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.
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.
posted by Corey Wyckoff at 2:15 PM
5 Comments:
I've come to think that the frustrating thing is not that these people CARE what others do and enjoy, but that the moral principles they're applying are false. Attaching importance to the morality that is endorsed in an artwork is fine; if the opera was, say, a positive portrayal of Nazism or something, I'd be inclined to think that opposition to the content would be more than justified. So if the question is "Are there moral limits to art?" then I think there's a decent argument that the answer is "yes." (Forget about the fact that a Nazi opera isn't likely to find a venue; the example is purposefully extreme.) My complaint with the rabid right-wing is not necessarily that they care about the wrong things (although they sometimes do) but that they get the wrong answers with staggering regularity.
This discussion touches on another aspect of art history that is often overlooked by many historians, it is what Michael Baxandall calls the “period eye.” The “period eye” has a temporal and geographical component. It refers to the interpretation and cultural context in which viewers of a particular period in time and location view a work of art and the experiences and ways of thinking that influence their perception of images. That is, we see works of art through the lens of the period in which we live and thus the morals and values we share at that time. I think this is pretty obvious.
Let’s look at Jacques Louis David’s Bonaparte Crossing the Alps . Painted in 1800, the work is a celebration of Napoleon’s greatness as a leader and a prime example of propagandistic painting if ever there was one. The dramatic glorification of Napoleon is punctuated by his dominance over the rearing horse and the inclusion of “Bonaparte” among the names of Hannibal and Charlemagne inscribed on the rocks in the paintings left foreground, thus confirming the ruler’s political and militaristic greatness.
It is without question that we perceive this work quite differently than those who viewed the work during the early nineteenth century. The morality endorsed through the picture has not changed, but the significance certainly has. Today we see this work as a testament to the artistic greatness of David and how it played a crucial role in the development of the Neoclassical style that would heavily influence most artists of the nineteenth century. We understand David’s work today as a function of his time and place in history and are thus able to appreciate his contributions to the history of art, despite the moral statement made by works like Bonaparte Crossing the Alps. If the artist is as historically important as David, there is certainly a point in which a work’s artistic quality and overall significance in the history of art takes precedence over the artist’s original intent and moral endorsement. That is, our understanding of the painting is a function of our social and cultural context whereby moral content gives way to a new perception, one that places the work into an historical framework and concerns itself with visual qualities or historical significance, resulting in an understanding and appreciation of the work in a way that makes sense to us.
It is disconcerting that the theocracy this country is becoming is exerting its strongest influence over the arts. I don't know because I'm not well versed in the history of art, but how different is this really from the majority of history? Maybe (sadly) the past 30 years or so have been less of an example of how the art world really is and more of an anomaly. Any thoughts?
I think what you are asking is whether the conservative response to works of art that might be considered objectionable is a more recent phenomenon (as a result of the theocratic ideologies governing this country) or whether it is something we’ve just endured over the history of art and whether this is just another example of the struggle between artistic expression and religion/government attempting to impose boundaries. (Please…if this is not what you’re asking let me know and I will re-address the comment). Indeed, there is a long history of criticizing art works that seem to criticize or even simply discuss, represent or suggest any alternative to the hegemonic culture, from the addition of fig leaves to Michelangelo’s nudes in the Sistine Chapel (years after the work’s completion), to the attempted criminalization of Mapplethorpe’s homoerotic photographs, to Mayor Guiliani’s attempt to close down the Sensation exhibition over Chris Ofili’s Holy Virgin Mary. Each of these examples (and the vast majority of the countless other examples that I couldn’t possibly recount here) demonstrate that the those grounding their arguments in religious or political beliefs, believe that art is considered constitutive, that is, that it has the power to shape the cultural identities at both individual and social levels. This perspective counters the idea of art as reflective, that is, culture is semi-autonomous and above the practical world which reflects society and the culture in which we live.
I’m personally more inclined to believe the latter rather than the former and I think that as a function of religion and government approaching art from the perspective of constitutive, you have an art world that reflects the distain for conservativism. I think our culture is somewhere in the middle but operating under the authority of a much more conservative government. As I mentioned in my previous comment, time lessens the impact of the work of art and works such as Manet’s Olympia, in its overt sexualizing of the modern woman. The work’s composition, namely the woman’s posture and the animal at the end of the bed, is appropriated from Titian’s Venus of Urbino. The negative response to Manet’s Olympia was, in part, because but because she represented a woman of the day and was not allegorical or a goddess or even some exotic woman, like Ingres’s Le Grande Odalisque, whose nakedness was acceptable by virtue of the fact that she was foreign. Today these images are classic, canonical in fact. Even Gauguin’s later interpretation Spirit of the Dead Watching is now accepted as iconic. Throw a modern interpretation of Olympia into the mix where the woman is replaced by a nude male figure and suddenly we have a problem on our hands (I can not for the life of me remember the name of the work). Fifty years from now people will look back and say “it’s just another work part of the progression,” but for now it strikes a chord with what is “wrong” with art today and likely to be considered obscene by the conservative viewer.
Mark, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the opera is a satire.
Post a Comment
<< Home