|
|
|
When Marcel Duchamp introduced his "Fountain" to the world, the definition of art was forever modified, and a whole new precedent of acceptability was established. Context became everything, and anything, even a urinal, could be art. As long as the gallery context was upheld, there could be no debate. Whether such a change was for better or worse, one can argue, but there can certainly be no argument as to what the far reaching ramifications of Duchamp's submission have been. Personally, I equate some of the sexualized work we evaluated in class, particularly the more grotesque imagery of Robert Maplethorpe and Joel Peter Witkin, with Duchamp's infamous urinal. Take them out of the gallery setting and they are anything but art. Of course, to my mind, the question as to whether these works are legitimate pieces of art is only secondary. There are far more significant considerations to be made.
As I look back on the artists we examined in class, I hardly know where to begin an evaluation. My opinions varied from indifference to repulsion, and as such, I am torn between a desire to leave this section behind altogether and a desire to attempt a more clear articulation of my dislike. In trying to formulate what it is that turns me off to these artists, however, I realize that it basically stems from an affront they give to my own standard of morality. Since this is such a personal consideration I fear it may be impossible to adequately defend my position to others. Still, I think there does exist an aesthetic ground for argument, where I can form a criticism quite apart from any code of acceptable imagery. Before moving on, however, I want to preface myself with regard to the generalized statements I made above.
Since we examined seven different artists over the course of the last month, it is unfair for me to universally group them together. Their work is quite diverse. The artists that offended me most were the ones mentioned above, Witkin and Maplethorpe. Their subject matter is, to me, entirely unacceptable, and I would argue, in very poor taste. The others were not nearly as troubling. I saw David Salle and Eric Fischel as being often inappropriate but not nearly as perverse as the aforementioned. Safer still were the works of Sally Mann, Jock Sturges and Cindy Sherman. Likewise, whether it be coincidence or not, I take the works of these last three photographers to be the most aesthetically viable of the group, while I consider the works of Maplethorpe and Witkin to be the most lacking. It is their photography which I will chiefly consider.
To me, the sexualized art of Maplethorpe and Witkin is much more an expression of their rights than an expression of aesthetic beauty. Even the most ardent Maplethorpe enthusiast would be hard pressed to defend the aesthetic value of his X-portfolio. Its notoriety is chiefly tied to it's shock value. Wendy Steiner, in her article "The Perfect Moment", points to the ridiculous nature of one museum curator's attempt to articulate the aesthetic value of Maplethorpe's X-Portfolio as it stood trial. To defend it on such a basis is to miss the point. Still, the defense of the controversial portfolio was ultimately enough to convince the jury of its artistic merit. No conviction was handed down. The question, then, is not as to whether these works are pieces of art, but whether these works are pieces of "good" art. I would heartily endorse that they are not.
|
