Last year, Michael Hussar's "Daddy's Girl" was presented at Art Basel Miami. Hussar is known for his more violent and visceral images. Blood, gore, and sharp pointy objects can be found in nearly all of his paintings. Hussar's work is also categorized as "Surreal" but I beg to differ with that categorization. In my humblest of humble opinions, Surrealism offers an almost magical and whimsical escape from reality. There can be overtures of doom and gloom, as is prevalent in some of Dali's and Redon's work, yet the overall message is that of levity and escapism. Hussar's work has me so grounded in the present, that I'm bound to my chair by a ball and chain, weighted down by the intensity and gravity of the scene. Not only is this counter to Surrealism, but the feeling rendered is uneasiness to say the least.
Back to "Daddy's Girl." Not only does the title denote a feeling of an over-sexed Lolita, but the actual image confirms it! A horned (phallic symbol) overtly feminine creature with a droplet blood on her chest (perhaps alluding to cum), strategically placed above what appears to be a giant red aureole protruding from her corset, is gratuitously sucking on a long red lollipop (second phallic symbol), alluding to a BJ. Not that I have a problem with sexuality in art, but this is a bit over the top. There is nothing left to the imagination and nowhere is there a psychological resonance other than overt profanity. What is the point of this work? It is not jarring because it is too obvious. So the hope for mental arousal is as dead as her corpse-like skin.
At least Hussar left this Lolita "Daddy's Girl" as a figure of imagination. This year, Dan Colen, once again in my humble opinion, went off the deep end with a deeply and profoundly vulgar and insidious film poster of "The Pursuit of Happiness" manipulated so that Will Smith's son was performing an unspeakable act on his father. This sold for $150,000. WTF?! The proceeds went to a charity that builds schools in Haiti, but seriously, talk about dirty $$. What is the point of this piece of work? (Clearly not a work of art). It not only is too obvious, but it's merely a mockery of how people vandalize and desecrate public posters and advertisements. I look at this and feel disgust. Once again, no psychological resonance, because it is way too obvious and just appears hungry. Hungry for what though? What did Will Smith ever do to deserve this, other than 'Gettin' Jiggy With It?' And the poor little boy with words above his head saying "Lick My Balls." Ugh.
For those who know me, I do like the controversial and strange things that life has to offer. "A Clockwork Orange" is my favorite film and I appreciate thoughtful and psychological art. Yet there has to be a clear conceptual idea with a sense of intelligence attached to it. I can appreciate Patricia Piccinini's work and I can even dig Andres Serrano, but perhaps it's because these works don't push me over the edge enough. Have I lost my absolute openness to become more sensitive?
Thoughts on this would be much appreciated! Help me regain my sense of equilibrium before I slip back into the world of Impressionism!
I may not know art, but I know what I don't like. However, since all of this is subjective, it really doesn't matter whether or not I consider this trash art or not. I am, after all, a member of the great unwashed. Still, what angers me about all this art, is that the artists (a term I use lightly) will put together this trash and demand public money to support their endeavors. Well, you may have freedom of expression, but I am equally free to both ignore and not pay you.
ReplyDeleteI compare such artistic efforts to screaming death metal. You may have trained and practiced for years, studied at the feet of the masters, but defacing a poster or creating anime porn is no more art than shouting unintelligble sounds at the top of your lungs is music.
Well said, Brian. Loved the death metal analogy... but death metal is still considered music... can distasteful art become so distasteful that it just works? Are these images really hauntingly bad? I'm teetering back and forth with this...
ReplyDeleteIt's a good point. For any effort to be considered art, it has to move people in some way. You may admire the beauty, debate the hidden meanings, or explore the social commentary expressed by the piece. However, it seems that we have become so inured by the constant bombardment of the information age that artists seem to feel they need to scream to be heard. The probelm is that the methods are so strident and their work so coarse, they're really not reaching anyone outside the art world, while at the same time expecting patronage and support. Essentailly, they are preaching to the converted, and not winning art any new fans.
ReplyDeleteSo if by "moving people" to tears or want to vomit, is that still considered art?! I agree that there is a need for artists to stand out and in doing so they may get into the freaky side because they realize it makes a statement. But that's been going on through the ages... without the rule-breaking and thinking outside of the box mentality we wouldn't have had artists like Van Gogh, Matisse, Picasso, and even Banksy... so should these artists be demonized for what society inflicts on them in the first place aka the need to scream a message because people are living in a comatose fashion and need to be awakened? Sometimes I look at this kind of art and get more of a rush than a double-shot espresso... and it feels good...
ReplyDelete