Today's class ended with some heavy questions. We filed out of the lecture hall in a sombre silence, pondering the dark topics we had been discussing for the past two hours. When it comes to Art, where do you draw the line? Which boundaries do you choose to leave intact? Once you have chosen, you have to question, why leave those in the realm of taboo while attempting to tackle others? Today we discussed transgression. Particularly, we focused on the concept of transgression in Art. The presentation went from something as tame as (according to today's standards) Manet's 'Olympia' to the extreme end of the spectrum resulting in bludgeoning a kitten to death with a hammer and then proceeding to masturbate over its corpse. Needless to say, we left pondering the darker side of human nature.
It can be argued that all great Art is transgressive. Perhaps. I'm sure the works and artists remembered today were transgressive, to an extent. I always attempt to regard history with caution. Art History is very subjective. I was recently reading a essay on the idea of Art History as a global phenomena. James Elkins very candidly points out that Art Historians are not immune from patriotism when it comes to compiling their books and records. I haven't gotten very far into the book, but it has become quite clear that Art History is being approached as a Western model by most people looking into the subject. Are all the "greats" immortalized in our history books transgressive? Probably. Were they the first ones or the best in their respective categories? Probably not. I often reflect about those who were forgotten because they didn't have the correct contacts to enter those fated social circles.
Transgressive Art plays an incredibly vital role in the way culture evolves. I suppose transgressive thought is a better way to put it. I have a hard time separating Thought from Art. They have an interdependent relationship and that suits me just fine. Do I think all Art needs to be transgressive? No. I would define Art as the universal urge to create. It compels us when we are content and it compels us when we are in dire circumstances. It is a way to digest life. In that sense, I feel that Art and Art Therapy are two names for the same thing. Art is a reflection of the people who give it time to grow. You need to see both the conventional and the controversial in a culture to tackle and achieve a chunk of that ever so elusive Understanding. That being said, I cannot downplay the importance transgression plays. Where would we get in life without a little bit of rule breaking? How can we ever hope to understand the classic questions of humanity if we don't ponder over why we ponder in the first place.
Unfortunately, when you decide to sit down and give it serious thought, you have to acknowledge all of it. Even the dark, sour things that threaten to break your heart. I'm not proposing that I have any answers. I'm fumbling for understanding and there are moments when I refuse to think about it at all. I want to ignore it because it makes me feel helpless. It's like my body is dust, and there's nothing I could ever accomplish because the slightest woosh of uncertainty would obliterate me as if I never existed. That feeling scares the shit out of me, but I know that I'll never get anywhere if I hide. It leaves you with such a gnawing dissatisfaction. The last piece we looked at before ending for the day was Marina Abramovic's performance Rhythm 0. She stood passively in a space for six hours, inviting strangers to do as they wished.
"There are 72 objects on the table that one can use on me as desired." (Among these: a rose, a feather, etc. to a knife, and a loaded gun)
Why? Perhaps to prove that people can really, truly suck, despite the country. There is the illusion that the terrible aspects of humanity rear their heads exclusively in the Third World. Abramovic showed that humanity carries a darker side, no matter the country. The performance started off tame, the audience have her hold pictures, a rose, tickling her with the feather. Then the aggressive acts of a few emboldened others.
“The experience I learned was that…if you leave decision to the public, you can be killed.” ... “I felt really violated: they cut my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the public. Everyone ran away, escaping an actual confrontation.”
Just because there is the invitation, is that justification for hurting someone? Or killing them?
