Art vs. Filth Always a Debate
Richard Chang
Visual Arts writer
rchang@ocregister.com
OC Register
Sunday, February 20, 2005
"Girls Gone Wild" can't touch this.
That was my first impression when I was strolling through the Orange County Museum of Art's installation gallery earlier this month, during the lively opening of "Beautiful Losers: Contemporary Art and Street Culture."
The nudity and sexual imagery were plentiful in this early portion of the show: Larry Clark's photographs of naked teenagers hanging out and performing certain acts on and with each other; and Terry Richardson's images of notably young girls (think "Barely Legal") flashing their private parts to the camera. Not to mention the photographer and his very large well, you get the picture.
Granted, both Clark's and Richardson's work are being presented in the larger context of "street" and "outsider" art. And there is a prominent sign at the gallery entrance that states, "This gallery contains art with sexually explicit images. People under 18 years of age prohibited."
I was actually impressed that a museum in the heart of Orange County would present salacious images that even one of America's more notorious video hucksters wouldn't touch. All in the name of art, I mused.
But not everyone was impressed with the show. Dennis Ashendorf of Costa Mesa wrote me, assailing that "much of the exhibit is X-rated" and "a substantial portion is R-rated." He said he was stunned by Richardson's "self-glorification," and criticized me for not warning K-12 school groups that this exhibit is not suitable.
The issue of sexually explicit imagery in our museums exhumes the whole debate of pornography vs. art. It's an age-old dispute, from naked Renaissance paintings to Goya having to cover up his Maja to Georgia O'Keeffe's erotic flower depictions to the mouth-frothing late-'80s fuss in Congress over Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs.
For me, it fundamentally comes down to the First Amendment and freedom of expression. Artists should have the right to paint, draw, photograph or re-create anything they want, as long as it's not totally harmful or illegal.
The O.C. Museum of Art hardly gets any of its funding from Newport Beach, the state or federal government, so the issue of "Our tax dollars are funding this?" is not particularly applicable here.
Meanwhile, museums across the country are trying to maintain their relevancy, trying to devise ways to attract new, different and younger audiences. A little titillation can't hurt.
The O.C. Museum of Art did score a home run with its most recent opening, attracting 3,000 people to the galleries and entertaining them with music, drink and live skateboarding demonstrations. Most attendees were younger, many of them punked up, pierced and tattooed.
It was a refreshing, vibrant scene, one that I've rarely witnessed in my five years of Southern California arts coverage.
So, for those who are concerned about "indecency" creeping its way onto the walls of museums everywhere, I say, lighten up. Have an open mind. Experience something different.
And if you're really opposed to such challenging imagery, you don't have to go.
http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/02/20/sections/entertainment/et_visual_arts/article_413898.php