There's a Fight Going on in D.C.

Which isn't really a surprise, but this particular fight piqued my interest. Certain groups from all sides of the metaphorical fence including the Catholic League, the Republican party, representatives from the GLBT community, and leaders in the art world have been offended concerning a four minute surrealist video installation which had been showing in the current exhibition of the Smithsonian Institution's National Portrait Gallery until it was pulled due to controversy.

The exhibition, called "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture," is about the development of sexual difference in America and how artists have dealt with it during its changing status since "before difference" which the exhibit marks with Walt Whitman and Thomas Eakins in the 1880s. The controversy centers upon the aforementioned video piece by the late David Wojnarowicz which features an eleven second scene of ants crawling upon a toppled crucifix. The video itself is about Wojnarowicz's turmoil as he watched his partner die of AIDS, followed by Wojnarowicz's own death from the same disease. Evidently, about a month after the exhibition went up, cries of disapproval - sparked mostly by CNSnews - claimed that the video was anti-Christian and offensive after which the Smithsonian removed the piece from view. However, not knowing when to leave well-enough alone, Bill Donohue from the Catholic League decided to go one further and state that the Smithsonian doesn't deserve its federal funding since "I don't go to museums any more than any Americans do." Apparently he believes that since many Americans like him are too ignorant and lazy to seek cultural experiences, our government should be prevented from providing this service to anyone at all.

From there, the fight becomes significantly more complicated and petty (as D.C. politics tend to be) so I'll spare you the details. In essence, the Bill Donohue and his Catholic League are angry about the alleged anti-Christian sentiment, the Republicans (Boehner and friends) are bothered that the Smithsonian used federal funding for the project, the gay community is upset that they haven't been properly supported throughout the venture, and the art world is pissed that the Smithsonian gave in to censorship. In short, it's a mess. And aside from their initial move, the Smithsonian has tried to limit its further commentary on the entire fiasco.

But here's the deal, my opinion at least. Criticisms from the Catholic League, CNS, and the Republicans are just thinly veiled anti-homosexual bigotry. Attacking the use of battered Christian imagery or homo-erotic presentations in modern art is merely an uneducated and biased perspective on a ground-breaking exhibition. Both Christian imagery and homo-eroticism have been staples of Western art since Western art was born. Sure, there is a way to take it too far by exploiting either theme for the sake of shock value or mere mockery, but these images have a purpose and a message. The Republicans are just as bad if not worse by targeting the funds for this and all future projects, clearly looking for a way to get at those they marginalize without outright announcing their homophobia. It's pathetic, disgusting, and unfounded. The Smithsonian Institute needs not be named as an outstanding public organization which has served the public well and faithfully for more than 150 years. The gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community which can be rightfully offended, as we all should be by this nation's persistent refusal to accept them, also needs to understand that sometimes small sacrifices are necessary for a greater good. This exhibit is important; it is new; it is pushing the envelope for recognizing homosexuality as a natural, significant part of life in America. The four minute video sparking religious controversy should not take away focus from the rest of the works, and it was perhaps best to let that argument go in favor of protecting the larger message of Hide/Seek. Lastly, the art community also has the right to be aggravated by censorship, but the safest move in the end is to pull together with the museum rather than threaten to cut external support. The arts go through enough trauma already from our detractors, and we won't stand up much longer if we start dissention within ourselves.

To put the still image in context with the video here's the link. You must be at least 18 or older to watch due to some graphic images and sexual content. This YouTube edit is slightly different than the museum cut most significantly in that it doesn't use the original audio.

ArtNews article reference (with more detail and many excellent embedded links)
NYTimes (focusing more on the gay rights issues at stake)

Grappling with Goya

Apologies. Apologies mostly to Lily since she has been the most interactive reader at this point and then to Amy who has waited patiently for something new by me so she can get on with whatever her next brilliant idea may be. Anyway, on to Goya...

I'm the first to admit that I've earned no expert authority as yet about art on the whole, but as an undergraduate student less than a year shy of completing my major coursework, it's fair enough to say that I at least know a lot about art. Within that, I of course know something more than the average person about Fransisco de Goya, the Spanish painter of the late 18th/early 19th century. However, there's something about him that has always bothered me. It might be more accurate to say that his art has always actually somewhat disturbed me. There's a vein of darkness that runs through his entire body of work that I find dramatically chilling.



Goya began his career as a member of the Spanish Royal Academy and made his name by painting in the courts of King Charles III and IV. Fiercely proud of his country and his heritage, Goya established himself squarely within Spanish artistic tradition following his most famous precursor, Diego Velazquez. Visually speaking, this meant that Goya had a painterly (i.e. loose) style and sought some degree of realism in everything he did. What was different from Velazquez, however, was how far Goya insisted upon taking this idea of non-idealized realism, transforming reverent art into a dose of harsh reality. Even when it came to paintings of the king himself and his family, Goya described them visually with every possible failing - King Charles IV with his cock-eyed physiognomy, some families members with their faces turned away from the onlooker, and my personal favorite, an elderly female relative who looks absolutely batty and has a large black pockmark on her face (a symptom of syphilis). He obviously had an antagonistic relationship with his government, but was somehow clever enough to keep his royally patronized job long enough to satisfy his career.

Goya reveals much deeper and darker revelations in his series of etchings collectively known as the Disasters of War. Responding to the violence he saw during Napoleon's invasion, the Disasters are poignantly stark representations of the most base human conditions. They reduce people to animals and murderous villains as traumatic treatises on corruption and ignorance. The fact that he produced these etchings as a private endeavor reveals that this twisted pet project of Goya's was something of a personal fascination for him.

At the end of his life, Goya painted even more personal and even more disturbing images on the walls of his own home, collectively known as his Black Paintings. Having lost his hearing earlier in life, it seems that Goya finally succumbed to some sort of madness in his old age. The stand out from these works is undoubtedly Saturn Devouring his Own Children (see image) which Goya painted in his dining room of all places. My thesis here, after this extended introduction to the highlights of Goya's work, is that this brooding, tormented style indicates Goya's internal turmoil that likely affected him for his whole life. I believe his paintings are essentially symptoms of a serious psychological disturbance. I think that's why he's always bothered me - because when I look at his paintings, I have the suspicion that I'm very close to a madman. In fact, several of his works that I haven't mentioned deal with insanity or asylums. Perhaps Goya always begrudgingly knew that he belonged with those figures he so frequently painted. He is valued by many as a sort of proto-Romantic, focusing on the inspiration of genius within the artist himself rather than an institutional emphasis on theory and rules. And this is true of the artist, but I posit here that Goya was not merely inspired by his genius, but forcibly driven by it to the extremes of an underlying psychosis.

Thanks to David McCarthy for insight and ArtStor.org for all image credits.

Is this really a da Vinci?

We seem to be on an attribution kick lately. I was perusing my old ArtNews magazines to kill time yesterday and came across the January 2010 issue featuring a debate about the artistic attribution of a portrait of a woman. The painting, known as La Bella Principessa, was thought to have been painted by a German artist in the early 19th century and was sold at auction for a little over $20,000. Recent scholars debate its German roots, however. With no documented provenance, it is easy to fantasize stories about the painting’s origins. The most notorious of the claims concerning this piece is its ties to the Renaissance master Leonardo da Vinci.


So is it by da Vinci? I don’t pretend to be an expert by any means, but I don’t think so. As before with the Pollock issue, I’d have to see the painting in person before making final judgments. The painting just doesn’t seem right as a da Vinci though. He rarely painted figures in profile (minor figures in the Last Supper and Madonna of the Rocks seem to be the exception). The three-dimensionality that was such a prominent component of da Vinci’s work, through strong contrasts of highlighting and shading from the use of chiaroscuro, is more subtly applied here. Under the chin and the nape of her neck display a sense of rounding, but the bust and shoulder are uncharacteristically flat. She does not stand out against the solid background, a feature often replaced by a hazy landscape in his portraits, to give a sense of depth and at the same time is not blended into her surroundings as da Vinci’s sfumato, meaning smoky, painting technique would have given the appearance of. The color scheme of the painting is too bland for da Vinci’s palette. There is little contrast between coloration in the clothing, skin, and hair, and strong highlighting in the face especially is missing from the portrait.

Italian or German? Worth thousands or millions? Dunno…but I don’t like it. Evidence seems to point more against than towards the notion that it was an original by the famous master. Finding an answer to the question of its origins could make or cost $150 million to the owner, but I think knowing whether or not a painting by THE Leonardo da Vinci has been parading around for hundreds of years as a German portrait is much more enticing.

Pollock?!

As Amy A. so eloquently illustrated in her discussion of the so-called "Kimbell Michelangelo," issues of artistic attribution and authenticity are constantly a source of contention in the art world. Amy and I recently sat down to watch the documentary "Who the *$&% (fuck) is Pollock?" about a small-town truck driver, Teri Horton, who purchased a painting at a thrift store for $5 that turned out to possibly be an original Jackson Pollock worth $50 million dollars. Quite the investment.

When attempting to sell the painting (which she essentially thought a piece of crap), a local art teacher approached her with the idea that it might be by the illustrious Ab-Ex painter Jackson Pollock. Her response? "Who the fuck is Pollock?" Our response? Do these romanticized stories of discovering lost paintings in junk shops actually hold any merit?

Horton's ignorance of modern art aside, the discovery of this painting led to a scholarly debate that lasted over ten years. Though connoisseurs tend to shy away from validating the piece as an original by the artist, forensic studies on the paint consistency (comparing the acrylic composition of the paints used between that on the canvas and the remains on Pollock's studio floor) and fingerprints (found on the back of the painting and judged against those found on known Pollocks) point to the authenticity of the work. Art nerds that we are, Amy and I, with our good friend Katie, kept an ongoing debate throughout the movie, resulting in a somewhat solidified belief that the painting was an original but was completed at a later time in his life after the bulk of his compositions. Among other reasons, our theory stems from the forensic findings, the presence of acrylic in his paint (a medium that was not frequently utilized in modern art until years after the artist's death) and his wife's dementia at old age that could possibly have led to the loss of a smaller piece in his body of work. This is only a working theory, however. I'd love to see the painting in person to form my own opinions. Art speaks to you if you take the time to listen, and this piece could have a lot to say.

Turmoil in Egypt has left many ancient artifacts in ruin

Hello friends! Again, welcome to our blog! I am very happy to say that my first post has nothing to do with Texas, but it is, unfortunately, addressing a somewhat less than happy topic.

If you have been keeping up with the news lately, you will undoubtedly have run across mention of the political turmoil that has arisen in Egypt in the past week. Reflecting the animosity in Tunisia a few weeks ago, dissention towards the governing Mubarak regime has spread among Egyptians calling for a more democratic rule. Over two million citizens are standing together, though in a rather unorganized fashion, to take a stand against the political, and subsequent economic, travesty pervasive in the country.

What does this have to do with art? Riots in the streets of major metropolises left major museums and archaeological sites unguarded from looting and vandalism. The Egyptian Museum in Cairo experienced its first attack on Friday in which looters damaged many artifacts. This raid included the defacement of statues from King Tutankhamen’s tomb and the decapitation of two royal mummies, the results of which can be seen in the first picture. More reports of pillaging have sprung up since then from various sites across the country, from Alexandria to Saqqara. Many Egyptians astoundingly stepped up to stop this problem while they waited for patrols to take over guard. In Cairo, everyday citizens even went so far as linking arms in front of the Egyptian Museum to keep intruders out.



Though explanations for the looting and vandalism are still speculative at this stage, many arguments can be made for why priceless historical artifacts have been damaged and removed from their resting places. Economic strife has become a grave issue for the common Egyptian, some being forced to skip meals or steal to feed their children. With many gilded statues unguarded, the prospect of stealing a gold statue to pay for food may have easily come to mind.
Some have also wondered if the Mubarak regime may have paid looters to cause damage to the museum to make the rioters look bad, though no proof for this claim has surfaced yet. A less sexy, but still highly probable explanation could be that some people just simply wanted to take advantage of an opportunity to be destructive.

Reasons aside, an unknown number of irreplaceable artifacts have been damaged and stolen from the leading sources of Egyptian historical preservation. Only time will tell how much damage has been done to the future of Egyptian archaeology, but as the instability settles, we can only hope that the harm is less than we fear. The following site has and will be tracking the results of these events, and I strongly encourage everyone to keep up with the happenings and results of this tumultuous time.
http://egyptopaedia.com/2011/

Looting is by no means a new problem in the world of art and archaeology. Museums and uncovered archaeological sites have suffered from theft for hundreds of years, and scholars are constantly debating the issue of art ownership in cases such as those of the Elgin Marbles in the British Museum (taken from the Greek acropolis in the late 18th century) or the Mona Lisa in the Louvre (stolen in 1911 from the French museum by an Italian who believed it should reside in the homeland of Leonardo da Vinci, its painter). We can’t hope to settle this debate in our lifetime, nor can we assume that destruction of wars, economic downturns cutting funding for the arts, or political upheavals will cease to deter the devastation of historical remains. We can, however, do our part to empathize the importance of these artifacts for our understanding of past cultures and their authority on successive generations of artistry and communicative prowess.

The following video shows some of the damage from the pillaging in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTOf0x-eGU0

Thanks to: Francesca Tronchin, National Geographic, and the Wall Street Journal