I saw American Beauty last night. If anyone wants to see why teenagers kill themselves and others, see this movie. If anyone wants to see utter hopelessness in the midst of spoiled luxury, see this movie. If anyone wants to see why there will be murders and suicides beyond number if we see even mild problems from y2k, see this movie. Imagine the middle class with "nothing to lose."

"Look closer."

Zev

-- Zev Barak (zev@msn.com), October 09, 1999

Answers

I recently watched Wierd Al Yankovich's movie UHF and I got the same feeling from it. Truly frightning.

-- Butt Nugget (nubuttet@better.mousetrap), October 09, 1999.

"she took the box!!and what's in the box??NOTHING!!!ABSOLUTLY NOTHING!!!YOU SO STUPID!!!"

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), October 09, 1999.

fear the generation of entitlement when they are forced to go without....

-- apokoliptik (apokoliptik@lar.ge), October 09, 1999.

We still have a middle class in this country?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 09, 1999.

The face of hatred is on display at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, a dung-splattered image of the Virgin Mary. This, supported by the government (the very same government that disallows Bibles in public schools, or prayer before football games). Frank Rich, in today's NY Times, decries authors who say that the image is "dung splattered." He doesn't offer an alternate descriptive: I guess we should all indicate that a lump of animal dung was "lovingly placed" over the breast. The defenders of the piece never show a trace of sensitivity or concern for the feelings and beliefs of Christians; yet, mutatis mutandis, imagine their reaction if an image of Holocaust victims had been appliqued with dung, and decorated with pornographic cut-outs. Imagine, too, that the government SANCTIONED the display with cash! Think of the hue and cry! But of course, I am being insensitive for even imagining such an inversion. Abe Hirschfield brought up the example of the Nazi show on "degenerate art," which is funny because that, too, was a government-funded display of Hate Art. Our high art illuminati have embraced scatology, and forsaken compassion. They will reap what they sow.

-- Spidey (in@jam.gadfly), October 09, 1999.

Here's the really important question: Will western civilization survive long enough for Kevin Spacey to get his second Oscar?

-- big (fan@of.kev), October 09, 1999.

The movie sounds like a Lolita redivivus, set against a backdrop of suburban loathing. Yawn; not even worth the rental. I long ago decided (and I know others have thought of this as well) that EVERY film would be improved by the last-minute emergence of Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Terminator, to blow away every character in the film. Such a dadaistic denouement would serve, each time, as a splash of water in the face of complacency. Wake up! Get a life! A fish!

-- Spidey (in@jam.yup), October 09, 1999.

If I may, Spidey, I'd like to offer an explanation of the Virgin Mary piece that I heard (This is not meant as an endorsement), and of the rest of the "Sensation" show at the Brooklyn Museum.

You see, the art world these days is about "Recontextualization." The Damien Hirst pieces (which I find fascinating - that's the Shark in the formaldehyde and cross sections of the cow, etc.) are probably the easiest and most shocking examples of this trend. The idea is to take something that is common, and change the context in which you see it. You might see cows all the time, but you never see them cut into cross- sections, in a museum. Somehow, this is interesting.

With the Virgin Mary piece, the elephant dung, (and my understanding is that it was "placed, not "splattered") represents the fertilizer that nourishes the soil of Africa, and it's "placed" as the breast, which nourishes the baby Jesus. The phallus's surrounding her are there because, well, she was a virgin, and we've become obsessed with sex in this society. So, in taking common images, and putting them together, it changes the context of each of those images.

An artist friend of mine said that the person who did the Virgin Mary piece has to use dung (and not only on this piece) because he is a lousy painter. (from what I've seen of the piece, I would tend to agree.) I've heard that the artist is adamant that it was not meant as an insult.

Also, the art world is about creating a... well... Sensation. That's how artists make their names, and how collectors increase the value of their holdings. I would say that this show, which is pieces from the collection of Charles Saatchi, of advertising fame, is aptly titled.

New York Mayor Guiliani (and all the other people complaining about the show) are doing the collector and the artists a great service by bitching and moaning about it. The value of the Virgin Mary piece probably rose a thousand times because of all the publicity, it will forever be known as one of the most controversial works of art of the late 20th century. Plus, everybody will make out like a bandit because the museum charges $9.75 to see the collection.

Also remember that Guiliani is SUPPOSED to bring attention and thereby tourists to New York City, and the art world is VERY important to New York's charm. He's doing a great job, whether he means to or not. If he really didn't like the piece, the best thing he could have done was to keep his mouth shut! I'm sure the collector, and the artist are laughing all the way to the bank. In the long run, it won't hurt the museum, either.

I'm planning on seeing the show in a few weeks, once the crowds die down. I'm not impressed one way or the other by the Virgin Mary piece, but I do want to see the pig cut in half...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), October 09, 1999.

Spidey :

Apparently the "art" exhibit in NYC is a LOT worse than the lamestream media would have us believe.

I have read that in addition to the elephant dung you spoke of, ther are also depictions of female genatalia and pictures from Hustler magazine on the picture as well.

Other exhibits in the show include depictions of pedophila, dead animals and more.

-- ActionBill (actionbil@aol.com), October 09, 1999.

PShannon: I've read all the verbiage in the Times, Voice, etc., but was especially saddened by Frank Rich's column. Never famous for acute thinking, I was surprised by his utter lack of consideration: he, and the other apologists for scatology, indulge a dogmatism that makes no allowance for human feeling, which I find odd, coming from the same gang of idiots who made 'Tolerance' code for 'anything goes.' I'm also no fan of Guliani's: he's pandering, and it shows. The rationale you describe is simple deconstructionism: anything can be shown to mean anything. The notion that this is his way of expressing 'Africanism' is, pardon the pun, crap. It is a vapid excuse for a perverted high art market to market a Culture of Scatology. I know others disagree: as an artist, this is what I think. If you doubt that the high art market is perverted, read the new book about the Crispo bondage murder. I also would hasten to seperate out the issue of government funding of the arts from that of promoting Hate Art. If able, I would ask Mr. Olfini what he holds dear, and also what he finds repugnant, so that I might decorate the former with the latter. As a post-Modern ironist,he would probably say he held nothing to be precious. Thus our heralds praise as artists individuals who lack compassion, and seek fame by offending sensibilities. That is not art: it is marketing.

-- Spidey (in@jam.77thst), October 09, 1999.

I would agree with you, Spidey, that the high art market is perverted , and that it's about marketing. Guiliani, in his bid to reach upstate conservatives, is playing an (unwitting?) role in that marketing. Rich makes a good point, however, about the consistency of his message.

BTW, folks, the Frank Rich column can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/rich/100999rich.html

-- (pshannon@inch.com), October 09, 1999.

More: the museum director complains of the logistical difficulty of replenishing 12,000 live maggots each day for the fake cow's head. Many of the pieces celebrate the decay of the flesh, as critics have cooed. It betrays a crypto-fascism that mirrors that found in undercurrents of Weimar society: a disturbing fascination with death. It is an example of why Pope John Paul II has identified ours as a 'Culture of Death,' and has asked all to seek out love in their hearts. I see (as I wrote on different threads this morning) a convergence of dangerous trends in society: rampant transnationalism in the economy and governance, an increasing fascination with death (car crash shows, death videos, the Brooklyn exhibit, slasher novels and films), a loss of public integrity and propriety that is mind-boggling, and vast improvements in fascistic technologies of control. None of it can be good.

-- Spidey (in@jam.prolix), October 09, 1999.

No, it probably isn't "good." Yet, it "is." I suppose that it can be argued that one of the "purposes" of art is to point out what "is" in the world. If what "is" includes perversion and a fascination with death, then the artist serves as a mirror to the society, and then it is up to the individual to process that, and decide if they want to participate in those things. Of course, the flip side of this is that the artist then contributes more of this to the culture.

Do we want our common obsessions and perversions pointed out to us? I haven't seen American Beauty, but it seems that it does the same thing. Does art need to entertain, meaning leave us feeling good? Or isn't it just as valuable to have us feel bad? Does walking away from a work of art feeling bad make us perpetuate that in the world? Or does it help us to be more aware, so that we can find ways of making ourselves and others feel good? Isn't all of this part of the evolution of human thought, which is a process without goals?

I don't have the answers to these questions...

-- (pshannon@inch.com), October 09, 1999.

When evil is branded, it thinks of weapons. Try an indirect approach.

-- King Wen (kwen@clearlight.net), October 09, 1999.

Let's leave art to be debunked by the art world and Guiliani to be voted out of office.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), October 09, 1999.

"Does walking away from a work of art feeling bad make us perpetuate that in the world? Or does it help us to be more aware, so that we can find ways of making ourselves and others feel good?"

It doesn't matter. Depressing art dies. Inspiring art lives. The public is the final judge.

Think about this: Whenever Xmas rolls around, the same movie is played on TV over & over & over & over & over. Which movie? of all the thousands of films that Hollywood has cranked out over the years, which film do people want to see regularly every year...?

"It's a Wonderful Life."

A more optimistic, life-affirming, heart-warming, sentimental piece of crap has never been produced, & it's the most massively popular favorite, year after year after year. You can bet they'll be showing that on TV (if it survives) long after Mr. Cow-dung-and-maggots has been totally forgotten.

-- big (fan@of.jimmy), October 09, 1999.

PShannon, I appreciate your comments, although I always thought the depiction of what 'is' was the purview of the journalist. But I know what you mean...what's the French expression? "Etape le bourgeousie" or something similar: SHOCK 'EM! At the famous Armory show at the beginning of the century, when NY audiences were exposed to "Modern" art for the first time women screamed and men fainted, and had to be dragged into the street for fresh air. Art must be allowed its gadfly status, although its ironic to note Montebello's choice for the fall season at the Met: Ingres, harldy a fire-breather. But Ingres was a master technician, and the people will always be drawn more to beauty than to ugliness. People grow flowers in their gardens, not weeds (well, depends on the weed). What I object to is the uniform lack of compassion for Christian sensibilities, all while around the world (Sudan, Timor, China) Christians are being tortured and murdered. A fascinating double standard.

-- Spidey (in@the.jam), October 10, 1999.

This entire show made it throughout Europe with no complaints. Leave it to the Americans, with the corncobs up their asses to start whining. You guys are a real bunch of bozos. Here again is another case of the media overblowing something.

-- (Don'tHaveACob@NYC.com), October 10, 1999.

Had I saved this morning's movement, would you like to see it?

No? Well, then, I guess I would have had to to spread it on a canvas before gaining your attention and appreciation (you are such a deep thinker!)

The end is near (BTW) - and the artist in question is almost certainly demon possessed.

-- Me (me@me.me), October 10, 1999.

Dear Cob: You are utterly mistaken. In London last year, people threw eggs and defaced a huge portrait of an English child-murderer, sort of England's Charles Manson. Armed guards had to be posted. The portrait (which to Americans looks like a knock-off of Chuck Close) was done with children's handprints, and to many was a shocking display of insensitivity towards the children's suffering (apparently the murderer tortured the children). But what the hell, it's only child murder.

-- Spidey (in@jam.wired), October 10, 1999.

Art my ass! Let's restore dignity, respect, ethics, compassion, morals, correctness, patriotism, character, good taste, honor, common sense, and HOPE.

I'm sick to death of the UNWORTHY hiding behind the first and second ammendments. What a bunch of demented creeps calling themselves 'artists' and that includes the scum in Hollywood and the spineless worms in our media. Nobody knows right from wrong anymore in this country. I say, force them back under the rocks from which they've crawled. Let's begin with Hillary and her 'room-mate'.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 10, 1999.

Unlike the rest of the American SHEEPLE.....I personally give a damn about how MY tax dollars are spent. As a side note, we're yanking our son out of the morally VOID public school 'symptom' next week, to begin homeschooling. The government is TOTALLY out of control and we CHOOSE not to participate in that farce any longer.

Go Guiliani!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FREEDOMMMMMMMMM

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 10, 1999.