As a part of SCAD’s MA and MFA programs, students, regardless of focus, are required to take a set of graduate level Art History courses. Rather than the standard “survey” style course, these classes focus on art criticism, learning to effectively writing about art, and engaging with a variety of formats of artistic expression. As a part of our discussion in my current Contemporary Art course, we were given the following task and prompt:
Watch the short video “What Is Contemporary Art?”. Then, list three key factors or issues that you consider essential in studying contemporary art. Next, locate an artwork as an example of those features.
As I worked on composing my reply and surveyed several contemporary artworks (many of which are controversial in a variety of ways), I found myself thinking past the concept of “contemporary art” alone, and rather contemplating the relationship between art, controversy, and dialogue. Throughout history, these three realms have intertwined themselves, each feeding the other. From Michael Angelo’s “David” (1504) to Richard Serra’s “Tilted Arc” (1981) art has served to foster dialogue, discomfort, and discussion[1].
So…I wanted to take the opportunity here to share a “somewhat” modified version of my discussion response because, in today’s world of quick censorship and casual cancelation, the vital relationship between art, controversy, and dialogue, along with the progress it produces, is quickly becoming eroded and erased.
In the short film “What is Contemporary Art” the narrator poignantly hits the proverbial “nail on the head” when she discusses the different definitions of “contemporary art” that were collected from visitors to the Turner. The term ‘contemporary art” as you may have experienced yourself, often elicits a variety of vague connotations, gut reactions, and a sense of wariness from people…as if there is a mystical right and wrong and no one wishes to acknowledge the emperor is naked. Thus, we may often be tempted to readily dismiss the work, based on this initial reaction. I, myself, have readily fallen into this trap…this groove of ease…where it is easier to dismiss work as unengaging, untalented, simplistic, or offensive, crude, and tasteless. The easy out of “it’s not worth my time or effort to engage with…” is convenient, face saving and multi-faceted code for… “ummm yeah…not sure really where to even start with this…” or “hmmmm yeah…that makes me feel uncomfortable so it’s easier not to talk about it…” and my favorite of all…and the one used the most often…”Uhhh that’s not art…I mean a kindergartener could do that…”
Yet, while it may seem daunting at first and we may be tempted to take the easy way out, approaching contemporary art (or all art for that matter) with an open / inquisitive mind, a willingness to respectfully speak one’s thoughts and observations and an attitude of embracing discussion; can lead to deeper interactions with the works that extend beyond our shallow initial emotional and / or dismissive reactions to them.
For example, I have always considered myself a person of faith and…yes, like many, my involvement in organized religion and the church has waxed and waned cyclically throughout my life. Regardless, as I have gotten older, this foundation in faith has become more and more important to me. Despite not being a practicing Catholic at the time of its exhibition, I have always (and still do) found Chris Ofili’s 1996 work “The Holy Virgin May”[2] to be sacrilegious, offensive and, well, pretty much downright callous on a wide variety of levels. I remember, quite clearly the public response and outcry of many in 1999, when it was shown at the Brooklyn Museum of Art as a part of the “Sensations” exhibit. Its use of elephant dung, pornographic imagery, and racial caricatures to depict the mother of Christ and the cherubim is a rather tasteless form of “shock pandering” art that seeks attention and notoriety by stirring controversy. After all, no press is bad press, right? The truth is, prior to public demonstrations, picket signs and media coverage, very few outside artistic circles most likely had little idea who Chris Ofili was. He certainly was not a name known or discussed in my midwestern community. Yet, due to the controversy he gained prominence. Even today, while many may not be able to name him, those who were adults in the US in the late 90’s early 2000s most likely can recall the media coverage and the outcry over a depiction of the Virgin Mary, made from elephant poo.
And yet, despite my emotional rejection, I feel strongly that Ofili’s work has the right to be exhibited and engaged with. For me, art is fundamental in developing dialogue and reflection. It is a key part of moving us forward socially and culturally. If we apply these three key principles to highly controversial works, such as Ofili’s, we can actively engage in those dialogues, understand our reactions and the negotiated meaning we construct between the work and ourselves as well as the responses and meanings of others. Once we move past the surface, we can begin to engage with the nuances of the piece. Ofili’s work for instance speaks to identity politics, religion, colonialization, and many other concepts and themes, causing us to reflect, contemplate and progress.
By not simply dismissing Ofili’s work on a superficial, gut reaction, basis, and approaching it with an open and questioning mind, being willing to take the risk of engagement, and embracing the discussion the work fosters we are able to interact with the art on a much deeper and meaningful level. Art, and contemporary art, can be quite complex and may appear on the surface to not even be “art” at all, leading us to disregard it and denying ourselves the opportunity to engage and grow. We have entered a world today where “sensibilities” and potential “discomfort” are acting as means of censorship. Yes, we went to bed last night and woke up in a world where Bradbury’s “Farenheit 451” has ceased to be fiction and become reality.
But it is a dangerous reality we find ourselves in. We do not have to all agree…in fact we all should not…if we did, we would be mindless minions. But if we are afraid to offend, to make others feel uncomfortable, to tap into the deeper emotions of what it means to be human and a part of this world…then we will become stagnant…and, like stagnant water, we will be overcome with elements that suffocate and confine.
Therefore, my goal, moving forward, is to not “dismiss” a work simply due to my initial reaction to it, but rather to use these key ideas as a means of approaching and engaging in dialogue, constructing meaning and determining my own perception based on thoughtful, open-minded interaction. I would encourage others to do the same.
[1] BBC “Michelangelo’s David and 10 artworks that caused a scandal”. BBC, accessed April 11, 2023. https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20171018-the-works-too-scandalous-for-display.
2 Chris Ofili, “The Holy Virgin Mary,” MoMA accessed March 28, 2023. https://www.moma.org/collection/works/283373.
