Aimee Howarth brings you an interview with The Yorker directors on the final day of the advent articles
Aimee Howarth speaks to YUSU's sabbatical officers about their Christmas Day routine for day 17 of the advent calendar
For the final time this term, Vicky Morris updates you on this weeks film news
50 years after the publication of 'James and the Giant Peach', the works of Roald Dahl continue to celebrate success.
In our modern-day society, where freedom of artistic expression has arguably reached its limit, we must consider whether this concept of exploring sexuality through art has been taken to an unnecessary extreme. Has this liberalism towards creative expression led to the disintegration of the integrity of such art, leaving us with work whose intent is solely to create controversy, demand attention and inspire scandal?
The Barbican Gallery has recently finished one of its most controversial exhibitions, ‘Seduced: Art and Sex from Antiquity to Now’, in which a multitude of artistic explorations of the theme of sex and pleasure over the ages were displayed for the public (with an over-eighteens limit imposed).
Described by The Guardian as "the bravest and most intelligent exhibition of the year", Seduced was designed to "provide the historical and cultural framework to explore the boundaries of acceptability in art". The exhibition succeeded in this aim and you can hardly witness its startlingly overt content without stepping back to ask: do we, as viewers, accept this as art?
Included in the exhibition is K.R Buxey’s video-art piece Requiem, a response to Andy Warhol’s Blowjob, in which she has filmed herself, with the camera focussed on her facial expressions, as she receives oral sex.
Tracey Emin’s explicit sketches were also featured, along with other disturbingly raw pieces that may lead us to question the artistic quality of the exhibition.
What is it that makes these images art? Is it merely our knowledge that the image has been created by the hand of an ‘artist’ that distinguishes these ‘works of art’ from the obscene?
It seems unjust that Tracey Emin’s graphic sketches are auctioned and exhibited, considering that had a mischievous eleven year old boy been the mastermind behind such a drawing, he would no doubt have been much less rewarded for his imagination!
It appears that what was once a subtle exploration of the themes of voyeurism, gender and sexuality is now a blatant, unavoidably explicit exemplification of the modern day obsession with sex, both as an object of seduction and as a tool of media attraction.
Whether we are concerning ourselves with the artistic scene of the major galleries, or simply the images used as material for general consumption through magazines, television and practically every strand of advertising, we are presented with a distinctly inescapable fascination with sex.
So what makes the kinky, sexually experimental photographs of Robert Mapplethrope or the seductive portraits of Jack Vettriano more acceptable for public consumption than the pages of a pornographic magazine? What makes the overtly provocative advertisements in Vogue and the seductive, insinuating TV ads appropriate for an unrestricted audience, whilst ‘dirty’ magazines or films have earned themselves a polluted reputation?
A common defence for this borderline pornography produced by the art world is that whilst porn and art may share similar aesthetics, their fundamental purpose is what divides the two. Pornography has one simple, accessible purpose. Art, on the other hand, though often aspiring to evoke the same feelings of pleasure and desire, attempts to reach the viewer on many deeper levels.
Art strives to create characters and complexity; it wants to convey an atmosphere, a feeling, a subliminal message. In this respect the two forms of visual expression are in no way similar; pornography is designed to be uncomplicated and subsequently cannot ever be comparable to the artistic intricacy of a piece of art.
All this is very well, but when staring at ‘4 x 1’ by Tracey Emin I find it exceptionally difficult to see any deeper, intellectual message strewn amongst the childish scribbles. It certainly does not inspire much confidence in the pretentious inclination that this sort of art must be, in some way more profound!
It is this dubiety, this lack of confidence in the art of such an ambiguous nature, that has inspired artwork such as Homage to Freud by British artist Jonathan Yeo; a collection of collages that, though riddled with graphic images of sexual acts, can be interpreted as a witty remark on the art world of today. The classically inspired nudes appear, at first glance to be respectable and wholly innocent depictions but upon closer inspection, images begin to jump out at you – a breast, a pair of lips...
Suddenly you become uncomfortably aware of certain unsavoury acts being performed right in front of your eyes. Yeo has managed to ingeniously manipulate actual pornography to create something that, on first inspection, appears entirely innocent and aesthetically pleasing. Thus, his art provides a meticulously executed comment on the invasion of pornographic images into the respected world of galleries, disguised as artistically sound masterpieces.
With the line between pornography and art becoming ever more blurry, it is not surprising how much the art world can get away with. It is important to question whether exhibitions like that in the Barbican should be condoned.
Should artists be allowed to imply that these works are anything more than the, often childish, erotic musings of sexually expressive adults? Or should these works be recognised as an astonishingly successful attempt to validate pornography as art; to justify open distribution and accepted appreciation of material that is so often looked upon with an entirely private and ashamed eye?
To veiw the portfolio of Robert Mapplethorpe click here
To look at some of Tracey Emin's work click here
For some of Jonathan Yeo's interesting nudes click here
The "childish, erotic musings of sexually expressive adults" is not a new thing. There are many examples of overtly erotic classical artworks (Titian's Venus included). These were often commissioned by rich gentlemen to be displayed in their private rooms. It is fair to assume that their appreciation wasn't purely artistic. However, few question the validity of these pieces as great art. What is the difference between these and sexually explicit modern art? That the former was intended to be 'enjoyed' in private?
As for intellectual messages, why does there have to be one? I find pieces describing raw sexuality, however crudely, far more powerful and intriguing than a 'witty' comment on how silly and pretentious other modern artists are.
I think that modern artwork with sexual content, intended to be viewed as artwork, cannot be called pornography. In other words, a pornographic image taken from a Paul Raymond magazine and displayed in a gallery as art can no longer be called pornographic. It is the context which gives it a different meaning.
I disagree. Sexually explicit material is pornographic - the word simply has different connotations when used in different ways. In a magazine there's a good chance that it will be used in a certain way, whereas in an art gallery it is more likely to be analysed and look at for artistic purposes.
I still think, however, that Tracey Emin couldn't produce art if her life was at stake and that much of the galleries like hers are mindless and pathetic crap that are churned out with ease and make millions by attracting fools who think that it's talented.
http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/artpages/tracey_emin_painting_5.htm
That's not art and that's not talent. And they can "politely leave" if they think that I'm paying for it.
No, there is a distinction between pornography and sexually explicitly material used in art. The former is intended solely to sexually excite the viewer whereas the latter is, as you rightly point out, going to be looked at with a more analytical eye. I think there are two conditions for something to be called art: 1) the artists intention for it to be regarded as such and, 2) a piece being regarded as such.
I agree that quite a lot of modern art doesn't take much imagination on the part of the artist. The "fools who think it's talented" provide this. However, it is a vast and unfair generalisation to say that most modern galleries are full of mindless crap. There are plenty of artists with good ideas and the technical ability to back it up.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report