Asymmetrical Information

beg to differ--Lolita was a book that really disturbed me and made me uncomfortable, but I still see it as a great example of art. Ditto for Pamela, Clarissa, and the Ballad of Reading Gaol. This might be easier to see in literarture than painting, however. Although it is worthwhile to remember that revolutions in painting and poetry (Keats and the Cockney school of poetry in particular) were extremely controversial and made many people at the time uncomfortable.

beg to differ--Lolita was a book that really disturbed me and made me uncomfortable, but I still see it as a great example of art. Ditto for Pamela, Clarissa, and the Ballad of Reading Gaol. This might be easier to see in literarture than painting, however. Although it is worthwhile to remember that revolutions in painting and poetry (Keats and the Cockney school of poetry in particular) were extremely controversial and made many people at the time uncomfortable.

This argument goes back to the Renaissance, and the fellow who posted this has been on the side that's been losing the argument historically for 500 years.

In London they recently did a show called "Not The Turner Prize", a conservative reaction against the "uncomfortable" Turner Prize. The only problem was- the conservative show looked like pure dreck.

People hated the Impressionists when they first came out.

Not that a lot of avant-guard stuff isn't utter rubbish. History decides what is art, not pundits.

I'm not at all sure that art should make you feel uncomfortable, but it sure can.

Art, whether literary, musical, visual, or other forms, it seems to me should make one think. And, if through that thinking, one becomes uncomfortable, that is a realization that there is a disconnect between what is being presented and the beliefs one feels he has thought through.

But just because you don't feel discomfited does not, therefore, mean that it isn't art.

I'm not denying that great art can make you uncomfortable. Perhaps it even should. But I think that he nails the sort of artists who produce things like "Piss Christ" to the wall -- their art doesn't make them uncomfortable, nor any of the people who determine their artistic (and economic) standing -- it's aimed at making the sort of people who make them uncomfortable, uncomfortable. The same can be said of defecating on the prom queen's bed.

Great art makes you uncomfortable because it asks questions the artist himself may not know how to answer. Mediocre art makes you uncomfortable because the artist is a flaming asshole, and nice people don't like being confronted with other peoples' boorish behavior.

hi megan,
"Great art makes you uncomfortable because it asks questions the artist himself may not know how to answer. Mediocre art makes you uncomfortable because the artist is a flaming asshole, and nice people don't like being confronted with other peoples' boorish behavior."

and how exactly do you tell the difference? i wonder how many of the now hailed "greats" had to put up with the tag- "mediocrity" when they first painted?

also, since when is being an "asshole" a barrier to being a great artist?

Oh, on that I thoroughly agree. Absolutely. I'd almost say that these aren't artists but rather exhibitionists, but that would place me in the position of judging what's art and what isn't. I don't wnat to go there.

Agreed, Megan... but again, "personality-based shock-value" type art (Piss Christ and whatnot) goes back centuries. Only time settles this one.

Most good artists I know don't care whether their stuff is "conservative" or "avant guarde" or not.

They just get on with it. It's the mediocritites and the armchair quarterbacks who get all steamed up.

ah, just another right-wing blog

relevant art that made me squirm, my reaction much like yours to "piss-christ"

Screwtape Letters;Atlas Shrugged deliberately offensive self-congratulating propaganda....maybe also Darkness at Noon and Witness

Loved most of Lewis's other work, including "Three Kinds of Love", "Mere Christianity" make everybody squirm

But Piss Christ doesn't make me squirm because I'm religious; I'm not. It makes me squirm the way I'd squirm if someone exhibited a copy of The Communist Manifesto submerged in urine -- because it's pointlessly nasty.

I can't defend Piss Christ...at best puerile. But a very easy target.

Am uncomfortable with Kokoschka and most German Expressionism; for some reason, wouldn't have a Matisse on my wall...too intense, maybe

And I return to Atlas Shrugged, which I have read more than once....whatever value the ideas, they are contained in a deliberately offensive,hyper-Romanticized,near-fascistic wrapper

Bob, your posts bug because you're trying to make yourself feel smart by throwing around gratuitous vocabulary (e.g. puerile, from the French puérile, meaning childish). News: we all know obscure artists that others haven't heard of (e.g. Oscar Kokoschka, Austrian expressionist painter b. 1886). Also news: it takes about 10 seconds to find out who they are. News item #3: Rand is not exactly new to the canon. Congrats for having added her to your repertoire.

Ah, another leftie who's too smart for me...

Though I am not an artist or even knowing what I'm looking at, shouldn't art make you feel happy, sad, enraged, heroic, contemplative, silly, etc. Isn't uncofortable just one of those?

Oops....meant to say uncomfortable.

1) I really was not aware of trying to show off in that post, anymore that dropping the name of CL Cherryh in another thread was some kind of obscurantism, I honestly thought that everyone here would know who Kokoschka was.

And if using "puerile" instead of "childish" is considered some kind of intellectual affectation maybe we are all in trouble. Using your vocabulary is simply fun,and learning new words is also fun

With whatever slight schadenfreude might accompany their use....ask William Buckley

Did you mean C.J. Cherryh?

Cordelia,

The question isn't so much whether great art can be disturbing, but whether the purpose of great art is to disturb — and, if so, whom?

I think Micklethwaite had it quite right: the idea is not to make yourself uncomfortable, but to derive pleasure from the discomfort of the "wrong" sort of people. When the "right" sort of people are made uncomfortable it's another story. The example I gave over on Stuart Buck's site was one from Nat Hentoff's Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee: a student artist painted something like a family portrait, but with a little door in the woman's abdomen that could be opened; inside was an actual human fetus, in a jar. I gather that was a little too "edgy" for some.

CJ Cherryh yes, my bad

Been a long time

Richard, I think, is on to something.

I think the problem is with the word "should".
Great art may make you uncomfortable. It may make you thoughtful. It may make you happy.

Consider that which has been considered great art for many years, and you find it invoking many different emotions. Those that say it must be disturbing are usually those with an axe to grind. Outside of literature I (my opinion, please) find that "axe to grind art" is pretty awful.

Mike

Great art *may* make you uncomfortable, but if the artist produces a work with the specific intention of making people uncomfortable, the odds are very high that it won't be great (or even good) art.

Great art *may* make you uncomfortable, but if the artist produces a work with the specific intention of making people uncomfortable, the odds are very high that it won't be great (or even good) art.

I guess great art might make one uncomfortable, though that strikes me as vaguely Marxist (down with bourgeoisie comfort!). Isn't the Mona Lisa supposed to be great art? I haven't actually seen it, but I don't see how it could make someone uncomfortable.

I wonder if much of the sensationalized art we see now is not discomforting because it's great but rather the artist makes it discomforting thinking that will make the art great.

I'm reminded of a PJ O'Rourke comment. I was thinking it was in Parliament of Whores, but it's actually from the first chapter of All the Trouble in the World.

He starts the chapter with: "This is a moment of hope in history. Why doesn't anyone say so?" He talks a bit about how much better the world has become than decades and centuries ago, and then goes on to talk about how America has become a country of whiners. And then:

Fretting makes us important. Say you're an adult male and you're skipping down the sidewalk whistling "Last Train to Clarksville." People will call you a fool. But lean over to the person next to you on the subway and say, "How can you smile while innocents are dying in Tibet?" You'll acquire a reputation for great seriousness and also more room to sit down.

Tragedy is better than comedy for self-dramatization, as every teenager knows. Think how little attention we pay to a teen who's bustling around the house with a big smile on his face, greeting parents and siblings with cheery salutations.... Actually, we'd pay a lot of attention and rush him to the drug detox center, post haste. But you know what I mean. Would you rather star in Hamlet or Three's Company?

Being gloomy is easier than being cheerful. Anybody can say "I've got cancer" and get a rise out of a crowd. But how many of us can do five minutes of good stand-up comedy?

So, I make myself a great artist by creating work that makes people uncomfortable. If I can discomfort everybody else without affecting my friends or myself, so much the better.

Art is expression but not all expression is created equal. Some expression comes from people who, right or wrong, are trying to communicate a message to the audience in which the artist makes actual points about society, politics, culture, the natural world, whatever.

Other expression comes from petulant nincompoops who, feeling some unfulfilled void in their ego, go about performing the equivalent of a toddler banging a frying pan with various available objects. The only meaningful difference is that the toddler can be potty trained and is usually bright enough to dispose of urine and feces appropriately before commencing kitchen percussion, thus disqualifying him/herself from NEA grants.

"But just because you don't feel discomfited does not, therefore, mean that it isn't art."

True, and just because you are made uncomfortable by something does not mean it is art. Remember the guy who referred to 9/11 as a piece of performance art? What a twisted set of values?

I remember getting into an argument with someone once about whether something (IIRC it was a rap album) was art, and he said "Who gets to decide what is art?" I said "I do." I don't have a problem making that value judgment, but I certainly don't expect anyone else to come up with the same answers on a regular basis.

As noted by several commenters above, art is a communication between the artist and the observer. To be effective, art must express a message(i.e., an idea, an emotion, etc,) worth expressing and must be executed with sufficient skill communicate the idea. Great art contains a message worth contemplating and is expressed with consumate skill to effectively communicate the message.

Sometimes the message makes us uncomfortable (e.g., Guernica) othertimes it makes us reflect on the most powerful human emotions (e.g. Michelangelo's Pieta) othertimes, it communicates the artist's expression of joy and wonder (e.g. Starry Night). However, in both these instances the works are executed with a master's skill.

I find that most works that are designed to offend contain little content to the message (usually, you are evil and I am morally superior) and are executed without any skill. The net result is the same as a college protester with a bullhorn chanting "hey hey, ho ho, (insert enemy of the day) has got to go". It reflects poorly on the idea trying to be expressed and lessens my opinion of the intelligence of the person expressing the idea.

At the end of the day, art is communication from the artist to the observer, intensly direct and personal.

The same folks who defended the Brooklyn Museum's Madonna in excrement would have been outraged if their own sacred images had been so treated.

It's an academic falsehood that great art initially shocks and discomforts. Sometimes it does, usually it doesn't. As an index of artistry, discomfort level is meaningless.

Sometimes an artist, in hot pursuit of something true, crosses into uncomfortable territory. Lazy academics love readily identified "breakthroughs" so they make a big deal out of the territory, but it's the pursuit that matters. In art or anything else, the pursuit of what's true is the great human enterprise.

Comments are Closed.