Too much in too little. /Angelynn.

Before I start, I want to apologise for my delayed post, as I usually post near the beginning of the week. However, I have fallen miserably ill this week, and haven't been awake long enough to write for you! So here I go.. (Disclaimer: For any glaring errors here, I blame my fever.)

This week's Art Now! session is my favourite of the series so far: Identity Politics & The Culture Wars.

Censorship, freedom, and the right of access. It seems that censorship actually gives more attention to the work in question than if it were left alone, as the media coverage raises awareness. Does this censorship hinder our freedom to information? What does cloaking actually do? We talked about how there were "I-can-see-this-because-it-does-not-apply-to-me-but-no-one-else-can" situations where there is this awkward and ridiculous idea of who is allowed to see/know what. People would protest something that they have no idea what it's about (like in the case of Saatchi's Sensation Show), and this would help fuel the wars.

Take David Wojnarowicz's A Fire In My Belly (click through link for video), for example.. There's a segment of the film that shows ants crawling over Jesus and his crucifix. After protests from a right-wing Catholic group and members of Congress over the aforementioned scene, the video was removed from an exhibition of gay portraiture at the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture." So Dr. Ivey asked us to look at a screenshot of the ants over crucifix, then asked for our thoughts. How and why is this so offensive? One suggested that ants are considered disgusting creatures, and could be seen as desecrating the religious figure. Or perhaps it is because the raw image explicitly shows that Jesus is a corpse, a dead worldly figure of the past? Maybe we see ourselves as the tiny ants (from atop a building, "we look like ants")? On the other hand, ants are creatures that live in a complex and harmonious community, so the segment could be perceived as humbling and paying tribute.

We continued and talked about the museum's curatorial department. It is crucial that the museum choose works to display not only because they are "great works of art," but also because they have significant implications. It's not enough that the department pick a piece that is important; it must package the work in a manner in which the public is able to comprehend when seeing it on display. This responsibility weighs heavily on museums. This part of MOCA was put to the test in 2009, when MOCA Tucson was under fire for having an art work that features phallic shapes (Big Dicks by Jaime Scholnick). Republican politicians created a stir about the piece, demonizing it as "pornographic." The series of newspaper and billboard attacks were funded by the group, Tucson Vision Committee, which was supported by Bruce Ash, a Republican national committeeman. They pushed on and attacked MOCA for using tax-payers' money to subsidize the dirty Big Dicks exhibition. However, MOCA is not funded by the city, as it receives its funds by grants (free money, essentially), and Big Dicks was a title for one particular work of art (not a whole exhibition). MOCA's curator Anne-Marie Russell defended the value of Scholnick's work by stating the fact that "there are penises in art" from Praxiteles to Michelangelo. And it's true, many works of art sanctioned by the Catholic Church are far more violent and explicit than several semi-abstract Wharhol-colored phallic shapes on a canvas.

Overall, our topics spanned across so many works and artists that I wish our lectures could carry on for a few more hours, to allow us the opportunity of a tad more in-depth study. It's just so dense! Aside from the lecture and discussions, I learned more about how receipts and some funds are handled in MOCA (invoices, donations, memberships, etc.), as I worked mainly with Rachelle this week. Things are going smoothly so far. I'm trying to direct my thoughts towards my final product more heavily, now that I realise my initial idea might not work out as I had imagined it would...but we'll see! (Need to speak with Mr. Ramirez and Anne-Marie!)

Until next time,
Angelynn.

P.S.: There's my boring title, ruined by the obvious labeling of my name. Bah.