|
December 14, 2004
Iconoclasm on parade . . .
Much as I hate to admit it, I'm beginning to see a practical (if fascistic) reason behind the Islamic prohibition on depictions of images. When the human image is rendered artificially, the result is often called art. Yet for murky cultural reasons, if the image is produced or created for commercial distribution on a large scale, it is less likely to be called art than if a single image is produced. Thus, these Japanese pillows (via Drudge) are not considered art. They are sold and used to help Japanese men and Japanese women sleep. Here's the guy pillow: And here's the girl pillow: Many Americans find this baffling, even frustrating. Yet if identical items were made here in the United States and displayed in art galleries, they'd raise nary an eyebrow. Increasingly, if an image has a political message, no matter how strident or offensive that may be, it is considered by many to be the essence of art, and the failure to display it (or the removal of it from display) is called censorship. A recent example is featured in the New York Times: Artwork in an exhibition that drew thousands to the Chelsea Market for its opening last week was abruptly taken down over the weekend after the market's managers complained about a portrait of President Bush fashioned from tiny images of chimpanzees, according to the show's curator.I don't consider the work especially attractive, and even though I voted for Bush, in all honesty I don't think a similar image of Senator Kerry would get as much attention. It's art, but it just strikes me as a bit of a hustle, if not a cheap shot. The artist, of course, does not monkey around; he's claiming that his art is being censored: The 23-year-old artist at the center of the controversy had been excited about the show. Mr. Savido said, "It's a portrait-slash-landscape and the monkeys just seemed to make sense. I saw one woman gave it the finger but I think it wasn't directed at the painting.""I came to New York to express myself," said Mr. Savido, 23, of Pittsburgh. "I would never have expected this censorship to happen here. I really feel powerless."Powerless? In this article he appears quite delighted by the attention: The Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-bred artist said he was happy for all the attention paid to his work but said the decision to shutter the exhibit was "a blatant act of censorship."It might have been even scarier to see what would have happened had his art similarly depicted Kofi Annan. Anyway, in fairness to the artist, here he is with his painting, basking in his 15-minute American birthright: But we must move on! There are more images, and, as they're compellingly close to the theme of this blog, I must discuss them. Dennis forwarded me a news report about male dancers depicting 5th-6th Century Greek Kouroi statues. Outraged viewers complained to the FCC about nude dancers portraying nude statues, forcing the NBC network to hand over a tape of the broadcast. Here's an uncensored image: (Via Tea Leaves.) Whether these statues are "historically accurate" is at least open to debate. The dancers are painted in gray, although according to a Reed College web site, it appears that the actual Kouroi were: almost certainly painted so that the figure was skin-toned in hue with details like eyes, lips and hair picked out in appropriate colors.(More on the historical Kouroi statues here and here.) While the legal issue will turn on whether or not the dancers' penises [they appear to be facsimiles of "archaic penises" if such absurdities can be] were shown on television, NBC claims it showed the dancers from the waist up. Is nudity the issue? I can't prove it, but I strongly suspect that the people who are upset about these dancers are upset because they think they smell a gay theme. They're not alone; some of the statues' proponents are unable to contain their suspicions. Again, "gay" is the wrong word, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, but that's irrelevant to the proponents and the opponents of the statues, who want to see a modernistic "gay" theme. Culture war thrives on romanticized idiocy on parade. (No such romanticization at this web site -- which ties together the Kouroi of ancient Greece with the Kuroi of modern Japan.) If traditional Islam had its way, of course, all these images and more would be treated the way the Taliban treated the famous 2000-year-old statues in Afghanistan. Right now, I think it's entirely appropriate to return to the theme of Greco-Buddhism (touched on in an earlier post), because the giant statues the Taliban blew up were considered classics of Greco-Buddhism: In 327 BC, Alexander the Great led his army through Afghanistan towards India. Shortly after, Buddhism spread in Bamiyan, developing a unique form of art known as the Greco-Buddhist style from the Gandhara area.Greco-Buddhism? Can't have that, can we? Someone might get ideas about starting a new ("gay") religion or something. The violently iconoclastic approach of radical Islam, while perhaps understandable in light of their medieval cultural frustrations, creates a backlash which ultimately ends up promoting the message they seek to destroy. Here's Charles Paul Freund: Until their destruction, the statues were mostly unknown except to those specializing in Gandharan art, a syncretic Greco-Buddhist mix. Even admirers of Buddhist art have focused on more graceful examples found elsewhere in Asia.I'll bet the Taliban crackpots never imagined they'd be breathing new life into Greco-Buddhism, especially in light of the renewed interest in Hellenistic culture. Speaking of Hellenistic stuff, no one seems to be in any hurry to excavate the Roman baths in Nazareth. (Original link via the Flea; also discussed infra last year.) The official Palestinian line, of course, is that the Romans were never in Israel (er, "Palestine") at all -- because that would mean the Jews once lived there. (No, seriously!) Modern Christian sects don't seem to be terribly enthusiastic about the idea of Nazareth as a Roman military town either. (Politicized history is another subject, of course, but it's almost as bad as politicized art. ) posted by Eric on 12.14.04 at 08:10 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Oddly enough, it's alright to parade naked in Berkeley. On second thought, there's nothing odd about that at all. Just as long as it isn't televised.
So the real crime must be the televising, not the doing.