Comments for Banned & Dangerous Art http://bannedart.umwblogs.org Freshman Seminar 100KK Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:20:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 Comment on Is Graffiti Art? by Oberon http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/10/18/is-graffiti-art/#comment-259 Oberon Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:51:36 +0000 http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/10/18/is-graffiti-art/#comment-259 .....graffiti art is like porn, i know it when i see it.......art is always dangerous, no matter the medium. …..graffiti art is like porn, i know it when i see it…….art is always dangerous, no matter the medium.

]]> Comment on Un chien andalou by jkopp4vw http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/08/07/un-chien-andalou/#comment-77 jkopp4vw Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:17:26 +0000 http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/08/07/un-chien-andalou/#comment-77 When challenged to begin a dialogue between my class, Video Art, and this class on the censorship of art, it was clear from the onset which of the artists we have studied it would be most appropriate to blog about; Czechoslovakian puppeteer and video artist Jan Švankmajer. We spent a while in class discussing his body of work and the artists subsequently influenced by him—among them Tim Burton and the Brothers Quay—but did not spend a great deal of time discussing the censorship of his work. Thus I needed to do a bit of independent research in order to provide a thoughtful synopsis of this obstacle’s impact on his work and life. Early in his career and during his studies at the Institute of Applied Arts in Prague and during his time at the State Puppet Theater he was quite successful—with critics and also in the sense of being free to explore his innate artistic urges. He proved to be a rising star when he took first prize for his film Johannes Doktor Faust at the Venice Film Festival in 1959. After making another successful film, Cislice, Švankmajer joined the Czechoslovakian surrealist group in 1970, but harder times were ahead. He went on to make the film Ossuary later that year. This film showcases, as its name suggests, a building in which the skeletal remains of humans are stored, and in the case of the famous Sedlec Ossuary filmed by Švankmajer, it is done in an elaborate and baroque fashion. In the original film, a tour guide gives commentary to Švankmajer’s images, but when the authorities in power after the Soviet Invasion of 1968 came to dislike the film, he was ordered to remove this commentary from the film robbing it of much of its intended content. Again in 1972 Švankmajer was faced with censorship when his film Leonardo’s Diary, which presented starkly unappealing images of daily life in communist Czechoslovakia, enraged authorities who consequently banned Švankmajer from filmmaking for seven years. When allowed to return to film making, he was limited to creating films that focused on classic literature, but the disturbing and typically Švankmajer theme of darkness found a fitting home in his filmic experimentations inspired by Poe’s The Fall of the House of Usher in 1979. In 1982, Švankmajer released the short Dimensions of Dialogue, which was much lauded by film critics of the international community, but was met with much hostility from Czech authorities who claimed it was the embodiment of the very kind of filmmaking they were attempting to eradicate. In an interview, Švankmajer explains that during this period of his career he was forced to make many short films, as it was harder for the administration, which had a monopoly on filmmaking, to control than a feature film. After this, Švankmajer escaped to the more remote eastern portion of Czechoslovakia to continue his filmmaking. As we’re all well aware, the communist régime responsible for attempting to silence Švankmajer fell in the famed Velvet Revolution of 1989. However, communist nations were not the only ones in which Švankmajer’s work were censored. His film Conspirators of Pleasure, was never released in the United Kingdom for its racy content featuring, among other things, a specially constructed masturbation machine. To this end—i.e. that censorship is alive and well in Democracies and in many forms—Švankmajer has, in interviews met post-1989 Czechoslovakian capitalism and lack of overt censorship with a skepticism and jaded humor, saying: While there is no censorship of thought, there is censorship of money because, with films like mine, it is very difficult to find money. So now the situation is as if you've got gloves on, meaning that the censorship is not as simple and primitive as it used to be. It's more sophisticated, let's say that. Švankmajer expounds upon this his only political film, The Death of Stalinism in Bohemia, where the viewer watches as hands perform a cesarean section on a bust of Stalin by slicing open his face (filled with entrails) thereby giving birth to a bust of a Czech totalitarian which is then spanked begins crying. The film from this point outlines the history of Czechoslovakia up until the time of the Velvet Revolution. There the film climaxes and ends when Švankmajer returns to this birth metaphor by painting the flag of the new Czech Republic onto the bust of Stalin and performing another cesarean section. This time, however, the screen fades to black before the viewer sees what emerges from its depths, but as the credits begin, one hears a slap and the ominous scream of a new born child. This was not something I was expecting Švankmajer to have expressed. Surely he, of all people, I thought, having dealt with the censorship-happy policies of a totalitarian regime would have immediately embraced the influx of a western-style democracy and the freedoms that we often think come with it. As an American—and I think many of us, even the most open-minded of us, fall victim to this sort of thinking on occasion—I assume that the way that things are done here in America is the way everyone in the world wants to and should want to do things. Although many things in our lives remind us that this is not so (War in Iraq?), self-criticism, introspection and the thoughtful consideration of other lifestyles and practices seems something—pardon the pun—foreign to us. This tendency must be and can only be eliminated through the encouragement of and participation in open dialogues that illuminate varying perspectives like cautious Švankmajer’s. Thus I am excited by the hope that umwblogs.org will prove to be exactly such a dynamic forum where the synthesis of ideas between the members of our community, faculty and students alike, and the sharing information and viewpoints on important topics that are pertinent to all of us can occur. When challenged to begin a dialogue between my class, Video Art, and this class on the censorship of art, it was clear from the onset which of the artists we have studied it would be most appropriate to blog about; Czechoslovakian puppeteer and video artist Jan Švankmajer. We spent a while in class discussing his body of work and the artists subsequently influenced by him—among them Tim Burton and the Brothers Quay—but did not spend a great deal of time discussing the censorship of his work. Thus I needed to do a bit of independent research in order to provide a thoughtful synopsis of this obstacle’s impact on his work and life. Early in his career and during his studies at the Institute of Applied Arts in Prague and during his time at the State Puppet Theater he was quite successful—with critics and also in the sense of being free to explore his innate artistic urges. He proved to be a rising star when he took first prize for his film Johannes Doktor Faust at the Venice Film Festival in 1959. After making another successful film, Cislice, Švankmajer joined the Czechoslovakian surrealist group in 1970, but harder times were ahead. He went on to make the film Ossuary later that year. This film showcases, as its name suggests, a building in which the skeletal remains of humans are stored, and in the case of the famous Sedlec Ossuary filmed by Švankmajer, it is done in an elaborate and baroque fashion. In the original film, a tour guide gives commentary to Švankmajer’s images, but when the authorities in power after the Soviet Invasion of 1968 came to dislike the film, he was ordered to remove this commentary from the film robbing it of much of its intended content. Again in 1972 Švankmajer was faced with censorship when his film Leonardo’s Diary, which presented starkly unappealing images of daily life in communist Czechoslovakia, enraged authorities who consequently banned Švankmajer from filmmaking for seven years. When allowed to return to film making, he was limited to creating films that focused on classic literature, but the disturbing and typically Švankmajer theme of darkness found a fitting home in his filmic experimentations inspired by Poe’s The Fall of the House of Usher in 1979. In 1982, Švankmajer released the short Dimensions of Dialogue, which was much lauded by film critics of the international community, but was met with much hostility from Czech authorities who claimed it was the embodiment of the very kind of filmmaking they were attempting to eradicate. In an interview, Švankmajer explains that during this period of his career he was forced to make many short films, as it was harder for the administration, which had a monopoly on filmmaking, to control than a feature film. After this, Švankmajer escaped to the more remote eastern portion of Czechoslovakia to continue his filmmaking. As we’re all well aware, the communist régime responsible for attempting to silence Švankmajer fell in the famed Velvet Revolution of 1989. However, communist nations were not the only ones in which Švankmajer’s work were censored. His film Conspirators of Pleasure, was never released in the United Kingdom for its racy content featuring, among other things, a specially constructed masturbation machine. To this end—i.e. that censorship is alive and well in Democracies and in many forms—Švankmajer has, in interviews met post-1989 Czechoslovakian capitalism and lack of overt censorship with a skepticism and jaded humor, saying:
While there is no censorship of thought, there is censorship of money because, with films like mine, it is very difficult to find money. So now the situation is as if you’ve got gloves on, meaning that the censorship is not as simple and primitive as it used to be. It’s more sophisticated, let’s say that.
Švankmajer expounds upon this his only political film, The Death of Stalinism in Bohemia, where the viewer watches as hands perform a cesarean section on a bust of Stalin by slicing open his face (filled with entrails) thereby giving birth to a bust of a Czech totalitarian which is then spanked begins crying. The film from this point outlines the history of Czechoslovakia up until the time of the Velvet Revolution. There the film climaxes and ends when Švankmajer returns to this birth metaphor by painting the flag of the new Czech Republic onto the bust of Stalin and performing another cesarean section. This time, however, the screen fades to black before the viewer sees what emerges from its depths, but as the credits begin, one hears a slap and the ominous scream of a new born child.
This was not something I was expecting Švankmajer to have expressed. Surely he, of all people, I thought, having dealt with the censorship-happy policies of a totalitarian regime would have immediately embraced the influx of a western-style democracy and the freedoms that we often think come with it. As an American—and I think many of us, even the most open-minded of us, fall victim to this sort of thinking on occasion—I assume that the way that things are done here in America is the way everyone in the world wants to and should want to do things. Although many things in our lives remind us that this is not so (War in Iraq?), self-criticism, introspection and the thoughtful consideration of other lifestyles and practices seems something—pardon the pun—foreign to us. This tendency must be and can only be eliminated through the encouragement of and participation in open dialogues that illuminate varying perspectives like cautious Švankmajer’s. Thus I am excited by the hope that umwblogs.org will prove to be exactly such a dynamic forum where the synthesis of ideas between the members of our community, faculty and students alike, and the sharing information and viewpoints on important topics that are pertinent to all of us can occur.

]]> Comment on Is Graffiti Art? by Brodie http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/10/18/is-graffiti-art/#comment-76 Brodie Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:34:30 +0000 http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/10/18/is-graffiti-art/#comment-76 being a graffiti writer myself i am SLIGHTLY biased. i personally think that anyone who says that graffiti is not art is ignorant, close minded, and irrational. though,knowing that this reading comes from the policy of brittish graffiti removal, i am really not suprised to hear all this. i am also not suprised to see all of this simply because the brittish govt. has been defeated SO many times by influential artists such as banksy and borf. being a graffiti writer myself i am SLIGHTLY biased. i personally think that anyone who says that graffiti is not art is ignorant, close minded, and irrational. though,knowing that this reading comes from the policy of brittish graffiti removal, i am really not suprised to hear all this.

i am also not suprised to see all of this simply because the brittish govt. has been defeated SO many times by influential artists such as banksy and borf.

]]> Comment on Is Graffiti Art? by SF http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/10/18/is-graffiti-art/#comment-65 SF Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:28:09 +0000 http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/10/18/is-graffiti-art/#comment-65 Or does labeling graffiti as "art" defuse it of meaning? Another voice to add to the mix, this one from "AK-47" (Zhang Dali) in the People's Republic of China: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/12/07/beijing.qa/ Cheers, S. Fernsebner Hist. and Am. Studies / UMW Or does labeling graffiti as “art” defuse it of meaning? Another voice to add to the mix, this one from “AK-47″ (Zhang Dali) in the People’s Republic of China:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/12/07/beijing.qa/

Cheers,

S. Fernsebner
Hist. and Am. Studies / UMW

]]> Comment on Is Graffiti Art? by Shannon http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/10/18/is-graffiti-art/#comment-64 Shannon Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:41:54 +0000 http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/10/18/is-graffiti-art/#comment-64 To say that graffiti is not art is a very strong statement. Makes me wonder about the kind of person who wrote the article. Is their only experience with art come from viewing it in a fancy gallery? As with many problems in society people tend to look at the symptoms rather than the disease. Why does graffiti show up in poor neighborhoods where the crime rate is higher? Maybe because graffiti is cheaper than most forms of art? I view this similarly to the way people have a problem with rap and hiphop. Most people don't like rap because of a lot mainstream stuff tends to be shallow and offensive. But just because the offensive music gets the attention doesn't mean there aren't great artists that are making inspiring and brilliant music and it definitely exists. Not all graffiti is great, but to say it isn't art says that a culture of people have no expression value. To say that graffiti is not art is a very strong statement. Makes me wonder about the kind of person who wrote the article. Is their only experience with art come from viewing it in a fancy gallery?
As with many problems in society people tend to look at the symptoms rather than the disease. Why does graffiti show up in poor neighborhoods where the crime rate is higher? Maybe because graffiti is cheaper than most forms of art?
I view this similarly to the way people have a problem with rap and hiphop. Most people don’t like rap because of a lot mainstream stuff tends to be shallow and offensive. But just because the offensive music gets the attention doesn’t mean there aren’t great artists that are making inspiring and brilliant music and it definitely exists. Not all graffiti is great, but to say it isn’t art says that a culture of people have no expression value.

]]> Comment on Is Graffiti Art? by reverend http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/10/18/is-graffiti-art/#comment-63 reverend Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:01:33 +0000 http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/10/18/is-graffiti-art/#comment-63 <blockquote>Graffiti is not just an isolated nuisance but linked to other forms of enviro-crime that demean and spoil our streets, town centres and open spaces. Graffiti is a costly and annoying expression of anti-social behavior that can undermine our sense of well-being, making us feel uncomfortable in our own neighbourhoods…</blockquote> For a second there I thought they were talking about developments like Central park and the rest of the Box store nightmares. I can't think any worse local "enviro-crime" than the irresponsible development that takes place at an insane rate all over this country. Scarring our landscape with the with an "anti-social" built environment that drives people into to the isolation chambers of their vehicles and homes. I can't think of any enviro-terrorism more detrimental to the well-being of a culture. I enjoy Robert Crumb's "A Short History of America" that drives this point home quite nicely. You can see it on YouTube <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ym5n-ZZWUs" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Another recent trend has me fascinated is the projection graffiti, you can see it in action here. http://graffitiresearchlab.com/

Graffiti is not just an isolated nuisance but linked to other forms of enviro-crime that demean and spoil our streets, town centres and open spaces. Graffiti is a costly and annoying expression of anti-social behavior that can undermine our sense of well-being, making us feel uncomfortable in our own neighbourhoods…

For a second there I thought they were talking about developments like Central park and the rest of the Box store nightmares. I can’t think any worse local “enviro-crime” than the irresponsible development that takes place at an insane rate all over this country. Scarring our landscape with the with an “anti-social” built environment that drives people into to the isolation chambers of their vehicles and homes. I can’t think of any enviro-terrorism more detrimental to the well-being of a culture.

I enjoy Robert Crumb’s “A Short History of America” that drives this point home quite nicely. You can see it on YouTube here.

Another recent trend has me fascinated is the projection graffiti, you can see it in action here. http://graffitiresearchlab.com/

]]> Comment on Why was this poet’s work banned? Is it dangerous? by interested observer http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/09/04/blog-directory/#comment-55 interested observer Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:09:14 +0000 http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/09/04/blog-directory/#comment-55 I found this, a statement from the DA who wanted to ban specific poems from Whitman's Leaves of Grass "We are of the opinion that this book is such a book as brings it within the provisions of the Public Statutes respecting obscene literature and suggest the propriety of withdrawing the same from circulation and suppressing the editions thereof." Stevens demanded the removal of the poems "A Woman Waits for Me" and "To a Common Prostitute", as well as changes to "Song of Myself", "From Pent-Up Aching Rivers", "I Sing the Body Electric", "Spontaneous Me", "Native Moments", "The Dalliance of the Eagles", "By Blue Ontario’s Shore", "Unfolded Out of the Folds", "The Sleepers", and "Faces". Whitman rejected the censorship, writing to Osgood, "The list whole & several is rejected by me, & will not be thought of under any circumstances." Osgood refused to republish the book and returned the plates to Whitman. -- However...I'm not sure I believe that they banned it for being "obscene" -- it's probably accurate that they banned Whitman's poetry for his ... "non-traditional" lifestyle I found this, a statement from the DA who wanted to ban specific poems from Whitman’s Leaves of Grass

“We are of the opinion that this book is such a book as brings it within the provisions of the Public Statutes respecting obscene literature and suggest the propriety of withdrawing the same from circulation and suppressing the editions thereof.” Stevens demanded the removal of the poems “A Woman Waits for Me” and “To a Common Prostitute”, as well as changes to “Song of Myself”, “From Pent-Up Aching Rivers”, “I Sing the Body Electric”, “Spontaneous Me”, “Native Moments”, “The Dalliance of the Eagles”, “By Blue Ontario’s Shore”, “Unfolded Out of the Folds”, “The Sleepers”, and “Faces”.

Whitman rejected the censorship, writing to Osgood, “The list whole & several is rejected by me, & will not be thought of under any circumstances.” Osgood refused to republish the book and returned the plates to Whitman.

–

However…I’m not sure I believe that they banned it for being “obscene” — it’s probably accurate that they banned Whitman’s poetry for his … “non-traditional” lifestyle

]]> Comment on Why was this poet’s work banned? Is it dangerous? by Corrie http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/09/04/blog-directory/#comment-54 Corrie Tue, 11 Sep 2007 02:45:54 +0000 http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/09/04/blog-directory/#comment-54 i didnt know whitman was gay. what a great point to bring up about why he had banned poetry. last year in english 12 i read a lot of whitmans poems and they were extremely simplistic. perhaps back then they didnt value his informal style that we appreciate today. i didnt know whitman was gay. what a great point to bring up about why he had banned poetry. last year in english 12 i read a lot of whitmans poems and they were extremely simplistic. perhaps back then they didnt value his informal style that we appreciate today.

]]> Comment on Why was this poet’s work banned? Is it dangerous? by Madeline http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/09/04/blog-directory/#comment-53 Madeline Fri, 07 Sep 2007 02:56:56 +0000 http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/09/04/blog-directory/#comment-53 Whitman's homosexuality was a big thing for people back then, because he was very open and unapologetic about it. His poetry was also very in your face for that day and time. "I Sing Myself" was really out there for a society that was used to not praising themselves and being modest and trying not to be prideful. So because his lifestyle was so controversial people probably banned his work so they wouldn't have to think about what he was and what he was saying. Whitman’s homosexuality was a big thing for people back then, because he was very open and unapologetic about it. His poetry was also very in your face for that day and time. “I Sing Myself” was really out there for a society that was used to not praising themselves and being modest and trying not to be prideful. So because his lifestyle was so controversial people probably banned his work so they wouldn’t have to think about what he was and what he was saying.

]]> Comment on Why was this poet’s work banned? Is it dangerous? by Brodie http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/09/04/blog-directory/#comment-52 Brodie Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:44:32 +0000 http://bannedart.umwblogs.org/2007/09/04/blog-directory/#comment-52 i haven't read much of his stuff i dont think i've got the ammo i need to comment on this but i can only guess that he was banned because he said things that people thought were contrary or against the curve at the time. that may be all i have to offer, my apologies. i haven’t read much of his stuff i dont think i’ve got the ammo i need to comment on this but i can only guess that he was banned because he said things that people thought were contrary or against the curve at the time. that may be all i have to offer, my apologies.

]]>