chose noted Matisse's debt to African art.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/Decorating-the-White-House-with-Smithsonian-Art.html?c=y&page=9

Pablo Picasso that, "the bad artists imitate, the great artists steal." Thomas' work here is a transformation of the Matisse painting. There is power in the decision to reverse colors and to change perspective from "L'escargot,"giving "Watusi" integrity to stand on its own as a distinctive piece.

**************************

http://venetianred.net/2009/10/27/alma-thomas-on-the-shoulders-of-giants/

illegitimate copying is real. Both Richard Prince (See VR’s “Prince of Pilfer”) and Jeff Koons have been sued by photographers for incorporating copyrighted work into their own. Koons lost the Rogers v. Koons case, but won a more recent suit under the “fair use” doctrine. Readers will remember that earlier this year Damien Hirst threatened to sue a 16-year-old over his use of an image of Hirst’s diamond-incrusted skull, in the process demanding royalties.

Thomas always credited Matisse for the inspiration that produced Watusi. It is obvious that the work launched her on a journey of artistic discovery that produced her unique and forward-looking (if not radical) mosaic style.

To assert that Thomas was “simply copying” Matisse would be to deny the rich and varied underpinnings of her work. Thomas was deeply impressed by the colors and patterns of the natural world around her.

**Credit to Venetian Red Contributors Christine Cariati and Liz Hager for excellent arguments and research

DAMage Report - The Right to Read

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-e-bertin/banned-books-week-still-n_b_302248.html

It is National Banned Books Week. No, I don't want you to go out and find a book that you would like to have pulled from the library shelves and tossed into the bonfire. There are enough people out there doing that already. In fact it looks like the trend is increasing, not decreasing. How damn scary is THAT? Now, in South Dakota, Utah and Arkansas they couldn't give a flying Huck Finn what you read. The remaining states are a different matter as the map shown in the link below indicates. The Northeast seem particularly protesty against "inappropriate" reading materials. http://bannedbooksweek.org/Mapofbookcensorship.html

Get this - there were more than 400 book challenges (requests for books to be banned) in 2007, 513 reported in 2008 and an on-going count in 2009, according to the American Library Association.

The most frequently challenged book on the ALA's list for the last three years was And Tango Makes Three, a children's book that tells the true story of two male penguins at the Central Park Zoo who found an abandoned egg, hatched it, and nurtured the chick.

Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn still ranks as one of the most commonly challenged books.

“Some people assume, book bannings happened in the ‘50s and ‘60s and they did,” Sandy Stuart-Bayer said. “But there are still book bannings going on today. ‘Twilight’ was banned, 'Harry Potter' was banned. This isn’t a new thing and unfortunatley, it doesn’t seem to be going away either.”

A list of Banned books including some recent surprising ones include:

Adventures of Huckleberry Finn – banned 1984
American Heritage Dictionary -banned 1978 and 1987
Banned From Public Radio: Humor, Commentary and Smart Remarks Your Government DOESN'T Want You To Hear - 1991

The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read -1995
Catch 22 - thru 1979
Catcher in the Rye - perpetual banned
The Claiming of Sleeping Beauty, Beauty's Punishment, Beauty's Release - banned 1992.
Daddy's Roommate - A favorite of censors
Decamerone - perpetual banned
Fahrenheit 451 - banned 1998
Forever - by Judy Blume - ban date not given but COME ON! Judy Blume?!?
Freedom and Order – banned by the U.S. Information Agency
Grapes of Wrath - perpetual banned

Literature in Society - dates not given but can you imagine?
Lord of the Flies - perpetual banned
Search for Truth in History - This video tape has already been banned in three countries.
Sylvester and the Magic Pebble - perpetual banned
The Valachi Papers - banned 1968

Some of these are ridiculous. However, the most ridiculous thing is that we have book bannings and burnings in 2009. Let me clarify something - we're not talking about protesting that erotica isn't on the shelves of middle school libraries.

A little common sense does come into play here. But protesting a children's book about gay penguins that adopt an egg AND is based on a real story, is the worst kind of censorship. It is demanding that personal agendas and tastes be imposed on everyone else - whether they like it or not.

DAMage Report - Freedom of Choice Goes BOTH Ways

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/nyregion/23complaint.html?_r=1

Art 'tards. Sometimes artists and galleries do more damage to public perceptions about art than

any narrow-minded, repressed, censorship-loving weenie out there.

The freedom to create and exhibit art without censorship comes with the responsiblity of giving those

who may not wish to see controversial or explicit art the freedom to walk away unscathed. Particularly in public

venues where children may see visuals that are age inappropriate.

We're not talking abstracted nude sculptures. We're talking semen spewing cowboys and blowup photographs of skanky celebrity vagina.

Forget the kids - I've seen enough pictures online of that particular poontang to last me a life time.

Mr. Bernstein points out in his NY Times article "It’s O.K. if [the gallery] wants to show vulvas in extreme close-up. (I don’t believe in censorship.) What’s not O.K. is that the only warning to parents was a tiny sign at the entrance to the gallery. The wording was clear — “These galleries contain graphic imagery. Parent/adult discretion is advised” — but the size and style of the sign made it unlikely that any harried parent would even notice it.

Points to the gallery for posting a warning. Demerits for not posting something legible/noticable. I understand there may be gallery esthetics involved but come on... by posting warning so they don't serve their function, the gallery ended up failing to uphold their responsibility to their visitors. Which was give them a CHOICE.

Another museum Mr. Bernstein took his son to could almost be accused of false advertising or at the very least misrepresentative marketing.

"A show by Takashi Murakami at the Brooklyn Museum in 2008 was a major draw for parents and kids. The first piece on display, a teaser in the museum’s lobby, was a playful sculpture of cartoonlike characters, which made my sons want to see more. So it came as a shock when, entering the main exhibition space, we were greeted by a masturbating cowboy spinning a lasso of his semen. There was no warning, unless you counted the sign urging parents and teachers to preview exhibitions before bringing children to see them. (Great advice, but hardly practical.)"

That kind of thing chaps my ass as much as seeing a sale circular for red boots, only to find out the store doesn't carry any.

The general public will continue to view (or not view as the case may be if they are given a damn choice) contemporary art as shocking, aggressive, and exploitive, reacting with automatic negativity towards subjects they don't understand and don't want to - if galleries, museums, and artists neglect to be sensative to viewer issues. Come on. How hard it is to post a warning and include relevant details in news stories? A writeup I read on the Murakami exhibit described the Lonesome Cowboy as "life-size but hardly lifelike sculptures of anime-manga derivation: “Hiropon,” a busty woman, and “My Lonesome Cowboy,” her well-endowed male consort. Both are mostly naked, with streams of bodily fluids spewing from various body parts." Is semen a no-no word in the media?

Like Mr. Bernstein, I don't believe in censorship of the arts. I believe if an artist wants to make it, a gallery wants to show it and a person wants to see it and possibly buy it - that is completely and absolutely their right and no one should take it from any of them. But I also defend the rights of the parent who doesn't want to expose their child to sexually explicit art.

Same goes for any person out there who doesn't want to walk into a gallery and be speared in the eye by the world's most exposed vulva of all time.

DAMage Report - Two-Faced Standards

http://www.examiner.com/x-14783-Law-and-Politics-Examiner~y2009m8d9-Are-the-media-and-art-communities-revealing-a-double-standard-with-the-Obama-as-The-Joker-poster

A piece of art depicting Obama in Joker-face has people foaming at the mouth, some in outraged opposition to it and others in heated defense. Accusations of racism, double standards, hypocrisy and plain old fashioned bad taste are flying all over the place. Christian Moore says in his article in the Examiner, "Many media and cultural elites have suggested the image is rooted in “hate.” I find this interesting given that a similar image of President Bush as The Joker ran in Vanity Fair. ...There is an unwritten understanding that artists are free to comment, critique and sometimes be harsh in their assessments, but the public expects artists to be fair in their targeting of this criticism."


The First Amendment is critical to artists. Without the ability to " creatively voice" their views, ideas, thoughts - they are left without a vehicle for that creativity. Of course there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. But slamming down the race card everytime someone looks cross-eyed at the president is idiotic. If Hillary had made it to the Presidency, no doubt there would have been a piece created with her face under the Joker makeup. I would have drawn worse myself. And that is my RIGHT.


An article in the LA Times states "At one extreme, the poster suggests that Obama is a psychopath who is completely out of control and running afoul of the law -- which he clearly is not. For a cartoon or parody to work, it must have at least one toe placed firmly in the realm of reality -- a credible starting point from which to launch into the free-for-all ether of comedy. ...The image of President Obama in Heath Ledger Joker-face is especially disturbing because it is completely devoid of context -- literary, political or otherwise."


I hate to state the obvious, but not every likes Obama. Oh, stop your gasping. It's true.

I'm pretty sure there is an entire political party that visualizes him as the bad guy on a daily basis. They may even draw devil horns and a villain moustache on his picture and throw darts at it. On top of that, a number of former Obama advocates have found themselves more than a little disappointed in several of his actions since he took office. No doubt some of those unhappy people are artists. Some might even be political satirists - you know - those artists that LOOK for political controversy so they can poke fun at it. Can political satire and art cross the line and tread on PC toes - of course and on a regular basis. Does that make it bad or intolerable? Of course not.


Art can be offensive. Different people will find different things offensive. Personally, I find paintings of golf courses extremely offensive, tacky, and unendurable... but that's just me.


Additional References:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/08/reading-into-the-obamaasjoker-poster-or-not.html

Art that imbeds itself in your mind and heart

This weekend while browsing through a gallery with a friend, i ran across the art work of a rather phenominal artist. Lucy Hunnicutt paints folk art that is not only rich with storytelling and humor, but also quite brilliant in use of symbols and historical references toward religious themes/tales.

Her paintings don't just hold you captive... they make you feel good. Not a lot of art can do that - evoke a sense of heartfelt pleasure while viewing it. I've had to limit my collecting to local artists because face it - any free cash i may have for art usually funnels into my own work. But this is an artist i covet. I want one of her paintings. I want it more than i want icecream on a hot, blistery day. And you can bet I'll be tracking her until i can get one.

http://www.southernbreeze.net/tour152.htm

DAMage Research - A Culture's Art/History... who does it belong to?

***http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/arts/design/24abroad.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

"As to whether Elgin had legal authority to remove the marbles, the Ottomans being the ruling power, as the British maintain, Mr. Pandermalis paused. “The problem is not legal,” he decided. “It’s ethical and cultural.” George Voulgarakis, a former culture minister, wasn’t so circumspect when asked the same question. He said, “It’s like saying the Nazis were justified in plundering priceless works of art during the Second World War.”

So both sides, in different ways, stand on shaky ground. Ownership remains the main stumbling block. When Britain offered a three-month loan of the marbles to the Acropolis Museum last week on condition that Greece recognizes Britain’s ownership, Mr. Samaras swiftly countered that Britain could borrow any masterpiece it wished from Greece if it relinquished ownership of the Parthenon sculptures. But a loan was out.

Pity. Asked whether the two sides might ever negotiate a way to share the marbles, Mr. Samaras shook his head. “No Greek can sign up for that,” he said.

Elsewhere, museums have begun collaborating, pooling resources, bending old rules. The British Museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Louvre and other great public collectors of antiquity have good reason to fear a slippery slope if the marbles ever do go back, never mind what the Greeks say.

***************

"Greece is insisting that the British Museum surrender the marble sculptures that Lord Elgin took down from the Parthenon and carted away in the early 1800s.

As curators all over the world will see it, those who call for the permanent return of the Parthenon sculptures from London are arguing for international museums to be emptied. Many other collections have a more dubious provenance than the marbles—think of the British Museum’s Benin bronzes, seized in a punitive raid in Nigeria; of the Pergamon altar removed from Turkey and now in Berlin; of Chinese treasures carried off during the Boxer rebellion and again during the civil war; of hundreds of works in Russian museums that were snatched from their owners in the Bolshevik revolution.

You cannot go very far in righting those wrongs without entangling the world’s museums in a Gordian knot of restitution claims. That is why, in December 2002, 18 of the world’s leading directors—from the Louvre to the Hermitage and from the Metropolitan Museum to the Getty Museum—argued for a quid pro quo. The Munich declaration, as it is called, asserts that today’s ethical standards cannot be applied to yesterday’s acquisitions"

***http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13900966

***************

"The Parthenon was built between 447-432 B.C., at the height of ancient Athens' glory, in honor of the city's patron goddess, Athena.

About half the surviving sculptures were removed by Scottish diplomat Lord Elgin in the early 1800s, while Greece was still an unwilling part of the Ottoman Empire. Most belong to a frieze depicting a religious procession that ran round the top of the temple."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_on_re_eu/eu_greece_acropolis_museum

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/22/Greece-urges-Britain-return-sculptures/UPI-36201245680874/

*********************

"The Greek government on Monday pointed directly to regurgitated excuses and a continued negative stance by British Museum officials regarding the reunification of the Parthenon Marbles, with a government spokesman stressing that "all excuses used by those who invented different pretenses to keep integral parts of this unique monument outside Greece have failed."

"They should return them," spokesman Evangelos Antonaros said,referring to the Marbles during the first week of operation for the New Acropolis Museum at the foot of the Acropolis.

"They (Marbles) should be brought back to Greece to the place they belong. It is unacceptable for a monument to be broken into pieces. I am certain that those who will visit the Museum will not have the slightest doubt that this has to be done and I am certain that in the end it (return of the Marbles) will."

He also spoke of "desperate efforts by those who have done wrong, to defend their positions."

Antonaros also expressed certainty that the Museum itself will play a decisive role in demolishing "obsolete positions, ones that will be impossible to defend anymore." http://www.ana-mpa.gr/anaweb/user/showplain?maindoc=7722962&maindocimg=7718871&service=10

********************************

Acropolis Museum reignites Marbles debate

Opinion still divided on whether artifacts in British Museum should be returned to be put on display in new building in Athens

REUTERS

Two 1st to 3rd century AD terracotta statuettes are seen on display at the entrance to the New Acropolis Museum, which will be inaugurated during an opening ceremony tomorrow.

By Christian Flood - Kathimerini English Edition

For Cambridge University Classics Professor Mary Beard, the Parthenon Marbles aren’t just a historical treasure; they’re a life-changing event. Seeing the famed pieces of Acropolis sculpture in the British Museum’s Duveen Gallery at age 5, Beard says, was “gobsmacking” – one of the things that influenced her to devote her life to the study of the ancients.

No surprise then that Beard – the well-known author of the 2002 book “The Parthenon” – was among a crowd of academic, artistic and political luminaries descending on the New Acropolis Museum for a series of invitation-only inaugural events that began on Wednesday with a tour for arts correspondents and the Greek media.

Greek officials have been meticulous about the proceedings: allotting four days for the events and inviting a long list of international guests, while framing the opening of the museum as an opportunity to cement public support for the stance that the Marbles – unceremoniously transported to the United Kingdom by British Ambassador Lord Elgin in the early 19th century – should be returned to the Acropolis.

AP Slides of the so-called Kritios Boy are projected onto the walls of the new museum on Wednesday night. The 5th-century BC Kritios Boy was one of the statues dedicated by the ancient Athenians to their patron goddess Athena on the Acropolis.

Divisive

But for several people with a stake in the new museum’s opening who spoke to Kathimerini English Edition in the past week, the issue remains divisive. And even Beard, a lifelong admirer of the Marbles who was set to attend an event yesterday evening for scholars and various supporters of the sculptures’ restitution, said she hadn’t been convinced either way on the issue.

“I’m not in favor of sending [the Marbles] back, I’m not in favor of keeping them,” Beard said from her home in Britain earlier this week. “I don’t think there’s many of us in the world like me who are actually on the fence about this... we sit extremely uncomfortably on the fence, the enemy of both sides, looking and wondering about the arguments.”

Such sentiments are hardly in keeping with the wishes of the Greek Ministry of Culture, which, in online materials documenting the “official Greek position” on the Marbles, lists an excerpt from a 2004 interview with Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis forecasting consensus in favor of the sculptures’ return.

“We are dedicated to our goal, the return of the Marbles,” the interview reads. “We feel optimistic that in the end, even the most doubtful will be convinced, and will change their attitude toward the matter.”

Converts

Undoubtedly, the new museum has won some converts. When Athens-born Oxford historian Angelos Chaniotis made his first trip to London to see the Marbles in the 1980s, he did not believe they should be returned to Greece.

Fresh from the clutches of a military dictatorship, the country lacked the infrastructure to make the display of the sculptures a viable priority, he said. Pollution, lack of restorative efforts on the Acropolis, and limited funding for necessary archaeological research elsewhere in the country were all concerns. And the old Acropolis museum, Chaniotis said, “was not adequate for the Marbles.” But from the outset the new facility promised better, he said.

“When it was clear that a very good museum was going to be built, I felt that there was absolutely no reason not to support every effort to return the Marbles there,” said Chaniotis, who planned to attend inaugural events this week. “The New Acropolis Museum is much better in every way than the British Museum in terms of display and research possibilities – it is in every respect the better environment for the exhibition.”

Others have been less quick to acknowledge the new museum’s ability to change the discourse on the Marbles. The British Museum, which planned to send two representatives to the inaugural celebration according to spokeswoman Hannah Boulton, maintained last week that it would not relinquish the sculptures, new museum or no.

“[The museum] doesn’t alter our view that the sculptures in the Museum’s collection should remain here as part of the unique overview of world cultures that the British Museum exists to present,” Boulton wrote in a statement to Kathimerini English Edition last week.

Add to that the fact that the new museum, a decidedly modern structure delayed for years partly by concerns over how its design would fit with its surroundings, has its detractors on the home front.

Detractors

“It’s certainly a functional venue,” said Ioannis Petropoulos, a classics professor at the Democritus University of Thrace and chairman of Harvard University’s Center for Hellenic Studies in Greece. “But its appearance is highly controversial, and I along with many think it’s a monstrosity out of proportion and out of tune with its surroundings, both the local architecture and the physical landscape.”

The new building, Petropoulos said, should not lead to the prioritization of further contention about the Marbles at the expense of other efforts like revamping Greece’s classical education system and improving archaeological and display practices in areas more provincial than Athens. Modern Salamis, site of a naval battle that “changed the course of human history” in 480 BC, is now little more than a “dumping ground,” Petropolous said, pointing to sites away from the Sacred Rock that deserve the nation’s attention.

Re-education

“Charity begins at home, so let’s get more professional, more scholarly at the provincial level and let’s re-educate the Greeks about the Parthenon,” he said. “I’m sure very few Greeks actually know the names of the individual buildings on the Acropolis. Ask a typical Greek high school student when it was built, who built the Acropolis, how do you spell ‘Parthenon,’ and I’m sure many people will be nonplussed.”

But for now, with all eyes trained on the Acropolis, and a third-floor display space in the new museum reportedly waiting for the receipt of the Marbles, the debate over their location seems destined to end no time soon. Beard, for one, has no problem with that – calling the Marbles controversy “one of the most interesting cultural debates going on at the moment” and citing its value for the worldwide discourse on the ownership of historical artifacts.