What I found most compelling whilst reading these two articles is their approach to the removal/changing of Confederate monuments. One takes an artistic stance on what should replace these monuments, and how these new art pieces may affect the meaning of the statue of a past Confederate man. While the other article takes into account the legality of these situations, and the extreme difficulty that comes from attempting to remove a long-standing monument. So, I found it refreshing to see both the artistic and legal sides of this situation.
Obviously I have my own views on the issue of Confederate monuments, specifically Richmond oriented. Regarding Monument Avenue, I'm in the same beliefs as Kenya (Robinson); "Keep the statues. […] Because we need a visual reminder of our stubborn tendency to elevate mediocrity." (Monuments 11) I think this whole controversy could be solved by keeping all of the Confederate statues- as a reminder of our past actions, Virginia was the capital of the Confederacy- and simply adding a plaque or something to state, "This is no longer us." It's a simple solution, but I think it could be effective. It would keep up the statues that the white supremacists fight so hard for, while also maintaining a sense of separation from our violent past. (The only monument that should be removed is the Arthur Ashe monument, but that's a debate for another time.) Of course, to me, my solution seems perfect. Efficient. But after reading these articles, the legality of the situation hit me. Even attempting to alter these monuments in some way would not only cause public upheaval, sadly, but would also drag us down a spiral of laws and contracts. After all, "[…] some conservative state legislatures have passed or bolstered cultural heritage laws that make it difficult, if not impossible, for local cities to remove or rethink these controversial monuments." (States 1) So everything is not as it seems, it's not that easy. So, while I'm not surprised that the legal repercussions of altering a monument put us in between a rock and a hard place, I am surprised that it took me this article to remind me of that. I … feel kind of dumb. Maybe- and this is a stretch here- the altering or removal of Confederate monuments could be considered a form of censorship? Historical censorship? If that is a thing. I don't think that its a valid argument, but it is some food for thought. There is the argument that "they are culturally important and pay homage to figures who, despite all else, are historically significant." (States 1) Hence the reason why I think these monuments should remain erected. They are a significant part of history. Obviously not a good part, and I'm in no way supporting the Confederacy, and those who continue to contemporarily fight for it (I'm looking at the folks who loiter in front of the VMFA. I mean, it's 2019, time to move on.) but these people, and these monuments, honor a part of our- albeit awful- history. So really, the choice to replace monuments with new works of art, as suggested by "Monuments for a New Era", may not be the best idea. While inherently creative and intriguing from an artistic standpoint, the legal and public setbacks seem a little too harsh to handle. Maybe that's just me, but I think the monuments could stay. It's possible to "honor" our past history, while also making our contemporary ideals and standpoint loud and clear. It's just a matter of finding that in-between. What it is? I don't know. What I do know? The Confederacy is dead. Get over it.
2 Comments
I've touched up the figure and fixed the hair. I'm happier with the hair now, and I decided to keep the arm strangely long (proportion isn't my focus after all). I also added some stripes that I'm low-key happy with, not my best though (the texture threw me off I think). I've also cut out all of the cardstock with Hamlet's "To be …" written on it. I will be gluing those on latter. I'm pretty happy with this project! (Here's to wishing for snow days to work on it more though).
Holy gosh! That arm is SO long, but I've actually received both positive and negative feedback on its size. I'm kind of digging it … we'll see where that goes. I've basically completed the figure (although I'm not sure about the hair and I need to touch up the hands) and I will be taking this home to work on it.
I'm done adding all of the cool tones, and I think that I won't add the orange for now. I've also sketched the figure onto the canvas (although you really can't see), and I will paint that next. Although I don't think I will be able to finish this at school, I'm pretty sure that I'll have to take it home next weekend ….
Started the abstract portion of my painting. I still need to expand it quite a lot, and I want to add lighter cool toned paint. Then I'm going to go in with some orange I think (I'm not quite sure).
Actually started painting for my next project today. The canvas is 15"x 30", which is much larger than last time so I'm excited. I need to tone down this background with a white liquid wash, but I'm pretty satisfied as of now. I plan to begin the abstract part of this piece next class (after the wash). I'll post my rough draft and planning later today.
Not only reading both of these readings- The Art of Controversy & Art on the Firing Line- was extremely infuriating, but also showed how prevalent the concept of "freedom" is in America. It makes the question to concept of freedom of speech, and our historical separation from an oppressive system. Why even separate from England if America itself is going to be oppressive as well? It just confuses and angers me to no end, but I digress. Both of the readings focus on similar historical events- the censorship of two separate shows that were deemed controversial and "offensive". But, how the exhibits are censored- for lack of a better term- is different. In the Art of Controversy, the censorship is governmental censorship, since the content of the exhibit was "totally inappropriate, certainly for children, and beyond that, it’s really not even for the general public the kind of exhibit that taxpayers should pay for," (AoC Page 4). In contrast, in Art on the Firing Line was the museum shutting down a Mapplethorpe exhibit before it even opened because "It was a no-win situation. We decided we wouldn't be anyone's political platform" (AotFL Page 4). The latter situation makes me question the censorship of the matter- was it really censorship?- but i'll get into that later.
The fact that these two exhibits were censored is not at all surprising. Homosexual "pornographic" images? Defacing the Virgin Mary? Someone's bound to get offended. But, I question, is a specific group becoming offended by art- something subjective and controversial in itself- really the catalyst for removing an entire show from the eyes of the public? Evidently it was. In the Art of Controversy, the exhibition was taken down to the publics take on it, and most importantly Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. But, in the reading it also shows the opinion of a few museum goers: "MUSEUM GOER: I can’t believe that this has caused this commotion. MUSEUM GOER: I don’t know. I don’t have an adverse reaction to it. You know, it’s someone’s view on something. MUSEUM GOER: I’m furious about this. This is a tremendous insult to the mother of my God and to me. MUSEUM GOER: I think it’s a disgrace that people can bash other people’s religion" (AoC Page 2). We clearly see a distinction between those who were offended by the "sacrilegious" painting, and those who were indifferent to its contents. So clearly, taking something down to appease the public, or shield them from "offensive art", isn't an adequate excuse. And yet, that's the excuse used in Art on the Firing Line. "We never questioned the importance of the show,'' Dr. Orr-Cahall said. ''Our decision wasn't about the esthetics of the work, but about the circumstances in which it was to be shown. It was a matter of time and place.'" (AotFL Page 5) It is then defended that the content was not the cause of the removal. And, that may be true, but the problem is that the exhibition was removed in the first place. So, would I call the Mapplethorpe case censorship? Towards the artist? Yes. Even though he was dead, it is still a removal of his freedom of speech that was precedented in a contract. Towards the museum? No, because it was the museum's decision to remove the artist's works. The main takeaway of these two articles (and the other optional ones, I'm sure) is that censorship is a tricky subject. It's all about perspective, and even so, somebody is bound to become offended. Both exhibitions discussed were deemed controversial by public standards, and yet we see a significant amount of the public not seeing it as such. So is it fair to censor things that aren't offensive to all? I would say no, and seemingly these articles as well. As these readings are both relatively recent events, their takeaways' are something that is heavily present in contemporary ages. Challenging the First Amendment, governmental censorship, etc. All present today, as they were in these two articles. Although I didn't find this lecture very interesting- it felt kind of like a review of Art II subjects- I am very intrigued by Japanese aesthetics so I thought it was a very good topic. The focus on comparing modern/western Japanese aesthetics to more traditional Japanese aesthetics I particularly liked. Seeing how attitudes to more pragmatic and natural art have shifted to a more mechanical and rigid aesthetic is kind of sad. So in some ways I do agree with Tanizaki's opinions (an author who explored the art of Japanese traditional aesthetics). Out of the three principle aesthetics we explored I actually didn't know about Yugen. Yugen being mysterious, and adopted from more Buddhist traditions. I knew about Wabi and Sabi, but this was something new. I also enjoyed how Ms. Adams (the lecturer) used actual Japanese works from the VMFA. It made the entire presentation more interpersonal and relatable, especially for someone who frequents the VMFA like me. I would say the best part of this presentation was analyzing Tanizaki's views towards traditional and modern aesthetics, and the worst part would be knowing the majority of the information already! But, again, I did learn some new things, so I would consider this presentation a major success
We finally finished our sessions with Tommy and had a critique of our works today. I personally like my more finished works more, but I can definitely see improvement in my line quality and composition! (click images for vertical view, I can't figure out how to fix it as of now)
I finished the (majority) of the background of the painting. I would like to do second coats on the top and bottom layers, but they need to completely dry first. Next thing that I'll do is paint the stars and sun, which I'm debating on colors for. I want to do the son a pinkish-red OR a bright yellow. And I want to do the stars either white OR bright yellow. I'll figure it out soon though. But, I'm very happy with how these colors turned out … I like them a lot!
|
Categories |