Dildo Dealings

[circusguy]

I was installing work in Gillette, Wyoming last week, and visiting Boulder, when I read an editorial bashing public money spent on "Dildos on Hooks", which Tsehai Johnson installed with a $5000 grant. Here is a link to that article.

http://www.boulderweekly.com/libertybeat.html

Boulder Week just printed my letter in reply:

Letters the week of 8/18/05

Dildo dissent


I enjoyed your recent article on government funding of the proverbial dildo project, but I do want to call you out on some limited thinking. I am an artist from Connecticut visiting my daughter here in Ward and installing sculpture at a town center in Gillette, Wyo. The money I was paid to fly out here and drive my work north came from taxpayers. Some of them will love what I do. Some will think their 7-year-old could have done it. Some will disregard it. Because I have been paid from collective money to come and show art, I can operate free of concerns for what folks might think of it. I think it is important that people view art, and I see no problem whatsoever with tax money paying for that. Look at some of the other stuff your money goes to, and celebrate art funding. Art elevates humanity.

If, as your writer suggests, rights are violated "when politicians and bureaucrats force unwilling taxpayers to subsidize ideas with which they disagree," then the current wars on both drugs and terrorism violate many of our rights. Your writer goes on to claim that "artists who grovel for money from politicians" should quietly accept what comes their way. As an artist who has applied for and won grants, I am insulted by the word "grovel." Grant application is a difficult mix of intelligent research, writing and luck. In my experience, you put forth reasons why your work is needed, how it will impact society and you as an artist, and at considerable expense, represent your work in slides, catalogues and show announcements. You hope to get looked over fairly. You do not grovel.

The author's idea that the public should approve of art that it funds has a somewhat seductive appeal, but freedom from public response and commercial dictates allows an artist to express concepts which may challenge us. Art can remove blinders. You do not have to like a piece of art to derive benefit from having seen it. The idea that our collective capital should not fund art, in fear that the art might meet with disapproval from some people is, well, frankly, a bit of a dildo.

Karl Saliter/via Internet



Where do people on this forum stand on public spending on arts and "distasteful" subject matter?

[JamesDFarrow]

"Where do people on this forum stand on public spending on arts and "distasteful" subject matter?"

Public Spending I will leave up to others to discuss. As to the "distasteful" subject matter, first, I guess that depends on your definition of "distasteful". I am an advocate that definitions (on any matter) should be interpreted according to the majority of the population. They should decide, and then those decisions applied to what is socially and moraly acceptable. These interpretations will, of course, change from time-to-time and legislation, bylaws, etc... can be amended as need be.

So, for the sake of discussion, let's say the subject matter is, according to the majority, "distasteful". Then is should not be displayed in public where the majority of people, including their children, do not want to see it. Put in in an area where those who do want to see it can, but it is not forced upon others (the majority). And post a disclaimer the the area contains subject matter that may be found to be offensive to some viewers.

That is, of course, if the "distasteful" subject does not fall into the category that the majority of people deem to be unacceptable in any circunstances.

For example, if I understand the current socially and morally acceptable views of the majority, child pornography, inciting hate, degrading, etc...

James (who wishes we did live in a "true" Democracy but alas....) :)

[bluedogshuz]

I dunno, we are spending billions on yet another war that the government {and I don't mean JUST Bush) has no apperant explaination for... the dildo has already been inserted. My priority for tax dollars would be RD research to cure cancer, genetic defects and al of the other hideous things that kill people on this planet. After THAT I would fund a free expression of ideas ART (which by the way is a basic human instinct) THEN I would fund the rest of the educational community so that we reduce the number of iddiots we appear to be creating. We have a science exhibit going in Tampa of plasticized humans (corpes) wit all the outrage surrounding it. Hey, someone doesn't like it don't go. Art funding is SMALL POTATOS compared to the outrageous things our country is doing. We all need to pay attention, myself included!

[GaryR52]

Like James, I acknowledge that we live in a democracy and so, I'm afraid the best way of resolving such issues is via "community standards." The trouble, however, with deomcracy is that it isn't fully representative of all those it affects. In fact, in the case of public art, in particular, it is more often the case that those whose voices are heard are the people who don't like the art in question and believe it should be removed, or not shown at all. As is often the case, the "majority" is really the larger number of those who bothered to make their views known at all and, thus, the controlling "majority" is actually a minority. Those who are unfortunate enough to live in a community in which the most active voters have tastes that run counter to their own are going to find themsleves on the losing end and, thus, will never get to see the kind of art they might appreciate.

I know this from my own personal experience, being a resident, not only of Oklahoma, but of the town of Edmond. Though the city has a generous annual budget for public art and uses it, I am disappointed at the choices made by those who make the decisions.

Of course, in a perfect world, everyone would get what they want, but, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world in which people have diverse views and tastes and it is impossible to cater to them all equally. As long as life remains this way (and it will remain this way), there will never be full agreement on anything. Acknowledging this, we all have to make do with the best we can manage to accomplish. Democracy isn't perfect and there will always be a certain tyranny of the "majority," whether the majority is an actual consensus or just a consensus of those who bothered to show up.

What I'm saying is that we're all free to voice our opinions on what we think the world should be like, and that's fine. We delude ourselves, however, when we mistake our wishes for realizable goals, despite all evidence to the contrary. We just don't live in a world in which the majority thinks the same way we do.

Gary

[fused]

First of all... the State of Colorado did not pay $5000 for a bunch of ceramic dildos (http://www.arcgallery.org/arcartist/distill/distill4.html) hanging on hooks, the work already existed. Tsehai Johnson (http://www.plusgallery.com/artists/johnson/) was awarded an artist fellowship from the State Arts Council on the merit of a body of work submitted for Crafts Fellowships. The work in question (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/entertainment_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_84_3961723,00.html) is hung in a gallery and not on permanent display in a public location anywhere in Colorado. All this hub-bub about state funded/poor use of tax dollars to buy new art is a load of hooey.

That's a great idea LostNYC, put a $5000 George Washington bronze statue in every township across America. Maybe if it is placed in a small park next to the Home Depot, it can symbolize the loss of identity and community independence that was once found everywhere you visited in the USA.

[sculptorsam]

Nice post, Fused.

God bless Google. Not my kind of thing, but the work actually looks quite good. As an asside... do you ever get the feeling that if some people didn't feel compelled (on whatever level) by the current tide to make art that was provocative in some way, they could actually produce beautiful and compelling work?

[circusguy]

Nice website, Sam. I see you got into Decordova: I've been wanting to put something there for awhile. I agree that the pull toward creating art which provokes can get in the way of some artists, and often, artists take on a role of moralist, which I find demeans them.

Ellen Driscoll's "Loophole of Retreat" was the fiinest exception to this I've ever seen. She interpreted the life story of a runaway slave, Harriet Jacobs, by creating a giant camera obscura, in the same dimensions as one of Harriet's hiding places. Excellent work.

The dildos themselves are a very good installation, even if one finds the subject matter rather, ahem, penetrating.

[JasonGillespie]

When you look back at the rich history of art and all the works from cave paintings, Egyptian monuments, Byzantine Icons, the Renaissance, the Baroque, etc....where does "art" such as this fall and why would we fund it? Not to be too traditional, but not all expression is art. I am a fan of good non-objective art, but sometimes I wonder at the things people do. I have to concur with Sam's last statement. What if the individuals who seek to put concept over creativity actually took time and created something that made use of the elements and principles of art? To me it is really a matter of doing something to the best of your ability and sometimes the lack shows. Strangely, the most incendiary works of art are often the least well composed or executed. What does that say about the artist?

[circusguy]

So, would you have blackballed the impressionists?

By the rich history of art, do you include the valley of 1000 linghams, carved into the riverbed at Kbal Spean, outside of Banteay Srei, in Cambodia?

I think your focus on the subject matter is stealing you away from experiencing the art. Either that, or you haven't looked at it.
http://registry.whitecolumns.org/view_artist.php?artist=460

Concept over creativity? Not in this body of work, the two dance powerfully. Her executions are the flawless fruits of an MFA in ceramics, and her approach is an inquiry into the relationship of body to object, explored through a broad spectrum of objects.

Where does art such as this fall? I don't know, but I certainly hope we continue to fund it.

[ironman]

Hi, I just thought I'd add my 2 cents into this conversation.
There are NO elements and principles of art that are written in stone! Although I tend to agree with you, it is the rule breakers who are considered the giants of art, not the artists who follow what was done before (the accepted canon).
While the "Dildos" don't particularly appeal to me, they do look well done.
It does seem at times that some artists are trying to do outrageous stuff in order to call attention to themselves, maybe so, maybe not.
Personally, I can't worry too much about these people, they may take an exhibition opportunity away from someone who we may feel is more deserving, but hey, this is America, it's a free country and you can make dildos too!
Besides, most of the people doing this sort of work tend to be one trick ponies and flame out quickly, which is nice to see.
The bottom line in art is THERE ARE NO RULES and the ones that are in place are there to be broken.
Sincerely,
Have a nice day,
Jeff

[bluedoor]

folks...you're missing the point,

"Conceptual Works by 7 Artists

Maria Patricia Tinajero-Baker, Amy Barillaro, Ann Chuchvara, Tsehai Johnson, Julie Poitras Santos, Hrafnhildur Sigurdardottir, Jaeha Yoo form this group of artists who use a variety of materials to explore intrinsic human experience. They address the experience of the body from cultural and phenomenological perspectives. Through various processes, and the common theme of repetition, they extract and transform the essence of human experience."

Why is it that conceptualized dildo forms in "the common theme of repetition, they extract and transform the essence of human experience."
seems to get everyone hot under the collar, yet, so many feel absolutley fine about the billions used to fund killing people for oil in the name of democracy?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmm........
aren't you folks artists?

[ironman]

Right On, Bluedoor!

[oddist]

Seems everyone is hung up on the name.

What if "dildo" wasn't used in the title?

What then would you think of the work?

What would you think if you dug these up thousands of years from now at an archaeological site?

I'm with the circusguy and bluedoor.

Don't ever forget Duchamps "Fountain."

[Jamo]

If everyone has to add their two cents why is it only a penny for a thought?

[circusguy]

Interestingly, the civic group did change the name on their website, from

"12 dildos on hooks" to "12 implements on hooks" in an attempt to quell rising interest in the risque nature of the piece.

It's an interesting conversation. I find that presenting charged topic matter to attract the media eye has limited appeal, if that is the only thing moving the artist. My work is in the Kingston Biennial this year, where one sculptor put the ten commmandments on a driftwood-crafted horse, which she showed at city hall.

Civic leaders asked her to move it, and she held off, while the commissions rollled in, from various supporters and patrons. There was some grumbling among the sculptors, but others were pleased that her conflict had garnered attention for the show. I thought the piece was well done, but the "message", both in the piece and in the media blitz, smelled opportunistic.

I like art that asks something of the viewer, and creates conversation. One real danger, though, is in alienating governments and groups to the point where fear makes the choices, and more and more bland, unchallenging work gets through the screen, in the name of safety.

[JasonGillespie]

circusguy and those of like mind,

Actually I like the Impressionists fairly well. Degas and Monet more than the others perhaps, but they all had a worthwhile goal in mind. I also like the Post-Impressionists. Cezanne and Toulouse-Lautrec are two of my favorites from that group. Why would you deduce from my comments that I would not like the Impressionists?? They are part and parcel of that rich history I refered to, as are many other non-conforming artists, but they did, if you study their work, understand a thing or two about color, value, form, rhythm, etc… Not only that but they used them with great care and thought…even if for some it was more intuitive than others. They only chose to use them in different ways than those of the academic world. (I also like Georges Braque and a good number of other non-objective artists that did and do create interesting and truly dynamic art.....like sculptorsam for example)

Yes, I did look at the work in question ( as well as Johnson's other work on the site)and fail to see the dynamics/elements that make it art worth funding. (Questionable concept aside.) To be honest, repetition and pattern are not enough to make it art of significance….in my opinion. Just because it is "conceptual art" does not give the artist a pass in the other areas of artistic responsibility. The creativity and flawless execution you speak of is less than obvious. Johnson does show skill in ceramics, but that isn't enough. Being a skilled craftsman doesn't make you an artist and you should know the difference. (This is where the issue of expression versus art comes in to play. One is not automatically the other.) The objects used in the work are of limited interest (this is not a bad thing, many artists do this on purpose to great effect) so the arrangement of them must bear the weight of the creative/artistic impact….and this is one of the significant areas where the work falls down. The use and the objects themselves are both mundane/mediocre. It is the artist’s responsibility to create something that transcends the average. (Isn't it?) When you look at great works….from ANY period or movement….there are usually a good number of elements/principles that are being used to give it the impact and power that it has. I don’t see that in Johnson’s work. This critique can be completely divorced from the objects themselves (and subject matter) and be evaluated upon the arrangement alone if you would like. Many artists limit themselves in one area of the process, but make sure to compensate in other areas. Johnson does not in my opinion.

(Also, I am stymied by the assertion that subject matter has somehow something to do with my statement. Here I am just at a loss as to how to answer. I think you might have some preconceived notions that you have attached to your reply.)


In response to another interesting notion,
There are "rules".....there are elements and principles that scientifically pertain to the act of creation of the things we call art.......and the crime is we don’t teach them more. These rules are not arbitrary and manmade, but rather the observable consequences of the interaction of lines, shapes, values, forms, colors and so on. They don’t exist because they were created…they are part of the process of creation and we have merely recorded them as we do other scientific phenomena. If you look at works of art that are considered “great" or significant you will find certain relationships present in them that will not be found in lesser works. Why? Because our eyes and minds perceive things a certain way and that information tells us one thing is pleasing and another is not....one thing has visual interest and the other does not. It isn’t magic and it isn't a mystery and if you’ve ever tried to teach art to high school students you can very quickly find out that the rules exist whether we know about them or not.
Example:
One student might know the meanings of the elements and principles of art and can recite them perfectly, but cannot figure out how to put them together. It might be a perceptual problem or mechanical, but for whatever reason they can't figure it out. (They can still be taught however) Another student may not know the first term, but they use them as if they did. Not knowing the elements and principles of art does not change their usage....or existence. I’ve seen it on that level as well as in my own personal and professional experiences.

Even the so called “rule breakers”….(who by they way DONOT make up the bulk of significant artists throughout history, this is an over used myth)…..are using these self same elements and principles when they “break the rules". What you really mean to call them is “convention breakers”. Artistic conventions are the man made structures that define artistic periods and movements, but have little to do with the foundation of creating art. These are what most artists rebel against. Artistic conventions are creations of society and as such give meaning to art within a given time, but they are superficial in nature and cannot hide good art or mask bad art.

A lack of specificity has gotten this issue confused for many in the art world and made "rules" a BAD word when in fact the principles and elements of art are there whether you want them to be or not. An artist that dismisses artistic conventions is just choosing to follow a different drummer, but an artist that dismisses the elements and principles of art is hamstringing their own efforts. Pick any artistic "rebel" and he/she was/is still using those same scientific rules. The fact that many artists operate without a working knowledge of these is abundantly evident . Just because our society has in recent years become too PC to make distinctions does not change the fact that there are good and bad artists......and usually it is the lack of observance (conscious or unconscious) of these inherent scientific principles that divide the two groups.

This may put me further in the unpopular corner, but “everything goes” is what is killing the art market in this country. People are detached from art in this country to a great extent…(beyond the practical/commercial applications of investment, decoration, industrialization, and advertisement)….because there is no reasonable definition of what art is. This is due, in some part, to a politically correct notion that to "judge" a person's artistic efforts as "bad" or "good" is some how wrong. Another aspect of this same school of thought says that all expression is art and therefore art is what you want it to be. This is what is being taught in many schools from the earliest years on up to our insitutions of higher learning. Of course we have no such problem making these distinctions of quality and ability when it comes to our doctors, lawyers, mechanics, police officers, etc.......Why not with artists?....because we are some how special?......because the arts are intrinsically different from every other act in the universe?........please.

Novels don’t sell if they are poorly written, why? Cars don’t sell if they don’t work, why? Products poorly made don't sell....why? And when the counterparts of these products do sell...why do they? Why....because people have a general understanding, a many millennia old instinct that makes us look for the criteria that either makes a thing good or bad. We have this understanding about almost everything that we come in contact with. It keeps us from being ripped off or cheated by those that would otherwise try to pretend they or their products are something that they are not. We in the art world, however want our cake and to eat too. Somehow, even though humanity applies this standard of discernment to all other forms of human endeavor....we think the arts should be exempt??! (I'm keeping a straight face as I type) We want to be able to put anything on the market…..( art as commodity)….and expect people to accept it..to buy it. And we scratch our heads when often times people turn away. Our rationalizations are that they just don't get it.....they aren't "enlightened" to the true meaning of the arts or some such thing. But the fact is the public are intutitively savvy....and wary when they don't see clearly displayed signs of quality or more simply, if they are unsure the product is what it claims it is. Luckily some don’t turn away, but many do and they might not if they understood that you can have good and bad abstract art…that all representational art is not good....and that art can be defined like other things in our world.

Since, however, the prevailing wisdom is to give blanket approval to whatever anyone wants to create and label as "art", the educational system is at a loss as how to teach a coherent appreciation to those who are in school and will become the future buyers and supporters of the arts. Millions and millions of dollars have to be spent by the government because the fine arts in this country might otherwise atrophy. I lament the state of our system and think waxing poetic/philosophical about work that fails to meet certain basic criteria is just a perpetuation of the problem. AND LET ME STATE FOR THE RECORD......THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THEY ARE DILDOS.

[bluedogshuz]

I like em, and I think they are well done! I carved a gigantic penis once. I don't know why. I even put a bowl on top and rose petals in the bowl. Bet you can guess what I called it?!Its a very interesting piece. I have done a number of carvings with vaginas that open into flowers, I have only showed them to friends however I would not have a problem exhibiting them. They are sensual.... Jason, what is this scientific art history stuff you are talking about? I think there are rules of design, color, composition etc. so what? I remember an artist in carrara carving a penis and putting it in a wooden boat. She was a feminist and was dating a maccho italian and lamenting how italian women just don't get it. What? Life goes on rules get bent thats why we have bandaids. People love art its theraputic!

[fused]

Who broke the established art rules? Auguste Rodin, Jaques Lipchitz, Alexander Archipenko, Constantine Brancusi, Marcel Duchamp, Isamu Noguchi, Julio Gonzales, David Smith, Jean Tinguely, Anthony Caro, Mark Di Suvero, Arshile Gorky, Jackson Pollock, Franz Kline and the list goes on and on.

IF there was a performance in the gallery where the ceramic forms were actually implemented in a way that the title suggests, that would be shocking. BUT that didn't happen and though the title is provocative --and the shapes leave little to the imagination after that mental conection is made-- it's no big whoop. Without the controversy building around news articles that imply that the State of Colorado paid $5000 for this art... they are easy to dismiss.

Movies have been made that manipulate fruit, vegetables, and even an apple pie in carnal ways and I don't expect those things to be banned from all local grocers any time soon. This is all a big whup about nothing but --as a marketing ploy-- this little Colorado dust up has made these ceramic dangles very sellable.
So it goes.

[JasonGillespie]

Perhaps I spoke amiss. The real story here must be the fact that our society has a problem with phallic displays, not to mention vaginal displays, and as artists we must rub their faces in it. (Overlooking of course the fact that the use of said imagery often times amounts to an artistic copout to be employed whenever an artist finds themselves creatively challenged.) I guess the lowest common denominator is our target audience. The more salient topic of artistic credibility must apply elsewhere.

And....uh, don't trouble yourself with the part about the elements/principles of art, that isn't really germane to the process of creating art. It's all good.

Go get em tiger.

[Blake]

Jason I think that you have spoken the unfortunately truth

"The lowest common denominator is our target audience."

The principles of aesthetics as well as artistic credibility apply only occasionally to the process of creating art. Not to the appreciation of it.
Blake

[arcdawg]

well the artist is getting the attetion that they wanted to get......so it worked right.....newspaper articles and 22 post on this thread.....

art shouldnt be always happy go lucky or even tastful, it should challenge the viewer...

btw I do find it distasteful and someone really needs to get laid if their art exibit is a bunch of dildos ;)

D-

[JamesW]

C'mon you guys - surely there's room for all modes of aristic expression...... or am I sensing a little dildo envy here?
James

[arcdawg]

well the artist is getting the attetion that they wanted to get......so it worked right.....newspaper articles and 22 post on this thread.....

art shouldnt be always happy go lucky or even tastful, it should challenge the viewer...

btw I do find it distasteful and someone really needs to get laid if their art exibit is a bunch of dildos ;)

D-


wow that guy is SMART...... ;)


merry christmas -

dawg