This is another 'thank you' to everyone who reads my blog. I imagine, based on the current statistics that by mid next week I will have received 5,000 hits since I put the tracker on the site on the 21 December, 2009. Having said that, this particular blog post extends an invitation to you to add a comment telling me which entry you've enjoyed the most. Hits attached to individual posts reveal that you like reading my reviews of art exhibitions and I'll continue to do this from time to time. I'll tell you what I think about 'Red Fragments' the installation by Swedish artist Carl Michael Von Hasswolff to be unveiled at Mockridge Fountain in the City Square next Monday. I'm interested that there has been so much controversy surrounding the fact that the artist has used 'blood from a dead baby in the Congo' and 'blood from a dead teenager decapitated by neo-Nazis'. Why do people get so upset when bodily fluids are used in artworks? Remember the furor that ensured and the action taken by Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell who attempted to stop Andres Serrano's 'Piss Christ' photograph being shown at the National Gallery of Victoria in 1997? Other posts on my blog where I make comments about my day or personal reflections, also appear to be well received by you. But really ~ I'd love to know what you think. So, if you have a moment to reflect, perhaps you will post a comment about my blog. Thank you.
© Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to [Julie Joy Clarke] and [Anything But Human] with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. Unless otherwise stated all images are Copyright to Julie Clarke (c)
I really like the question "why do people get so upset when bodily fluids are used in artworks?" Why reducing bodily fluids as a material of an artwork is a taboo? I don't have any answer for that. I just feel more comfortable to see body be sanctified as something you shall not exploit it in anyway. It is not a rational position. It is just a emotional one. Looking forward to hear more opinions about it.
ReplyDeleteLionel, the human body (in its material sense as well as image) is already exploited in many ways in our society (and other societies as well). Body parts ~ kidney, heart, liver, lungs, corneas, skin, bones, foreskin, cells, blood, semen, ovum are commodities transplanted from live or dead donors to a needy recipient, or used in biomedical experimentation. These organs and pieces of human body tissue and fragments are bought, sold, traded (sometimes on the black market) for financial gain or other rewards ~ so, given that 'we' appear unconcerned with the way some people body's (usually the poor) are exploited, how do we justify being concerned when a small amount of another person's bodily fluids is used in an artwork ~ which is also traded for profit? I’m not being critical of people who feel compelled for financial reasons to exploit their own bodies, for it is their sovereign right to do what they want to with their own bodies, after all, if we don’t have that right, then what rights do we really have? However, I do take issue with those who are willing to exploit the poor; for they are in a position of being coerced into selling a body part because they have no other way of earning a living.
ReplyDeleteRemember also that performance artists have been using their bodies as an art material for at least five decades and they have shown them-selves naked, ejaculated, cut themselves and penetrated their bodies with objects and implements, all in the name of the body politic.
I am interested in why you feel some sense of 'comfort' in thinking that the human body is somehow 'sanctified' ~ sacred ~ pure. You most certainly wouldn't be talking about 'purity' of the body, for surely you understand that 'the body' is rife with bacteria, viruses, e-coli and other substances, which actually, in a sense posit us as more 'bacterial' than 'human'. Also, philosophically speaking, ‘the body’ was never pure ~ it is inscribed or over-laid with all kinds of political connotations and continually infected with mutating ideas.
However, if you are talking about the body as 'sacred' in a religious sense ~ holy ~ purified ~ in a relationship to an unseen god, then I guess that this may have been Archbishop Pell's point. I personally don't believe in the sanctity of the body ~ never did; but this doesn't mean that I lack morality ~ quite the contrary. I was brought up with all kinds of ideas about what I should and shouldn't do with my body ~ some I adhere to other's I've dismissed. Thanks for replying to my post ~ I also hope that others make a contribution.
Aliey Ball said on Facebook in response to this post:
ReplyDelete"I highly value your art reviews, they are thoughtful, intelligent and insightful, and show a deep appreciation of contemporary art and culture. Usually the same shows I see or would see if I had more time. The more personal reflections are lovely too. I don't watch many films."