Banksy's Latest Installation

With another installation at the British Museum last week, Banksy is back in the headlines. This time he provided the museum with an artificial prehistoric rock with a figure pushing a shopping cart on it. Next to the rock was an accompanying label which read:

"This finely preserved example of primitive art dates from the Post-Catatonic era. The artist responsible is known to have created a substantial body of work across South East of England under the moniker Banksymus Maximus but little else is known about him. Most art of this type has unfortunately not survived. The majority is destroyed by zealous municipal officials who fail to recognise the artistic merit and historical value of daubing on walls."

The British Museum did not have nearly the response that New York museums had when they fell victim to Banksy's antics a few months ago. A spokeswoman for the museum indicated that the manner in which Banksy displayed the rock and label was particularly convincing because it was in keeping with the British Museum's installation design. The museum even went so far as to lend the work to the Outside Institute for Banksy's latest show, which opened in London last Friday (they are expecting it to be returned when the show closes).

Without reiterating my position on his art or the underlying purpose to his art, I will simply express my admiration of the British Museum. In addition to the refreshing institutional sense of humor, their response indicates an appreciation for contemporary art and recognizes that Banksy is not afterall just some loser vandal, but someone who has something to say and, most importantly, deserves to be heard.

Testing The Boundaries of Conceptual Art...and the Law

In a previous post I examined the issue of public art as vandalism, where works were defined as vandalism by their lack of authorization. That is, public art that is authorized can not, by definition, be vandalism. In that discussion, vandalism on private works of art or attacks on or alterations of other works of art were for the most part excluded, except to point out that such acts might still be considered works of art. Recent events in Seattle have lead us to examine a variation of this issue more closely.

A group of artists calling themselves the Philistine Group, led by artist Brian Balsa, began stealing works of art from small galleries, alternative spaces and the houses of their friends sometime last summer. According to the group, the project started out with the intent to remove what they considered bad art from display but evolved into stealing the works they appreciated as a way of bringing attention to artists who deserved to be recognized. Balsa explains that it was the group’s intention to return the artworks in something called the “Repo Show.” The show occurred two weeks ago at the Aftermath Gallery and owners or artists showed up to reclaim their property. The police are currently investigating the thefts to determine whether or not to press charges against the group.

It will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out but there are a sufficient number of issues raised by the very nature of the group’s activity alone. The reports seem to suggest that it was the act of stealing that was the focus of the project (note the title of the first article, “The Art of Thievery Finds Space”), and ignores the fact that the return of the works finalized the project, which I find to be of particular interest. The question as to whether this is actually art simply on grounds that it was (for now, potentially) illegal, is irrelevant since the legality of creating art has never been a determining factor as to whether something is actually art. One could quite simply condemn the artist’s behavior as thievery (which the papers have done), but I think the larger issue at hand is the extent to which such acts should be condoned simply because the performers/creators consider the act or work “art” and what the overall ramifications for such acts/products might be.

First, attempting to define whether such works should be condoned is difficult, in part, because I think it requires one to answer the million dollar question: What is art? The Philistine Group can certainly be considered Conceptual artists and their act of theft is but one component to the larger work, although I think the Group fails to truly complete their work by neglecting to physically appear at the Repo Show. This essentially eliminates the possibility of achieving an interaction between those who had works stolen from them and those who committed the theft. Simply having people gather in order to hunt for their possessions seems unproductive and ultimately quite lame. No one really gains anything from the work and in the end the project doesn’t truly achieve it’s intended purpose. Thus, determining whether this could be considered art seems unnecessary since the concept behind the project’s implementation was inconsistent with its purpose, resulting in an act of theft (albeit with the property returned) and little else.

It reminded me a lot of the Chapman Brothers' destruction of one of the few surviving Goya print series “Disasters of War” a few years ago. The artists went through each of the 80 etchings and changed all of the victims’ faces to clown and puppy faces. “Disasters of War” is not only one of the first works to examine the horrors of modern war, but its historical significance can not be overstated. It is a work so powerful in its message and imagery that it still resonates in today’s world, particularly given the global and political climate. What might have been gained by their destruction could not possibly begin to compensate for what we have lost. Their "art" was almost entirely for the shock value of destroying something people admire and appreciate and little to do with actually producing something creative and artistic.

It may be a little early to know for certain what the overall ramifications will be from a project like that carried out by the Philistine Group, but I doubt little good can come from it, at least artistically. At the other end of the spectrum from the Philistine Group is Banksy, who adds artworks to museum and gallery walls (rather than subtracting them). Banksy’s art has a message, is artistically and technically well executed, and aims at raising an awareness of the relationship between museum and visitor as well as the museum’s ability to control the narrative of the history of art. In short, his art is purposeful. The Philistine Group’s project seems like another attempt to push the boundaries of what we can and can not get away with when we call something art. In the end, the Group’s concept was flawed and the execution was poor, as if a practical joke had gone wrong. The project was self-serving and ultimately seems contrived, pointless, and trite.

Springer Opera Bound For Broadway? God Squads Prepare for Battle!

Apologies for the temporary pause in new posts. They should increase in frequency within the week.

Back to business...

Two years ago this month, "Jerry Springer-The Opera" opened at London's National Theatre. After an extended run, the show moved to the Cambridge Theater late in 2003 and has been selling out performances ever since, despite protests over the show's content. The show somewhat recently made headlines when the BBC aired it in its entirety, unedited. So far the Christian Voice (I think you can figure out what kind of group this is) has thrown several temper tantrums and have called the show blasphemous and obscene. Initially scheduled for a spring release in the U.S., starting at San Francisco's Orpheum Theater and ending up on Broadway sometime this fall, a recent look into the Orpheum's schedule indicates no such showings for "Jerry Springer." I don't know if any theaters have pulled out as host to the show but I would imagine there are plenty willing to take it on (the show has won a wheelbarrow full of awards so far in the UK). The show's website however, indicates that it will be coming to the United States. I have a feeling that at some point we can expect to see "Jerry Springer-the opera" make its way to Broadway and when it does, hold on to your hats 'cause the religious right are going to have a field day with this one.

In addition to featuring a gay Christ in a diaper and tap dancing KKK members, the expletive laden show (the libretto is here ) includes topics ranging from from "Hillbilly Love Triangles!" and "A Transsexual Turned Me On!" to "Surprise! I Have a Bisexual Lover" and "I Refuse to Wear Clothes." Since the musical's producers and writers have no intention of editing the show's content, you can expect to hear some of the musical numbers including: "Diaper Man" (which is preceded by "Intro to Diaper Man"), "Eat Excrete," and "Every Last Mother F**ker Should Go Down," should the show make it to the U.S.

The show's ongoing success despite a few complainers is a true testament to artistic and expressive freedoms and I do believe that it would be a success here as well although we certainly should expect a more emphatic and scarier bunch of religious fanatics protesting. After all, one who may find the material offensive need not buy a ticket. However, the question as to whether a show like this, that clearly presents material people may find objectionable, should be shown on television is interesting. You can imagine that if people are up in arms over this in England, where the standards for mature content (even at 10 pm which is when the show aired) are a bit more relaxed, particularly concerning sex and the use of expletives, people would be up in arms and then some here in the U.S. Even if the show does make it to Broadway I guarantee you it will never make it to TV. NEVER.

"Jerry Springer-the opera" is supposed to be a very creative critique of American TV and popular culture in addition to being a truly original artistic concept. But all this is irrelevant. No one is saying that the problem with the show is all the foul language or that the topics are inappropriate or that there is nudity. The real issues? All something to do with Christianity. The idea that religion should be except from critique is pervasive and carries over into just about all other forms of art (see previous postings). Strangely enough, the visual and performing arts seem to be the most controversial means of communicating this critique. Certainly there is no lack of new literature criticizing religion, or Christianity more specifically, yet no one runs into a Barnes and Noble burning books or tearing apart magazines. It's the arts that take the punches. Sure, occasionally you get your store that won't stock a book or a cd because of its content and the impact may be substantial, but for media like the visual and performing arts, only so many venues are available and the number is lower when you exclude institutions that are run on state or federal dollars (which are most of them) who won't touch shows (or exhibitions) like this one with a broom stick.

Honestly, I'm tired of listening to people complain about art they find personally objectionable. Why anyone cares what anyone else does, sees, etc. is beyond me. We have bigger problems on our hands. Christ in a diaper is not one of them.