Art and the Public Sphere

Last week it seemed suddenly everyone was talking about art. I first noticed it with respect to the Jesus Obama controversy. This struck me as an interesting example of people being too literal, for the basic objection, as far as I can tell, is to the fact that Obama is not in fact Christ returned to save us. Presumably, when Christ does return, he will also want a statue of himself with a neon halo, but we shouldn't be doling out that kind of honor on just anyone. Why didn't anyone object to it being a rather poor likeness of Obama? Or to it being rather obvious and simple? After all, the whole thing rested on what the artist saw as a religious obsession with Obama - which most of us can also see quite clearly without this artist's help. If Christians didn't get all in a huff about it, no one would probably have paid it any attention, and I don't really think it deserves much. The dean of the School of the Art Institute said, "When you see it, when you spend time with it, you understand that it's not a provocative work at all." He meant it isn't intended as controversial, but I don't know that it is provocative in the good sense, either.

There's a link in the Jesus Obama article to a chocolate Jesus story. People can't seem to decide if they should be upset that the medium is chocolate or that Jesus had genitals. Inasmuch as nudity is not always sexual, and considering nudity is an important part of the Genesis story, I should think the medium more questionable. In either case, and in the Obama case, too, the objection, I suppose, has more to do with a sense that the artists are being too liberal with their religious references, not showing adequate respect for a faith tradition. Now, on this point I might be able to agree with the Jesus Obama critics, since the expression of the statue is rather dopey and the whole thing looks rather like a self-satisfied wise-crack. On the other hand, while I can't decide if a confection contributes the right kind of meaning to a crucifix, the chocolate Jesus does look as though it was done respectfully.

There's a whole other set of issues with artist Kara Walker's racism silhouettes, as heard on NPR. I don't know that there's space to really explore all the sides of what she does, but one of the interesting things to me is how the concept sounds ineffective, but the execution is actually rather challenging and compelling. Using a "gentile" art form to represent people in stereotyped ways seems likely to tempt her into dredging up tired debates for the sake of drawing attention to herself. In fact, she uses the intrinsic interest of the form - the starkness of the black and white contrast, the "puzzle" element of discerning the shape - to draw the viewer into a surprising and disturbing world. The antique "quaintness" of the form seems to disarm its power a priori, but that's just what creates the tension when she uses it to represent the present.

Living in "liberal" neighborhoods for many years now, I often have reason for forgetting how much racism still exists in various forms. Walker's work, it seems to me, brings a fresh vitality to the issue. She says she wishes to implicate the viewer, and I think there is a significant difference between finding oneself implicated in something one didn't create and finding oneself accused of creating it. The latter draws a line in the sand and divides us up into sides ; the former describes an experience common to anyone living as a human being in history.