offensive?
There was a curious juxtaposition of news stories yesterday.
First, Danish newspaper cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, speaking yesterday in a private home in  Manhattan, told a group of  listeners  that Muslims need to develop a sense of humor and an appreciation of satire — and they need to understand that they are not “free of being mocked or being offended”.
Westergaard is famous for this satirical drawings of the Prophet Muhammed which appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005.Â
The Islamic community found the drawing so offensive that violent protests erupted across the Muslim world.  Several months after the cartoons were published, a Pakistani cleric reportedly offered 1.5 million rupee — roughly $16,700 — and a car to anyone who killed Westergaard.Â
Several Danish embassies were attacked and last year, three men were arrested in Denmark in a plot to kill Westergaard.
Westergaard has been in a sort of Salman Rushdie hiding since 2005, but now is scheduled to speak at Yale University, where members of the Yale Muslim Students Association say they are ‘deeply hurt and offended’ by the invitation.
And what exactly was Westergaard’s crime? Â He drew a satirical likeness of the Prophet Muhammed.
Fine.
Now we come to the second story.
The venerable Tate Museum in England is withdrawing one of it’s works from public view because some people might find it offensive.
The Richard Prince exhibition, which opened yesterday did so without a piece that included a photograph of a nude Brooke Shields at the age of 10.
The exhibition was to be shown as part of the gallery’s program “Pop Life: Art in a Material World†but was closed off from display after newspaper reviews drew the attention of the police.  The exhibition, and the controversial photo, (which was authorized by Ms. Shields’ mother), by the way, were shown at The Guggenheim here in NY in 2007 and no one seems to have died.
And, as Jonathan Heawood notes in The Guardian
This story breaks on the same day as news that the most banned booksin American libraries include JK Rowling’s Harry Potter books, Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy (at number two) and the true story of two male penguins at a New York zoo who form a couple and are given an egg to raise – And Tango Makes Three (at number one). Attempts to ban these books have been led by religious groups, who are, no doubt, deeply “offended” by their content, whether on grounds of sex, witchcraft or heresy.
Art can, and should be offensive.
There is nothing wrong with offending people, or their most deeply held beliefs.Â
The idea of art is to force people to think, to question, to engage. Art should stir deep emotions, not just be a pretty picture on the wall.Â
Powerful paintings make us feel; powerful photography may be shocking, but it also makes us feel something.
As video makes the transition from craft to art, I hope that it can do the same.Â
We always say that the point of television is to ‘entertain and educate’. Certainly the emphasis has been on the former since the medium’s inception. Now that everyone is going to get a shot, I hope that from time to time we also have the courage to engage and to enrage.
Â
3 Comments
Ellen October 03, 2009
Never underestimate the power of the newsweb to generate outrage, for an image that has been public and known. However, the fact that the picture was taken at all (the *pictures* no doubt), is simply awful. The mother is no mother but an exploiter of the most heinous sort. The fact that she regretted the event, that she, or Shields, tried to protect herself 30 years ago from having these images displayed, should have some impact. Please, be human! The girl in jeans atop this post is not naked or 10 years old! And to conflate this with any banned books, or conflate all banned books together, is nonsense. Words and images of *specific people* are not the same thing. “Censorship” is a broad brush, like any label is, and we need to be more precise, exact, what’s another word for it? Case by case?
Am I offended? No. Disgusted? Yes. Sometimes the police do what needs to be done, whether we like it or not.
Michael Rosenblum October 03, 2009
Hey Avery
You will never believe this, but yes, Jackass, the Movie is playing at… The Museum of Modern Art this week
http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/films/996
So yes, Jackass as art.
apparently.
Heather October 03, 2009
Yes, I’m offended. I’m offended that the Tate took a piece down as a result of police attention and ‘the possibility that some might be offended.’ I say, grow some balls, Tate.
This is my favorite quote from the blog: “The idea of art is to force people to think, to question, to engage. Art should stir deep emotions, not just be a pretty picture on the wall.”
Agreed.
If a piece – whether it be a painting, music, a film – doesn’t cause the viewer/receiver to feel something, then it’s forgettable. And then what’s the point, really?
Avery October 02, 2009
People who claim that they are offended are people who CHOOSE to be offended.
If you are saying that art is only really art if it offends then you will end up with the likes of Andres Serrano’s type of crap– or in his case Urine.
I’m all for getting people to think or view something in a new light but if the goal is just to offend then why bother?
In my view art should elevate not promote baseness.
Not quite a year ago I visited a relative who lives in New York. He had a original water color by some old guy that depicted little girls who battle nazi’s, Henry Drager I think is the “artists†name.
I was amused that my brother made sure that the “safe†side of the watercolor’s double sided panel was the only side displayed.
Guess he figured I would have been offended if I saw what was lurking on the other side. It has adolescent female nazi fighters naked and the fact that they were drawn with penis’s instead of the usual female standard issue plumbing.
Is it possible that some people see this as valuable art because some mentally unstable janitor drew the absurd images that may cause some to be offended? Is it art? Maybe.
I see it as an interesting look into the mind of the mentally insane, not so much as art but either way it doesn’t offend– because thats the choice I have made.
The next time I have the misfortune to view an episode of Jackass I will try and think of it as art. They do their best to offend the viewer with each juvenile stunt they preform. Yeah, Jackass as art, I think I can think about it that way…