"September 11 "art" sparks outrage" - your reaction?

I'm glad to know that I'm not alone!

I agree that there was something transcendant about the people who jumped. As horrifying as it was, it was also.... somehow.... liberating. Liberating, I guess, in the way that when you are between a rock and a hard place that you can still pick which one you want.

Art is not always comfortable.

Goya's "The Third of May", Picasso's "The Dreams and Lies of Franco" and "Guernica".

These are not beautiful paintings.

I can point to some insanely ugly images in photojournalism; those 1/60 so a second horror stories. Those fractions of a second are part of our history.

So is 9/11.

I'm not sure how this "hurts" anyone.

Oscar Wilde said "Art is only surface and symbol", that it does nothing, and what the observer finds reflects himself rather than the art, or the artist.

I agree with that.

And now I am officially one of those bastards who quotes Oscar Wilde.

Yeppers, Boomer.

I agree.

The images I can't bear, still, are those of people waiting for help on top of the buildings - I don't know if it is partly cos one of them was a friend??? - but I kind of don't think so - I think it is the awfulness of their still hoping - not having confronted their death? (They may have, for all I know, though.) At least I know they suffocated, and didn't burn - our friend's last words on his mobile phone were not that he was burning, but that he could not breathe. Not that suffocating is a great way to die, either....sigh.

I guess I have had - from early childhood, a strong sense that a mindful death is terribly important - (I later discovered that this is very important in at least Tibetan Buddhism - reading their philosophy about it was like coming home.)

I will never forget the horror as a kid of sitting by my mother's deathbed - (they were following the then practice of not telling her she was dying - and she was still in a sort of denial, anyway) - bursting to treat her with dignity and respect and give her her opportunity to die with mindfulness and tell her she was dying - but not quite daring to because I was just a kid.



Lol - all quoters of Wilde are welcome here, Gargamel!

And those images are so NEW to our species, aren't they, Boomer?

Things that we could never see before - and we are getting it down to ever tinier fractions of an instant.

I wonder how our psyches bear it, sometimes - but also the beauty it exposes....

I'm sorry about your friend, dlowan.

Opting for hope is certainly a beautiful choice too.

My friend, the sky-diving girl I mentioned earlier, told he doctors as her son, only four, was dying that they could take everything but her hope.

In the end, they took that too.

<sigh>

Those images are new and becoming so instant and so numerous that they lose their impact.

People need to learn to edit least we become so accustomed that we stop caring.

Personally, the difference for me is that the picture graphically reflects how many people were killed in a tragic circumstance. Many people who have had families die in this way or witnessed this in person stated this offends them. So it is offensive to these people. Yes, we live in America and as a result we have the freedom to do such things even if it is in bad taste and offensive to many. I am sure many of the books written and other media are also offensive and in bad taste while some others may have been handled with a little more decorum. And many other forms of art, movies, etc. that are in bad taste.

However, bottom line - this person has the right to make such "art", but it is offensive and it is in bad taste. In my opinion, this artist did not think of other people, but only of himself. If he had, he would have kept the art to himself.

I have nothing to add except my own admiration of all the well crafted opinions that most of you presented herein.
I can recall the "pit of the stomach" feeling that I got when I first saw the news pix of people actually jumping to "escape" the flames on their floors of the WTC. Im certain that somehow each person felt that theyd be somehow saved. I recall the one picture of the two people who jumped hand in hand.
The "performance" artist misses the point, the fall wasnt the issue, the people making the actual decision to leap to "safety" was the thing. We dont just give up and jump to a certain death. We weigh options and make choices, and Im sure that somehow cheating death was on everyones mind. Theyd make it, they were sure. It was a leap of faith.

Gargamel - you probably cannot understand how this could hurt anyone because you personally have never been through a trauma situation. My husband had been held up, tied and had a gun put to his head and threatened. This can have a life alternating change. He had to quit his job as this occurred on the job. He could not watch movies or news reports where people were held up. He could not walk into a room or house that was dark, etc. Unless you have been through something where your left was threatened or in a similar situation as 9-11, how could you possibly understand how a simple picture could hurt someone? But it can. And each person reacts differently to a trauma. What could be therapeutic for one, could be quite harmful to another.

Well, first of all, I have been in dangerous situations involving firearms. I've lived in neighborhoods where I had to get used to hearing gunshots. So much for that.

Admittedly I have not been put through a situation that has caused lasting trauma. What happened to your husband was horrible, and I can understand how that would change his life.

But I don't think ANYONE, even someone who has been in a traumatic situation, can understand what it was like to be directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. Only those who were, in fact, involved.

My point is, it is the attacks that are horrible, not the art. That's what I mean in my above post. It is your husband having a gun put to his head that traumatizes him, not the movies containing hold up scenes (I'm not trying to minimalize his experience at all).

This is just a guy jumping off of a building. That is the art. If he didn't jump off of the building, that wouldn't change the fact that people really DID jump from the WTC, no matter how uncomfortable it makes people feel. The truth is, the networks did not show footage of the people jumping, after a certain point (I did see people falling on Telemundo, it was deeply disturbing). But if people are horrified by this art, well, isn't that the point? Isn't that an honest representation of what 9/11 was, horrifying?

This photo...



won a pulitzer prize, and I find it equally disturbing. Why is this photo revered, and the performance artist scorned?

I guess I'm thinking of this performance art as something similar. All art attempts to render some truth, and in some instances it is more of a replication (like a photograph), sometimes it is abstract. I think of the jumper as someone trying to give a "live action" photograph.

Shindler's List and Life is Beautiful offered some seriously disturbing images, not to mention the history channel, of concentration camps. We respect the publication of these images, and agree that is important not to forget. The Holocaust and September 11th are not quite comparable, I know, but they offer similar examples of traumatizing media.

If it's Stephen Speilberg it must be okay, but not some starving artist, right? He must just be trying to draw attention to himself, he must be completely narcissistic, like all artists, right? If he had a lot of money, and if Newsweek praised him, we would all applaud.

Exactly Gargamel and that is my point. People directly involved in 9-11 are stating that this art is causing them grief. These people who witnessed other people jumping from buildings are upset.

My husband is upset when he sees such a movie. I am not saying that you cannot make movies where people are harmed. What I am saying is that art like this can cause harm to others. For them it is like reliving the same experience.

I understand the point the "artist" is attempting to make; however, it is still in poor taste. Some one could intend to shock others by painting a picture of a child being raped because they were raped when a child. However, displaying for the entire world to see (including victims of child abuse) may not be therapeutic for all and they could be forced to live through this trauma again. You could call it art if you like, but I call it in poor taste.

If this artist was really concerned about helping himself in dealing with the situation, he would not have made the "art" public.

I find both pictures in bad taste. The one difference between the two is one is recreating a horrible act, whereas the other is reporting it. A slight difference, but in either case, I find it offensive.

If it is a matter of personal taste, then I have no argument, opinions vary.

As to whether or not the art should be made public...

I think the artist at least makes it clear in his statment that he is not out to "shock" people. And if the maybe handfuls of people who actually were in Manhattan and saw people falling, and then happened to walk past the Contemporary Art Museum in Chicago unawares to see this guy's handful of jumps, that is really bad luck and I'm sure that would freak anyone out.

But I'm sure the artist believes that this art may have value to more people than those who would be seriously psychologically distressed by a performance artist--whether or not that is true, who knows.

History belongs to everyone. When one individual or political party or country declares a monopoly on opinions or reactions to any historical episode the world is impoverished.

Personally I doubt the validity bungie jumping as an artistic comment on 9/11 but I'm not going to insist that my views of 9/11 are the only views to be considered.

As for:



In my view of the world censorship is more offensive than poor taste.

The word "censorship" often pops up when people are critical of art -- when as often as not the critic is challenging the artist for creating it, and not the society for failing to stamp it out.

I suppose that is what artists generally do ... and should do.

I'm not a fan of action art at all - saw some, however, this weekend (meeting in Augsburg) at a "cultural night", which I thought to be quite amusing.

I am not into censorship, as I stated before in America you have such freedom.

I still think it can be harmful to particular individuals (especially when an event is so recent) and it just shows poor taste and lack of regard for others.

Patiodog--

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

I guess I am just peeved about art in general. Some one thinks it is a good idea and that it is good art to put a statue of Bewitched in Salem, MA. More tacky and bad taste.

Could some one please direct me to some high quality and in good taste - art? Does it exist?

Ah, now I remember my two year old drew me a picture - that is the best art I have seen lately!

I mean, when you jump from criticism of the artist to statements about censorship, it looks as though you are accusing the critic of advocating censorship.

Sounds harsher than I mean it to be...

When people say that art should not be shown--no matter whether because of aesthetics or social values or individual comfort levels--this is censorship.

Critical statement: This is trash.

Censoring: This is trash and should not be displayed because.....

Not to split hairs, but I believe that censorship can only be practiced by gov't authorities.

There are other ways to stop art, of course. Pulling the funding plug is the one used most often, if memory serves...