Posted on 12/19/2001 6:32:50 AM PST by chance33_98
PORTLAND (AP) -- The denial of a federal grant to show off the work of an unconventional artist from Lewiston is raising questions about the role of politics in promoting art and culture.
The Maine College of Art in Portland sought $42,000 for the exhibit by William Pope.L, whose work takes on issues such as class and race.
The National Endowment for the Arts isn't saying why the grant was denied. The NEA had reportedly delayed its decision because of the exhibit's potential for controversy.
Pope.L expressed disappointment and said the decision jeopardizes the exhibit, which was planned for this summer. But he said the good thing is that people now get to know what their government wants culture to be.
The NEA approved eight grants for Maine, bringing the state a total of $143,000 to support poetry, dance, music,
visual arts and literature.
In Eating the Wall Street Journal, William Pope.L makes theater of bingeing and purging. Dressed only in a jockstrap and some crusty-looking glasses, flour covering his body, he plays a character he describes as "part shaman, part clown." Seated on a toilet that rocks like a rocking chair, he peruses the Journal as thoughtfully as any businessman, tears off a strip or maybe a little square, looks it over, then stuffs it into his mouth. He's built a little bed under the throne, and whatever he spews back out tends to land on the pillow. By the day of his fourth performance, discarded newspaper and crud have built up under there in layers one could only call sculptural, and Pope.L has taken to descending during the piece to lie on the bed, trying to get spectators to lie down next to him. A couple of art lovers actually do.
Pope.L, who is African American, combines identity politics with abjection in uniquely discomfiting ways. The earlier work he is showing on video here is Budapest Crawl: The Black Sports Body in Europe. He's done a number of Crawl pieces over the years, and says they're about the tradition of struggle for African Americans. In Budapest, he wiggled along between a busy roadway and a river wearing some combination of soccer and basketball gear, holding a glow-in-the-dark globe. The struggle does seem rather universal.
While the Wall Street Journal piece seems to be all about debasement as well, Pope.L says, "I think of something like the black church metaphor where it is the job of the pastor to show that he is struggling, he is suffering for the congregation. That's the tradition where you need to show some kind of self-mortification and a willingness to go into this dark place, in order for people to be convinced that you have something of value."
As for the "magical Bible" of the stock market, Pope.L says he's done some research into West African bocio objects. "They're like voodoo," he says. "I've been reading a lot about these ritual practices and the idea of using objects to affect the world." Though he's questioned his right to use Africanisms—"not being African"—he's now decided "it's something I can own, in the sense that I'm interested in making objects that cause change."
I cannot believe what I just read. That's astounding. That's incredible. My mind boggles at the stupidity.
-Robert A. Heinlein
Saw him recently at a show at Bates, and boy, did we steer clear of him.
Man, he just has some of the best quotes, doesn't he?
Politics and art just don't mix -- it's detrimental to both sides.
"A state-supported artist is an incompetent whore."
Actually, historically speaking, some of the greatest acheivements in the arts were created by artists on the State and/or Church dole (sometimes it was one and the same).
Personally, I wish the Church would re-capture its role as leader in support of the arts. I think it would have a profound effect on our culture.
And yes, there IS such a thing as "bad" art.
Flame Away. :)
Exactly how much do you know about Mappelthorpe? Have you seen an exhibit, or only those couple photos the conservative press has been talking about? The man actually warrants serious study in the legitimate art world, not just a self-righteous AFA press release.
I am personally quite turned-off by his most graphic photos, but I have to admit that the man had serious talent even in thier production. There are some prints I would love to own, prints that most of you wouldn't mind hanging in your homes if it weren't for the attached name.
BUT, something went wrong in the modern age. I'd trust the Medicis to know great art when they saw it, but does anyone really believe that the NEA has the slightest idea which artists to support? It would be better to give the money to the Mafia and let the Godfather choose.
I'd say that one of the problems with modern art as a whole is that technique alone doesn't make great art. As Joyce has Steven Daedalus says in "Portrait of an Artist," art has to have wholeness, beauty of form, radiance; or as Plato would have said, it must embody truth, beauty, and goodness. Those are more than technical concerns. Much modern art simply lacks soul, beauty, goodness, and the inner radiance that truly great art possesses.
Are they willing? Are they making authetic choices to separate with their money and see/or purchase? Or is it just soothing an uncontrolled "entertain me" addiction fed by less and less fulfilling garbage coming out of the multi-national, pre-packaged culture pushing, welfare-for-billionaire corporations? In my view, people are TOO easily separated from their money. It also seems too often those who can least afford to be separated with it are the one's who easily give it up. By all means spend responsibly, buy what you want as well as what you need, but as a general rule, screw the "keep the economy rolling" crowd, screw the corporations pimping poor products you settle for to grasp a short term, meaningless, fix: DEMAND higher quality.
As long as they can sell you cheap, you'll get cheap--and cheaper. They're amoral and care not a wit about the cultural damage they'll inflict. They want to make money with "good enough", not turn out quality (Microsoft). We need to resist the consumerist urges more. Unfortunately, instead of getting the message of "higher quality" is desired--that costs money to produce, afterall--instead Hollywood, for example, makes up the difference with more advertising which makes their products even less appealing. They need to get the message but it takes a shift in the culture to reject the tripe because a few quiet individuals won't make a difference.
I laugh about this "public art" stuff if only because no one sees it. He's wanting federal money for something most of this country will never be exposed to delibrately or accidentally. I can't see how he can be serious (of course he'd not serious) about this meaning the government is defining culture. The popularity of Britney Spears and her snake is more culturally defining (pseudo-belly dancing, read as "sex", sells) than anything the gov't is doing via the NEA.
Now excuse me while I go waste $8 on "Lord of the Rings".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.