A Bit of Perspective on the Use of Feces and Toilets in Protests:
As I've noted below, I think it's wrong for Stanislav Shmulevich to face felony prosecution for stealing and destroying two books from the Pace library.
At the same time, let's have a bit of perspective here: Throwing books in the toilet and defecating on them is a strikingly vulgar and juvenile way of expressing yourself, and would be even if Shmulevich had refrained from theft and vandalism and did this with his own Koran (and cleaned up after himself so as not to jeopardize Pace's plumbing).
That Shmulevich is being mistreated here shouldn't lead us to lose sight of the fact that his actions, even setting aside the theft, are hardly admirable.
Related Posts (on one page):
- A Bit of Perspective on the Use of Feces and Toilets in Protests:
- The Perils of Hate Crime Laws:
- The Shmulevich Case -- Facts and New York Law, as I Can Best Figure Them Out:
But I should think the point is that he ought to be punished for stealing and vandalizing university property. And his punishment should be commensurate with what other students have received in comparable (I won't say 'similar') cases. In no way should he be let off if he seeks to make the case that this was 'a political speech act'. I don't think you and I disagree (?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_protest
In that sense, Piss Christ is 'Art.' Which is one reason that I'm not "Demanding Art" in my children's school, despite being told to do so by bumper-stickers.
Arresting him for a felony hate crime is not a reasonable response. Just as in the case of the recent arrest of schoolboys as sexual offenders for slapping their classmates bottoms in school hallways, it is much more important to condemn the misuse and abuse of power by over-reacting officials than to express disapproval of the students' crudity. The students are still young enough to learn better behavior; the officials need to be restrained more forcefully.
Gary--See, this is where screwed-up. You gotta get the grant BEFORE you smear stuff with feces. Then, and only then, does it rise to the status of 'Art.' Otherwise, it's just a poopy thing.
Or as I once put it: (1) definition of art: it's what artists create. (2) definition of artist: a person who creates art.
I do like the grant idea as definitional, tho.
But now I have the image of my eldest child on this fall's class visit to the Art Institute of Chicago.
Security Guard: "Don't touch that! It's priceless!"
Room Mother:"Don't touch that! It might have poo on it!"
Grants only signify that someone, somewhere, was able to cajole someone else to give him/her money. Last time I looked, raising funds was an activity distinguishable from fine art. Granted, the border may blur at times, but art cannot be define solely because somebody is willing to buy it. By that definition, Van Gogh's painting weren't art until some time after he died.
If we'd like to redefine art so that it exists only as the creating of those now deceased, I could probably go along, but that isn't what dictionaries require as of now.
Well said. But defend them we must. We are the finger in the dike of society.
Particularly when reading the part where Mohammed had sex with a 9 year old "wife".
Now pedophilia is deeply ingrained in Islamic tradition.
I agree and even though I don’t agree with bias crime statutes, I have no problem with his prosecution. My preference though would be to expel him as a student and if possible revoking his visa and expelling him from the country. We have enough problems with citizens committing crimes that we don’t need to tolerate it from foreigners as well.
Can't it be both?
Sure. Like Dali's corpus.
So far, nobody has said anything admiring about him.
This isn't about a $2 book.
Agreed so why bother defending him? This wasn’t someone who was doing something that most of us think should be legal (stealing and destroying someone else’s property is illegal in all 50 States as it should be) but rather a dispute over how severe his punishment should be for doing what pretty much everyone agrees should be a crime.
---
Also as my previous comments have illustrated I have not the slightest sympathy for religion and indeed feel strongly that we ought not to avoid offending people's religions. While religious people obviously ought to benefit from the same standards of politeness we give earnest believers in UFOs or flat earthers the great popularity of their views shouldn't impose extra politeness obligations on the speaker.
But this all having been said 'Piss Christ' isn't a worthwhile work of art in any normal sense of the word. It certainly created an interesting debate in this country but it simply doesn't produce feelings of aesthetic appreciation in the eyes of most viewers and that ultimately is the only criteria for whether something is good art. And yes I'm willing to bite the bullet and say that some pop culture 'trash' is better art than certain critically acclaimed works simply because it produces that feeling of aesthetic excellence in a much larger percent of the population.
> but it simply doesn't produce feelings of aesthetic appreciation in the eyes of most viewers and that ultimately is the only criteria for whether something is good art.
It must be "good art" to be art? How many people have to aesthetically appreciate it before it reaches your threshold? is 5% enough? 10%?
The news reports I’ve read describe him as a Ukrainian immigrant which I took to mean that he was not a naturalized citizen. It’s unclear though whether he’s here on a temporary work visa or student visa (apparently he was just a few credits shy of graduating and was employed at a financial firm when he committed his crimes).
But yes, I have no problem with deporting non-citizens who commit acts of theft and vandalism. If you are in our country as a guest – which is what a legal immigrant is – and you so flagrantly violate our laws, we’re perfectly within our rights to send you home.
No, it must be good art to be worthwhile art.
Almost certainly it is art. All it takes for something to be art is for someone to create it with the requisite intentions. If I think I'm creating art then photocopies of my ass on the copier are art. It's just not a very useful standard.
In the sense that the artist, Soriano, said he had done it not to insult Christianity but to protest against people who would insult or trivialize Christianity.
Now, I don't know whether this was post-controversy remorse, an out and out lie, or his true sentiments. But if we take him at his word, the work was an artistic failure, because NOBODY got that message out of it.
As for Thorley, OK, if we're going to deport 'guests' for 'crimes,' I expect you to demand deportation of any of the Muslims involved in this. Their assault on American values (if not statutes) surely meets the very low threshhold you've erected.
Yours is like tripping over the time line.
> but it simply doesn't produce feelings of aesthetic appreciation in the eyes of most viewers and that ultimately is the only criteria for whether something is good art.
>>No, it must be good art to be worthwhile art.
Ok, I'm not sure what your criteria for good art is. Based on your statement above it looks like majority opinion decides whether art is good. Does art that the next generation appreciates more than this one only become good art with time? What about art that 49% of the population really appreciates, is that automatically not good?
Two things, at least, are prominent, 1) the public funding issue itself transcends any "good art vs. bad art" debate, for example Serrano was paid with U.S. taxpayer dollars for the 'Piss Christ' and 2) you do realize - do you not? - that you invite an endless regression? In other words, if tastes concerning art can be contested, as they surely can, then likewise tastes concerning art criticism can be contested. If you are going to deny someone's cache in terms of art criticism, why shouldn't someone else be able to deny your own counter-criticism, as well as the merits of Serrano's work?
But the public funding issue was always primary, not secondary (and in terms of social courage we are still waiting for a Serrano work that comments acerbically upon some Islamic theme).
What crimes were committed by the Muslims involved in this incident?
It is difficult to see how this can be construed as a hate crime, unless any act or speech that offends or intimidates someone is a hate crime. By such a broad definition, burning a flag, Piss Christ, and handing out copies of the Communist Manifesto or the Bible are all hate crimes.
>1) the public funding issue itself transcends any "good art vs. bad art" debate, for example Serrano was paid with U.S. taxpayer dollars for the 'Piss Christ'
Yes I'm aware. I also don't remember taking any position on that or engaging in debate on that issue. (but I'll take a tentative one below).
>2) you do realize - do you not? - that you invite an endless regression? In other words, if tastes concerning art can be contested, as they surely can, then likewise tastes concerning art criticism can be contested.
I also didn't contest anyone's taste. TruePath is free to like or not like the art. I contested his standard, which seems bizzare to me to try an even set one.
I'm not sure we should be publicly funding art at all. But if we do, I'd be very wary about "good art" quality standards.
Ah, but that's not what Eugene was talking about:
"Throwing books in the toilet and defecating on them is a strikingly vulgar and juvenile way of expressing yourself, and would be even if Shmulevich had refrained from theft and vandalism and did this with his own Koran"
Once you start to question the nature of the act even if no illegal activity is involved, the comparison to Piss Christ is very straightforward. Too bad Eugene doesn't discuss the comparison.