----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Yes, it is entirely British. A similar travelling British exhibition,
Pictura Britannica, came to the newly-completed Te Papa (Museum of
New Zealand) at the beginning of 1998. Interestingly enough, as a
point of comparison, that show included an equally-controversial
piece by Tania Kovats entitled "Virigin in a Condom". An article and
correspondence about this from the New Zealand perspective can be
found at:

http://www.nzine.co.nz/hot/virginmary.html

Of course we all know it's not just British artists that make such
contentious art. Mapplethorpe and Haring shows both generated their
fair share of controversy when they came to Wellington. As for
supposedly anti-Christian art, American Andres Serrano's "Piss
Christ" generated a storm of controversy when exhibited at the
National Gallery of Victoria in 1997. There is plenty on the web
about this - one site well worth looking at is:

http://search.echoed.com.au/docs/97_98/serrano.htm

Art as provocation has an eminent godfather in Duchamp's "Fountain"
first exhibited at the Society of Independent Artists in 1917. It is
interesting how we keep seeing replays of this in even more
extreme incitements 'pour epater le bourgeois'. The 'artworks' in
such cases are not just the objects in question, but the reactions of
conservative elements of society who never fail to rise to the bait.

Is it just that the limits of 'artistic freedom' need to be tested
over and over again, or that extremely provocative works
generate intense media coverage which focus public interest and
inevitably boost ticket sales? The whole question of who chooses
artworks for such high profile exhibitions - who's pulling what
strings - and why such provocative works have been chosen in these
and other cases, is worth thinking about.

Relevant to this is a recently-published book entitled "Young
British art : the Saatchi decade". A reviewer states: "for the first
time, it is openly being suggested that the last ten years of young
art production in Britain owes its success to one Charles Saatchi."
Though the reviewer, Matthew Slotover, goes on to dismiss this
suggesion as untenable, Saatchi's influence on contemporary British
art is undeniable. Reputations are made by being included in such
important shows, which are as much (if not more) determined by shrewd
marketing and business interests as they are about
possibly-anachronistic concepts of 'artistic freedom'. The review is
at:

http://www.frieze.co.uk/back_issues/texts/47/47_slotover_yba.html


Max Podstolski

> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> It's my understanding that the Sensation show is predominantly (if not
> entirely) British. If the works of art contained within reflect the
> state of affairs of any nation, it's the UK (and I'd venture to say that
> Chris Ofili's work represents the UK about as much as Bob Flanagan's
> work represents the US).
>
> Ideally, art has no boundaries. In reality, unfortunately, for someone
> with my income who can't afford to visit London galleries, this show is
> the only opportunity to see emerging British art. If public funding is
> truly pulled from this institution, the chances are slim that it will
> focus on more emerging art in the future.
>
> The "disturbing" aspect of this show revolves around religion. This
> matter is as much an issue of Church vs. State as it is Freedom of
> Speech. I don't have any problem with the Catholic Church (or anyone
> else) picketing the show, but as soon as my elected officials begin
> dictating the "appropriateness" of religious subject matter in museums,
> and spending my public tax dollars based on their personal opinions, I
> have to draw the line.
>
> The work in this show was selected for three reasons. It was created,
> it was written about, and it was bought. If anyone has any objection to
> the current trends of content within contemporary art, they should
> either create, write about, or buy art that they're content with.
>
> I hate to break it to you Mr. Keaveney, but if all artists in need of
> psychotherapy visited shrinks instead of creating art, museums would be
> empty. Art History 101.
>
>
> >>> WILLIAM KEAVENEY <[log in to unmask]> 09/27 3:02 PM >>>
> ----------------------------Original
> message----------------------------
>
> Art should enrich the intellectual and aesthetic lives of people
> not serve the psychoanalytic needs of the "artist."  "Artists" who
> are in need of psychotherapy should visit a shrink, not pollute the
> walls and floors of cultural institutions with their deification (or
> the excrement of any animal for that matter).  Their health
> insurance, not public arts funding should finance their "work."  If
> this exhibition in any way reflects the state of cultural
> affairs in the United States then I am ashamed the be an American.
>

**********************************************************
Max Podstolski    email [log in to unmask]
Fine Arts & Humanities Librarian    Tel 64 3 366 7001 ext. 8750
Information Services, Central Library
University of Canterbury       Fax 64 3 364 2055

(Mail: Level 7, Central Library
       University of Canterbury
       Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand)
**********************************************************