Guest judge and controversial photographer Andres Serrano said it: “It isn’t easy to shock on demand.”
So how did the participants fare in last evening’s Work of Art, given the challenge of creating a piece intended to shock? With few exceptions, they did about what I would expect, resorting to childish interpretations of adult world no-no’s: using bodily excretions, genitalia, and the nude body to make their statements and their artworks.
Must “shock” be schlock?
I’m not a fan of shock art, with its stated intention to achieve social commentary through disturbing means. Nor am I a fan of Andres Serrano, known for his unusual materials – menstrual blood, urine, and excrement among them.
His 2008 exhibition, Shit, is case in point. If, as he says, everyone thinks their shit is the best shit, then I guess he makes his point. But I find it silly, walking away holding my nose, bothered by the fact that this is exactly the sort of thing that makes most traditional art viewers gag – literally – when confronted with contemporary art.
And that’s a shame. Because some “shock art,” including Serrano’s, is stunning. His 1987 work, Piss Christ, is an excellent example. It is an image of a plastic crucifix, photographed in a wash of urine. Obviously, it caused a stir when it was exhibited 20 years ago. And yet I do consider this art.
Why?
Piss Christ* is visually arresting, its bloody red and luscious gold tones are luminous, evocative, symbolic, and its impact is immediate, without knowing the artist’s process.
If you watched the show on Bravo last evening, you noticed not only this image but others in the background, their large scale and vivid colors magnifying their power. It’s hard not to be struck by their surreal quality, their in-your-face beauty, and yes – the provocative nature of their content.
Is Piss Christ offensive?
Some may find it to be, though consider this perspective:
Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as not blasphemous but a statement on “what we have done to Christ”: that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents.**
In my opinion, “shock value” is a legitimate artistic tool to push our boundaries to examine social, psychological and other phenomena. Personally, I enjoy creative exploration that tackles uneasy themes. But the work of art itself must still “work,” with visual and sensory stature.
Smart or tart?
So why do I say that many of Work of Art’s contestants took the childish route? Artists using bodily fluids is nothing new; there is no particular appeal to Nicole’s blood, hair, and nail samples to create her science fair entry. Likewise, we shake our heads at Miles musing on the occasion of his first erection (Little Mermaid, go figure), followed by concocting a penis-patterned Disney Mickey topped off with the artist’s own semen.
Are we amused? Entertained? Grossed out? Yes, so we keep watching. But I found myself thinking, “Can’t you come up with anything better than this?”
As for other attempts at controversy, we have Jaclyn resorting to nudity (again), and there’s little originality when it comes to nudes in contemporary art or in art history. If anything, Nao in the nude would have been more shocking to American sensibilities, and Jaclyn posing in a performance piece would have been sufficiently out of character to surprise us.
Hot or not?
John’s Recluse (with its Outsider Art approach to auto-fellatio) had little shock value – except perhaps that Bravo TV blurred out the simplistically rendered penis. Nao’s almost-ran installation could have been effective, had she been more focused in her theme, and edited elements of the performance. (I admit, I’m sorry to see her exit so soon.)
I will give Ryan credit for creating a competent (if campy) painting, and Nicole’s effort, Vial (better titled Vile?) nonetheless reflects an interesting work process of molding hacked off body parts for her macabre display. As for Mark Velasquez, his concept was more mature – a triptych (three-part) of framed objects – the remnants of torn clothing, underwear, and a popped balloon – intended to provoke a disturbing reaction to the realities of child abuse.
Winning Work
So why did Abdi garner the winning nod?
His considerably quieter offering, I. E. D. (Improvised Explosive Device), a trio of small scale sculpted heads, draws us to them. Set directly on the floor, note that China Chow kneels in front of them, to get a closer look. They don’t shout their message, they invite us to examine it – even to bow down to it. They offer a consistent visual expression of the dark and tacit ways in which anger ferments, and ultimately may explode.
They work as art, not crap – literally and figuratively.
*Wiki: Andres Serrano
**Click here for a large image of Piss Christ
For more on Bravo TV’s Work of Art:
Miles to go before you sleep? (Wunderkind on Work of Art)
Work of Art works for me
I wrote on this theme today also. Like you I was disappointed that the majority of these contestants felt that shocking was synonymous with sex. Was that their youth showing or the lack of time? It was unfortunate and I hope they gave some serious thought to why the winning piece was chosen.
I see we share some element of dismay at last evening’s results, though it was an entertaining episode. I suspect it was more youth than anything else that led most of the contestants to find sexual content to be shocking. Note that Nao, at 46, was attempting something else, as did Abdi, who understood that “shock” doesn’t preclude nuance. I find myself wondering what Judith might have produced in this challenge, don’t you, SF?
BLW, that’s a great question. I bet Judith would have gone a completely different way and I would have loved to have seen her interpretation of the challenge! All in all, I like the show more than I expected to.
I’m also pleasantly surprised and enjoying the show. I’m hoping we’ll see bonus scenes and extra footage at the end of the first season (much as Bravo provides for Real Housewives). I also find the blogs posted by Bravo to be helpful. Having the judges’ commentary after-the-fact is illuminating. Their thoughtful comments add a great deal to the conversation.
By the way, I thoroughly enjoyed your post on What is shocking to today’s sensibilities. You took the theme of Work of Art to another place, and a broader perspective.
Intriguing take from the nun on Piss Christ. I wouldn’t have seen it that way, I don’t think, but now I see how she sees it. Thanks for including it. And … I don’t think I’ll ever look at the Little Mermaid the same way again!
You and me both, Stacia! Of course, Simon de Pury (the “mentor”) made the comment that his first erection was the result of seeing a Renoir. I find that delightful, heartening, and wonder which of the many sensuous examples enhanced his early interest in art…
And now, simply for a little compare-and-contrast, may we view a bit of Renoir, and the Little Mermaid?
Actually, and even funnier, I believe what he said was Ursula from the Little Mermaid. Ursula being the big mean sea creature not Ariel the Mermaid, gave him his first erection.
Hysterical! I’ll have to listen attentively when the show is replayed next week!
…and thanks for the compliment. I guess the show was thought provoking, if not the art that was produced!
Well, I’ve been on vacation and watching food network only, because my daughter and son have some sicko fascination with food. I love the idea that there’s a competition show for artists but, like you, hate that all of them thought so simplistically about this challenge. On HGTV’s design star, to the contrary, they’re giving the contestants assignments
that are impossible and require over thinking almost to the point of absurdity.
Up next? America’s next top writer and hundreds of writers (culled down to 12?) could compete for a book contract?
Good one, Linda. “Masterpiece: America’s next great writer.” Personal memoir to start (like a self portrait), followed by “write the reviews and book jacket blurbs for your own best seller” (like the design a book jacket challenge), perhaps followed by erotica (shock and awe? hmmm – they’d have to bleep out a lot), then ad copywriting (practical), then a short story (impractical), then a novella (only because 2 days is insufficient for 300-page novel), followed by a series of sonnets AND you perform them along with a dose of free verse – and to top things off – in 36 hours, how about a movie script, starring yourself and fellow contestants – however few are left?
Of course, there ought to be some sort of other commercial challenge, as writing frequently doesn’t earn you a living. Or perhaps the car washing-restaurant server job, so you can occasionally pay bills and eat?
I bet Bravo would snap that right up! Who knows – maybe it will be next!
I haven’t watched the show (other than previews) but it seems to me that art is so subjective – how can it be judged? Or are experts universally in agreement in what is crap?
Excellent point, Cheryl. Art is very subjective, but there are still parameters that help define what may work better than something else. Then it’s a matter of taste, and what you see, and how it touches you or not. But the eye can be trained. The more art you see, the more you see in art.
Placing a work of art into context also changes what you think of it (when you know more about the artist, the process of making the work, the materials, references to art history, the artist’s intentions, and so on).
Short answer? It can be judged, but not in any absolute way. (All the more reason that showing more of the artists at work would be fascinating.)
Thanks for joining the conversation. (And peek at the show if you have time. You might enjoy it.)