-
The Mole in Don Draper
June 17, 2013 | 35 comments
-
What Maisie Knew
June 12, 2013 | 97 comments
-
Frances Ha
June 10, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Love Is All You Need
June 4, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The Great Gatsby
May 31, 2013 | 13 comments
Conservative Tastes
Taking “Offense”
Not that anyone is shocked anymore, but the transgressive crowd which aims to shock gets upset if someone is actually shocked by their productions.
ANOTHER MONTH, ANOTHER media hurricane of “controversy” in “the arts.” Forgive my use of quotation marks in the previous sentence, but in our postmodern world, it’s hard to avoid them if you want to be precise in your meaning. More about that in a moment. For now, let’s just notice that neither controversy nor the arts can be taken at face value these days. I hope it will not be thought unduly cynical of me to notice a certain sameness to the controversies that regularly pop up in the arts world. Someone produces an image suggesting contempt and disrespect toward a sacred object or symbol — as it might be, a videotape of ants crawling over a crucifix — and those for whom the object or symbol remains sacrosanct howl in protest. The cultural institutions who have sponsored the image then take fright and withdraw it, whereupon the cultural left in its turn howls in protest — at “censorship.” There is a kind of ritual quality to all this, and to the media’s coverage of it, which has the effect of making an artistic celebrity out of whatever conceptual artist has had the idea of this particular act of desecration — unless, of course, his target be the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) — in which case he will avoid celebrity for fear of being murdered by the kind of fanatics who know nothing of quotation marks.
It is only in this wise that the arts ever come to most people’s attention nowadays, which is why we need the quotation marks for “the arts” as well as the “controversies” they so routinely generate. Perhaps I am unfair to David Wojnarowicz, he of the ant-infested crucifix, since he died of AIDS 18 years ago and controversy over his work, briefly displayed in an exhibition titled “Hide/Seek” at the National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian Museum, has only just blown up. Yet even in his lifetime, the path to fame and fortune pioneered by Andres Serrano or Robert Mapplethorpe was well established. It’s hardly surprising that poor Mr. Wojnarowicz’s work lay unnoticed for decades among the welter of such stuff produced by our conceptual revolutionaries before being tapped by the National Portrait Gallery and the Catholic League too late to do him any good.
As Eric Felten of the Wall Street Journal pointed out, there was a curious feature of the outrage against the outrage. I know this is hard to follow, but bear with me. The Catholic League got outraged first and then, when the Smithsonian took fright and pulled the offending video, the progressives and the art establishment got outraged. Most notable among the second wave of the outraged was Blake Gopnik of the Washington Post, who had reviewed the exhibition in glowing terms a few weeks earlier and found the scene of the anty crucifix to be “such an inconsequential part of the total video that neither I nor anyone I’ve spoken to who saw the work remembered it at all.” As Mr. Felten wrote, “So tired, so shopworn, are the art world’s provocations, they go unnoticed even by their advocates.” And yet, once it was pointed out to them that the thing had given offense, they treated it as if it were the linchpin of the whole exhibition.
You’ve got to wonder. If the purpose of the artist is to shock, then why does he or his apologists complain when people are shocked and attempt to “censor” him? Isn’t that a sign of his success? Isn’t that what he was going for? The affectation of Blake Gopnik or Frank Rich of being shocked that conservatives are shocked seems at least as pro forma and therefore a candidate for the quotation marks as the initial offense. I wonder if this is the result of a sort of shame-inversion. That is, the shockers choose to take offense at the fact that others have been offended by them because it allows them to shift the shame of their own behavior onto those who are shocked by it. Aren’t you ashamed to be shocked? they are asking the shockees. Aren’t you feeling guilty yet for the offense your being offended has given to the poor persecuted and, by the way, AIDS-afflicted gay people who have offended you?
For both sides, the ostensible cause of the shock is a stand-in for a lingering controversy (without quotation marks) about homosexuality. On the conservative side, the new social norms will no longer allow them to be shocked by open gayness, which is how enough Republicans were peeled off to get the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” passed in the lame-duck session of Congress. As a result, they have to find something else to be offended at — which is not meant to imply that they are not really offended. On the progressive side, their taking offense at having given offense is a form of utopianism: an attempt to insist on their fantasy of guilt-free sex by shifting the guilt onto others, namely those who are so shameless about their non-progressivism as to advocate the retention of guilt.
Yet guilt remains inseparable from real sexual relationships and probably even from same-sex ones. Under the different name of “transgressiveness” such guilt is recognized — and celebrated — by the progressives themselves in exhibitions like “Hide/Seek” without any hint of awareness of the absurdity of enshrining the transgressive and unofficial at the center of official culture in an institution called the National Portrait Gallery. The point of the artistic subcultural encoding that the exhibition celebrates is to obscure, not reveal, and when you make an exhibition, in every sense, of what has been hidden, it isn’t hidden anymore. Duh! Similarly, in becoming out and proud, the nature of gayness itself is changed from what it is everywhere in the Smithsonian show — that is something thrillingly secret and wicked-to something as banal and ordinary and untransgressive as, well, marriage.
THE EXPLICATION OR UNFOLDING of hidden gayness is repeated, too, in the curators’ explications of the works of art that have encoded it — I suppose because the audience for the arts has become amateurish and lazy, more politically than aesthetically motivated. It expects the artist to act as his own critic and not only create the art but tell you what it means. Take another example from the “Hide/Seek” show by Felix Gonzalez-Torres titled “‘Untitled’ (Portrait of Ross in L.A.),” which is a tribute to a now-dead gay lover. It consists of a pile of brightly wrapped candies in a corner of the museum, with the following explanation on a card displayed alongside it:
Viewers are invited to take away a candy until the mound gradually disappears; it is then replenished, and the cycle of life and death continues. While Gonzalez-Torres wanted the viewer/participant to partake of the sweetness of his own relationship with Ross, the candy spill also works as an act of communion. More darkly, the steadily diminishing pile of cheerfully wrapped candies shows the dissolution of the gay community as society ignored the AIDS epidemic. In the moment that the candy dissolves in the viewer’s mouth, the participant also receives a shock of recognition at his or her complicity in Ross’s demise.
Gosh! You get art, critical appreciation, guilt, and candy all at once. What’s not to like? But the best thing about it, so far as I was concerned, is the prominently displayed notice near to hand: “Please Note. Eating candy from this exhibition may present a choking hazard.” Obviously, the Smithsonian wouldn’t want to be guilty of complicity in your demise as well. In the exhibition catalogue, the card’s explanation is slightly expanded to note that the act of communion is “a par-taking of the body with deep resonance in Gonzalez-Torres’s own Catholicism.” Guilty again! Those darn Catholics themselves taught him the trick!
The same could be said, perhaps, about postmodernism generally — which, like the “Hide/Seek” exhibition, has its origins in the idea of “camp” as first outlined by the late Susan Sontag (a photograph of whom in youth and an erotic pose decorates the “Contents” page of the exhibition catalogue). In her “Notes on ‘Camp’ ” — a title already liberal with quotation marks — she wrote that “Camp sees everything in quotation marks. It’s not a lamp, but a ‘lamp’; not a woman, but a ‘woman.’ To perceive Camp in objects and persons is to understand Being-as-Playing-a-Role. It is the farthest extension, in sensibility, of the metaphor of life as theater.” The same could be said about “Hide/Seek,” which is really not so much about the gay world as it is about the birth of our own world, the world that lives between quotation marks. And just as the specialized taste for camp of which Miss Sontag wrote all those years ago has now driven out all other sorts of taste, so the secretly sexualized world of the gay-subculture of the 1920s and '30s has become the openly sexualized world of today. But the thrill of sexual transgressiveness as documented in “Hide/Seek” is gone.
About the Author
James Bowman, our movie and culture critic, is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of Honor: A History and Media Madness: The Corruption of Our Political Culture, both published by Encounter Books.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (32) | Leave a comment
More Articles by James Bowman
More Articles From Conservative Tastes
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/24/taking-offense
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A World Turned Right Side Up
- His Reach Exceeded His Grasp
- Once Upon a Time in the West
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Edward White| 2.24.11 @ 9:42AM
As a resident of Washington, D.C. and a frequent visitor to the National Portrait Gallery, I saw "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture" last month.
The exhibit shows examples of art that have acknowledged a variety of sexual identities. From Eakins to Warhol, many of the names in the exhibition are touchstones in the history of American art.
I saw the video, which represented a fevered hallucination, and the "ants crawling over a crucifix' was two or three seconds in duration. There was no shock value whatsoever. None!
The exhibit was innocuous. James Bowman is angry because gay artists and their art were featured in a major exhibit at the Smithsonian.
This magazine is becoming more reactionary with every passing day. Gay culture is in the mainstream now, and this is where it will stay.
Mr. Bowman, will you acknowledge that the greatest artists and minds of all time have been homosexual? Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, for example.
RacerJim| 2.24.11 @ 11:16AM
As a resident of the Maryland suburbs of Washington DC, the gay culture has given DC the highest per-captia AIDS/HIV/STD infection rate in the country.
Edward White, will you acknowledge that?
Bryan from N.I.H| 2.24.11 @ 12:59PM
It's not the gay culture that puts D.C. in highest STD rate; it's the heterosexual inner-city black population that has the highest rate, RacerJim. You need to get your facts right.
The District of Columbia reported a far higher rate of AIDS diagnoses than any other area (though the rate in the wider Washington area was surpassed by other metropolitan areas). A 2009 local government report found the capital city's HIV prevalence was 3%, including figures as high as 7.2% for 40-49 year olds, and 6.5% for black males. The highest incidence of AIDS was found among inner-city heterosexual blacks.
punk| 2.27.11 @ 10:11AM
I bet some of those "in the closet" married REPUG legislatures who think it"s too wussy to bag their man- hoods might be a factor...nu?
Rich D| 2.24.11 @ 12:23PM
Insufficient evidence for either one, Mr. White. What are you angry at?
PolishKnight| 2.24.11 @ 5:22PM
James, I'll bite on this one for you! (Pardon the pun)
While many of the greatest artists have been homosexual, so also have madmen such as Jim Morrison or Van Gogh. In other words, insanity and perversity have sometimes gone hand in hand with artistic insight and controversy.
We can also turn this around with a classic leftist insight about the founding fathers. Many of them were slave owners. Should ownership of slaves in general then be summarized as artistic and cultural merit? Many of the greatest Romans owned slaves...
Regarding the greatest minds of all time: Einstein wasn't gay.
But let's go back to the homosexual contribution to artistic expression: Very well. Are ants crawling around on crucifixes in the same league as Michelangelo?
Missouri David| 2.24.11 @ 6:40PM
You begin with a lie. I am a gay man, but in no sense am I a homosexual. Put the Bible back in our schools and get the NEA, biggest Lobbyist, out! I beg to differ that homosexual art is mainstream. I don't watch TV's primetime. Less than 2% of population telling us what to do. Greater is He who is in me than he who is in the world! Wake up America God scorched Sodom and Gemorrah off the earth and will not long tolerate such an abomination. Thanks and Merry Christmas
Alan Brooks| 2.25.11 @ 12:35AM
Some postmodern actresses aren't even attractive at all. Maybe if you encourage Hollywood to become more postmodern, viewers will lose all interest in sex and will read the Bible instead.
simon templar| 2.27.11 @ 1:34AM
No, I think James Bowman might be angry because some people decided to create a so-called piece of art that attacks and insults the cherished beliefs and values of the majority of this society and a large segement of the world all in the typical hypocritical fashion of the Left that seeks tolerance via the use of intolerance, insult, and offense. So, homosexual acts are now a full fledge culture? Mainstream now? What exactly does that mean? Should I expect to see some homosexual culture or acts this Sunday at Church? Just what is a gay artist? Can I pick them out of a crowd? Do they wear rainbow smocks? Yes, fevered hallucinations....I suggest you see a doctor, Mr. White.
simon templar| 2.27.11 @ 1:49AM
Mr. White informs us that, "This magazine is becoming more reactionary with every passing day." Loved that one. Reactionary? So, you did not find the artwork reactionary in any wat to the dominant culture. I get it whatever happens to disagree with your view of the world, your latest fancy, your latest pronouncement, your latest experiment in perversity, and your latest proclamation is REACTIONARY. Just who died made you God? Please explain to me what standing you and your left wing pc gang hold that places you in the position to dictate to the rest of us who is reactionary, racist, imperialistic, homophobic (really... whatever the hell that means), fascist, and on and on? Your control of the language is another matter. Yesterday it was illegal immigrant, today it is undocumented American. At what point did you and your ilk assume this position to tell all the rest of us what terminology is acceptable and what is not?
Occam's Tool| 3.17.11 @ 7:06PM
Jonas Salk---not gay. Albert Einstein---not gay. Richard Feynmann--not gay. JS Bach---not gay. Mozart---not gay. Beethoven---not gay.
Lot of "not gay" geniuses there. Salk had two marriages, one to the former mistress of Picasso---another "not gay." Einstein was a known womanizer, as was Feynmann. JS Bach could be gay, but had a lot of kids and a stable marriage. Mozart was also a bit heterosexual. Beethoven had torrid love affairs.
Not a fan| 2.24.11 @ 10:45AM
Yes, there always seems to be demand for "transgressive" art and humor. I just watched on YouTube a two-and-a-half minute video called "The Jesus Variations," by actress Heather Woodward.
It's a parody of the Last Supper, in which Jesus tells His disciples that the wine they are about to drink is His blood. They are appalled, and try various ways to refuse it or spit it out discreetly.
All except for the vampire at the table, who eagerly drinks it.
Ho hum...
Kaelan | 2.25.11 @ 11:43AM
Actually, Not just the Vampire drinks the blood...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhpjtjTSiLU
Al Adab| 2.24.11 @ 11:00AM
...And so much of it funded with other peoples' (taxpayer) money.
RacerJim| 2.24.11 @ 11:18AM
Exactly. Just like liberal NPR and PBS.
Petronius| 2.24.11 @ 11:37AM
Art is a big deal in what's left of this town. And I've seen enough oversubsidized junk in parks and public areas to last me. The subsidy of iconoclasm with tax monies is about triumph of perversity over normality. The iconoclast revels in his slam dunk victory over those he despises in the knowledge that along with the NEA, he has the power to force the people he hates to pay him for insulting them. Screaming "censorship"is bogus. These scumbags can display whatever tripe they please on their own dime. Just don't send me the bill.
Joe D.| 2.24.11 @ 12:28PM
We do not want to here what Blake or Frank Rich or their ilk say about censorship. They have censor more words from our language then we can remember ala PC.
Peter B. Nelson| 2.24.11 @ 12:30PM
Isn't it possible that on all sides the "offense" is a charade; or 'camp'; an act? God bless the Catholic League, but don't they need provocations just as much as the artists need censorship? The C.L. gets media coverage and donations whenever an offense is discovered. And the artists get media coverage and sales and grants whenever their work is censored. Each side wins in this post-modern co-dependent arrangement.
A. Murray Kahn| 2.24.11 @ 1:05PM
The candy caution is the perfect illustration of the madness! Wonderful. If Tom Wolfe had made that up, his editor would have removed it in the interests of "realism".
Roughcoat| 2.24.11 @ 1:06PM
Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo MAY have been homosexuals, but they were not gay. They couldn't be. Being gay is a way of homosexual behavior, a fairly recent phenomenon. It's swish and lisp and in-your-face flamboyance.
Rachel L.| 2.24.11 @ 4:01PM
You mean like Anderson Cooper, John Travolta,
Neil Patrick Harris, Sir Ian McKellan, and so on?
Bill| 2.24.11 @ 1:31PM
Could it really be true that the bourgeoisie has at last found a way to epater l'artiste?
Stoddard| 2.24.11 @ 1:44PM
"Shocking the bourgeoisie" is bourgeois.
Bill| 2.24.11 @ 4:04PM
And shocking the artist is___?
Dieter von Sprockets| 2.24.11 @ 2:34PM
"Your gay art has become tiresome. Now is the time on Sprockets when we dance!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHZR9SA5pOg
Sydney Strippers | 2.25.11 @ 8:13AM
In Sydney, we admire our gay and lesbian community for its cultural, political and spiritual contributions. I'm not sure that art or literature needs to be labeled as gay or non-gay. Sexual orientation does not make a painting great, a play spellbinding or a scultpure breathtaking. Why do we care what an artist or writer does or does not do in the privacy of his or her bedroom? I know I could care less. I admire creativity not choice in sexual partners.
henry| 2.25.11 @ 9:29AM
I don't care about the homosexual or gay influence in the arts; what I can't stand is the camp post modern arrogance which says "look how clever I am and how out of date you are". This has led to, for example, the opera critic of "the Spectator" dreading going to the opera, only to be exposed to the latest excruciating abortion.
Richard Baker| 2.25.11 @ 8:48PM
The solution is simple. Stop Federal funding for the arts, period. Do what was done before taxpayer dollars. Find a sponsor/benefactor and let them pay for it. So what if a lot of "art" doesn't come to light. It's not like there's much to miss.
simon templar| 2.27.11 @ 1:23AM
I say with put pig shit all over a crescent moon and star, call it art, insist the Smithsonian gallery it, and the tax payers pay for it and see what happens. Wha da think? Censureship? Free speech? Racism? Suppression of Artisic expression? Shock value? Getting a bit confused?
Occam's Tool| 3.17.11 @ 7:07PM
You are "sassy," Simon!
Reebok | 8.11.11 @ 2:51AM
is good
العاب | 4.11.12 @ 5:25PM
thank you ...good