Chalk one up to Freedom of Expression!

June 8, 2000 9:42 AM

Chalk one up to Freedom of Expression! *** WARNING *** Viewers may be offended by bare-asses sticking up in the air!!! Is this art? In my view, yes. Maybe next time they can face upward and fill in the potholes, instead of creating more speed bumps.
posted by da5id (19 comments total)

I think that my problem with most "modern art" is that it relies too heavily on shock value, and that as such it is too transient.

I have found that I apply the following heuristic: If after fifteen minutes of continuously experiencing the "art" I find myself bored, then it isn't really art.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 11:36 AM on June 8, 2000

Even though I have no interest in "shock value" stuff, which I find juvenile, I don't share your definition of art (I won't say I think your definition of art is "wrong" because you can define art any way you want). Sometimes something can be fleeting and still have an effect on you--even if that effect wears off quickly. I've read haikus like this. And to me, they are art.
posted by grumblebee at 11:42 AM on June 8, 2000

Let me add my enthusiastic cheer.We are after all, all nude underneath our clothing =]...If some prudes can't deal with that, that's unfortunate.
posted by meaning at 11:49 AM on June 8, 2000

Check out some other of Spencer Tunick's work. It's more than just shock value. The human body itself is a work of art.

He celebrates our uniqueness.
posted by thinkdink at 12:06 PM on June 8, 2000

I guess all those grand masters of painting and sculpture who used nude models were just cheap and transient attention-seekers. Who's ever heard of Michelangelo, anyway?


posted by dhartung at 12:27 PM on June 8, 2000

> Let me add my enthusiastic cheer.

For what? Freedom of expression? Woohoo! Artists can now take picture of nude people under bridges! What a giant leap forward in terms of human rights! This seems more like a victory for silliness to me. And I don't think this country has been lacking in that lately.

> We are after all, all nude underneath our clothing

What's your point? That people should be able to wander around naked anytime they want? I don't think that's a good idea. Or do you just want artists to be able to show naked people in public? I think they've been doing plenty of that for years. Who cares?

> If some prudes can't deal with that, that's unfortunate.

What prudes are we talking about? People who think a bunch of naked people lying in the street is pointless, silly, and in bad taste? I didn't think I was a prude, but count me in.

At some point I think it's a good idea to decide that just because something is unusual or shocking, that doesn't make it art.

> you can define art any way you want

No you can't. Art is a cultural thing, not a personal thing. Personal would be something like "hobby" or "idiosyncrasy." If you define art as "Things start with the letter L", that's not valid. Saying that art is whatever you think it is just dilutes "art" to the point that I don't understand why anyone would care.

So chalk one up for this guys ego. Not for art.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:34 PM on June 8, 2000

Methinks y6y6y6 doth protest too much...
posted by solistrato at 12:37 PM on June 8, 2000

I'm with y6y6y6 on this!!!!
posted by FAB4GIRL at 1:09 PM on June 8, 2000

That is a common sentiment. I certainly won't try to argue the point. I just don't understand why we should be cheering this, or calling it a victory for freedom of expression. Or a celibration of my uniqueness.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:17 PM on June 8, 2000

> you can define art any way you want
No you can't. Art is a cultural thing, not a personal thing. Personal would be something like "hobby" or "idiosyncrasy." If you define art as "Things start with the letter L", that's not valid. Saying that art is whatever you think it is just dilutes "art" to the point that I don't understand why anyone would care.

y6y6y6, I'm confused, please explain. Are you saying that there IS a strict definition of art? And who's to say that someone somewhere may not view "things that start with L" as art? Why can't the definition of art be subjective? How does my appreciation of different forms of art from someone else dilute it?

The art that I appreciate may be very different based of my level of education, the culture I grew up in, the values I grew up with, the time, the enviroment, etc., etc. Everyone being shaped by a totally different set of circumstances will have a very different view of art.

I personally think that trying to put rigid standards and definitions on "what is art" is what actually dilutes it.

I think in the initial article, it was stated that the artist won a legal battle to be able to create the art that he wanted to create. And in winning that legal battle the First Amendment has been served.


posted by thinkdink at 1:32 PM on June 8, 2000

> Are you saying that there IS a strict definition of art?

Certainly not. I think everyone will have their own definition. And everyone will have their own personal interpretation of a piece of art. Nothing wrong with that. I think the definition of art is an amorphous idea that swirls around some central concept.

> Everyone being shaped by a totally different set of circumstances will have a very different view of art.

Not really. I think most people within a certain culture share a very similar view of what "art" is. We could, I suppose, think of a car wash as art, but what's the point? It just gets silly after a while.

What is or isn't art wasn't my point. I don't mind that many people think of this as art. I just don't think this is a big deal at all, either as art or a victory for freedom. Here was my point: "Why care about this at all?" Not exactly profound, but that was what I was asking.

> And in winning that legal battle the First Amendment has been served.

I don't see it that way. Artists have been doing things with public nudity for a long time. I would hardly call this a milestone for the first amendment. We can do all sorts of silly things under protection of the first amendment. Everyone knows that. And I don't see anything harmful here, but I'm still wondering why this case is important.

It's harmless. Maybe it's art. A lot of tax dollars got spend. Woohoo!
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:57 PM on June 8, 2000

A lot of tax dollars got spent because someone decided it was their appointed job to prevent this person from doing something entirely harmless in the name of the common good.

I'm getting entirely sick of the government trying to legislate morality, myself.
posted by baylink at 2:10 PM on June 8, 2000

I think this case was important because it drummed up a nice bit of media coverage (though, arguably, not enough) when it first occurred. Now that it has, this is what we have: a photo. Not much. I don't know what the artist intended, offhand, but I can guess that the photo itself might not capture the true concept.

It's silly to you, perhaps silly to me, but at least one person (heh, hopefully more) saw it in a different light.

I do question the issue of art stemming from our culture, though. It goes hand in hand with the idea that art is a very personal thing. I can find art in the lamp on my nightstand, but I'm certain that many other people will say, "Hey, it's just a lamp. Get over it." The question of whether it is silly or not also coincides with your viewpoint on art, so again, very personal. Anyway, this is just preaching to the choir.


posted by hijinx at 2:15 PM on June 8, 2000

Suppose now Hugh Hefner or Larry Flint wanted to have this artist shoot nude people, then what do we have? A person trying to make a name for him/herself. Sounds to me "art" is thrown in the way of public decency. The same goes for 400 pound "freedom of speech" people who would like to cover themselves in the constitution, flag, or whatever symbol they find offensive. Surely art is relative of the time periods in which it is/was created, which leads me to believe we have little artistic talent when 100 or 200 years from now students who wish to study the art created will simply find nude photos. Just think what Michelangelo's work would command in recognition or compensation for his works if he were around today?
posted by brent at 5:37 PM on June 8, 2000

art and taste are two very different things... I think Tunick is a big publicity hound, in reality half of his 'art' is grappling with the city fathers to get his projects done. What's really interesting, if you've seen the man working, is that there are far more pictures snapped of him (and video shot, etc) than anyone else, including his subjects. Although he waxes poetic about his 'sea of flesh' etc. being his primary goal, there is no doubt that a big part of his artistic statement relies on outraged 'prudes' or whatever you want to call them-- the more friction, the more attention, the higher his profile. Eventually he might take it to a Christo-like level, and do an entire field or island or whatever it takes to get his name in the news, once this kind of thing loses its attention-getting value.
posted by chaz at 5:41 PM on June 8, 2000

more nude suicides, please
posted by decontrol at 9:15 PM on June 8, 2000

milk the cash cow while you can kind of thing chaz?

Yeah maybe, but if he enjoys what he's doing - more power to him.
posted by thinkdink at 11:17 PM on June 8, 2000

Once in Art History class, the teacher held up this paper with a few scrawls that had been done with what looked like crayons.She looked at me and asked me if I would define this as art, I grinned and said no. As it turned out, it was a drawing by her 5 year-old daughter.Now back then I was pretty arrogant and thought art had to be paintings that were realistic, I'm glad to say I've come a far way sense then, I've lost some of that arrogance. None of us can decide that an artist's work isn't valid just because we don't like it.There's plenty of "art" I could certainly do without, but I try not to cry it down, and I say try because sometimes I still do, but we are only human after all.In the end, all I'm saying is that maybe you could try to see things from other people's perspective y6y6y6, and maybe sometimes you might be suprised at what you see...
posted by meaning at 5:22 AM on June 9, 2000