2008 Woodie Awards
Controversial exploits done in the name of art
Lisa Marie Basile
Issue date: 4/30/08 Section: Arts & Entertainment
It used to be that musicians, painters and writers were revered in their own right. They were seen as having extraordinary qualities, as demigods in a sense. They were, in each their own respective rights, placed under the seemingly elitist umbrella of art. Their work ranged from beautiful and ephemeral to shocking and offensive. The Russian composer Shostakovich was repeatedly questioned by the Stalin Administration regarding his loyalty to the U.S.S.R, but his craft was never questioned. Regardless of being a dissident or not, his musical work was always considered art.
Today, almost anything passes as art; it may be that the acceptance of different media as art is caused by the subjective nature of the craft - whether it be fashion, food or the traditional forms of expression. And today, if one were to offend the masses, their work runs the risk of being questioned. Could something revolting still be considered art? While the production of art is typically a grueling process, whether it be emotionally, physically or mentally, how far people go to create and receive credit for art appears to be too far for some.
Take the case of Jonathan Yegge. Unlike Shostakovich, his form of art isn't traditional, and the shock value of his work may either credit or discredit it. In 2000, the San Francisco Art Institute student performed publicly on campus with a volunteer and a policeman, who validated their public actions. Controversy was stirred both of the conceptual background of the action and the voyeuristic nature of the performance as a whole. As Yegge described the volunteer, "he was tied up. He had a blindfold and a gag, but he could see and talk through it. He had freedom of movement of his pelvis. I engaged in oral sex with him and he engaged in oral sex with me. I had given him an enema, and I had taken a shit and stuffed it in his ass. That goes on, he shits all over me, I shit in him. There was a security guard present. There was an instructor from the school present. It was videoed, and the piece was over."
Today, almost anything passes as art; it may be that the acceptance of different media as art is caused by the subjective nature of the craft - whether it be fashion, food or the traditional forms of expression. And today, if one were to offend the masses, their work runs the risk of being questioned. Could something revolting still be considered art? While the production of art is typically a grueling process, whether it be emotionally, physically or mentally, how far people go to create and receive credit for art appears to be too far for some.
Take the case of Jonathan Yegge. Unlike Shostakovich, his form of art isn't traditional, and the shock value of his work may either credit or discredit it. In 2000, the San Francisco Art Institute student performed publicly on campus with a volunteer and a policeman, who validated their public actions. Controversy was stirred both of the conceptual background of the action and the voyeuristic nature of the performance as a whole. As Yegge described the volunteer, "he was tied up. He had a blindfold and a gag, but he could see and talk through it. He had freedom of movement of his pelvis. I engaged in oral sex with him and he engaged in oral sex with me. I had given him an enema, and I had taken a shit and stuffed it in his ass. That goes on, he shits all over me, I shit in him. There was a security guard present. There was an instructor from the school present. It was videoed, and the piece was over."
Be the first to comment on this story