Censorship and the term "Art"

I, at first, want to start this off by saying I thoroughly enjoyed reading different students' perspective on the concept of art and censorship. It opened me up to realizing that I constantly think about censorship, for example, on a daily basis. I watch television on an average an hour a day and I have come across not only watching my favorite show, Spongebob Squarepants but many others specifically in Disney movies that have incorporated sexual innuendos and other inappropriate references. Check here for top 10 sexually inappropriate moments in Disney. I can't ever forget the fact that my mom didn't enjoy me watching Spongebob growing up. I never really understood why because I thought it was entirely harmless. She would come into the room and make this groaning noise at a part she would think is inappropriate. As I grew older, I began to think of these innuendos as clever and even more funny than I originally thought. There are theories that the characters of Spongebob represent the 7 deadly sins. You can read that if you want, here. Spongebob was portrayed as lust whereas Squidward was portrayed as wrath. It makes total sense when you think about it. Spongebob loves everything and always has a great day. Squidward on the other hand, hates his job, his neighbors, his life, and all that goes with it. He is constantly annoyed at Spongebob's behavior because of his constant happiness. Whether it was their original intention to do this or not, it definitely opened another perspective for me to look at such a harmless innocent show in a whole new way. What I thought to be kitsch actually ended up having an avant garde twist to it because of how I looked at it.

Picture from 20 Mindblowing Messages

Things like these amaze me. How has anyone not noticed these references? For example, in the Lion King they are hailing to Hitler by performing the Nazi salute and marching collectively while chanting nonsense. As a kid, you would have never known these evil cult references are hyenas that are all just stupid and for comic relief in the movie. However beside all of the inappropriate references in these movies, there were also some hidden messages that proved they had them integrated and intertwined somehow in some way. They weren't always bad. Remember the license plate on the Pizza truck in Toy Story? That sequence "A113" is hidden somewhere in countless Disney movies. You can click here to see some of them. This is where "art by appropriation and art by intention" come into play from Carolyn Dean's Trouble with the term "Art". Their appropriation is on point by re-creating imitations of imitation by slyly incorporating something from another movie. There is also a combination of avant garde and kitsch in popular movies like the Disney collection however, it is carefully portrayed and otherwise ignored/missed. Avant garde is the abstract versions of contemporary art in which the viewer needs to exert energy and thought into whereas kitsch represents popular commercial art that is considered mindless. One primary example I have mentioned in the term A113. This represented the number of the animation classroom that was located in the California Institute of the Arts. It was exquisitely and carefully placed in each of the movies that are shown in the article mentioned above. These are abstract ways of interpreting Walt Disney's intention of integration. It definitely comes up more often than you would think when you actually sit down and watch with the intent of understanding the artist's purpose.

He portrays art by intention because some of the characters overlap such as Ryder and Flynn from the movie Tangled guest appearing in the movie Frozen. Also, a figure of Buzz Lightyear or a drawing of Sully will appear on the floor of another movie. It really is quite creative the way Disney portrays their art. The hidden messages are here.It is different in perspective, however. As a kid, you weren't concerned about the inner meanings of things nor were you probably concerned about picking out the little things in movies. You got the bigger picture and you took its value for what it was worth. As Carolyn Dean said, “calling something art reveals nothing inherent in the object to which the term is applied, rather, it reveals how much the viewer values it” (27). This is where I begin to repeat myself. It's all about perspective. There was a study that was conducted that showed the number of people entering a museum,where visitors stop, whether they talk or read, how much time they spend, etc. This proved the idea that people deemed different art important or abstract and others were effortlessly looking at the picture. In turn, it created some evaluations to be held while deciding which ones needed changes to attract more time spent/time thinking about the artwork. It gives them more of an ample opportunity to read what the artist has to say about the artwork as well as a brief description leading to their thoughts and opinions about the artists' intention.

When Greenberg discusses the terms avant garde and kitsch, it made me think about what the world is like today. What do you value in life? Time? Money? Nature? Art? Art is sometimes effortless however it also has significant meaning depending on who and what it's about. The problem that lies within artists is the fact that whether or not they want their art to be an imitation or a creation of meaning and depth. It's hard to prioritize your ultimate passions when there is so much in the way to stop you. There are a lot of artists that live with the continuous conflict within themselves to have their art be more than an object as well as being able to be sustainable. As Lewis Hyde said, how does the artist live if it is considered a gift? Do they have to be a lawyer in the summer and artist in the winter? How do they pay for their resources or their families if it's just a mere gift? Arguing that, it also appears to be a commodity within the capitalist society we live in today. With all this being said, there is actually no real definition to describe art with the intent of accommodating for many other cultures. Is the purpose of art to recognize a social purpose? Or rather, is the purpose of art to become a commodity of which is sold to gain profit? Is it simply something to just effortlessly look at? Do you need to delve into the artists' lives in order to find out their true motives of their work? Is it a metaphor that represents something of a bigger value?

"Welcome to the Future"  

There happens to be an artist that I have stumbled upon on Instagram who I have grown to be deeply interested in his work. Daniel Arsham is a young contemporary artist that has always had interests in architecture and structured space. He had a distorted way of thinking about these things because he would have walls oozing, As Greenberg said, "the nonrepresentational or ‘abstract,’ if it is to have aesthetic validity, cannot be arbitrary and accidental, but must stem from obedience to some worthy constraint or original” (3). This originality has never before been seen by the public. It is newly created to have these withering pieces as well as dimensions in the walls. He re-creates some objects such as a keyboard or a microphone to be viewed as ancient and fragile pieces from into the future. Along with that, he creates 2-D, 3-D, and even 4-D images which are so abstract to the eye. These are the types of pieces I love looking at for a long amount of time because of the motives of the changing future that are represented in these pieces of art. Here is a website about some of Daniel Arsham's pieces as well as his own website here. I have been following him on Instagram for quite some time now and I can't even begin to touch the surface of his work.

"Corner Knot" 

There is an interview between Daniel Arsham and Artsy regarding some of his upcoming milestones in his career. He will be working on projects with Pharrell and James Franco relatively soon and that should definitely play in a large role to gain more audiences to his abstract contemporary art. Here is the article. "Part of the goal that I have in Snarkitecture is to cause architecture to act in ways that it shouldn’t, and allow materials to surprise us and to perform and do things that we don’t expect. And it’s often a very subtle, quiet alteration." The picture above describes the vision Daniel Arsham has of this distorted and disintegrating society that is presented to be in the future. I think this is a great way to alter these already created pieces to be thought of in a different light. Technology is forever changing but what will eventually be of this Earth? Our materialistic objects will end up withering away at the fact that no one uses them. Foucault emphasized "normalization" in which he would "make arbitrary distinctions appear natural, logical, and above all, useful" (Dean 29). In Daniel Arsham's artwork, this is not the case. He wants society to think in future terms along with thinking out of the box and developing this alteration of structures that can't be.

I have really been thinking about the term "culture wars" as well as the opportunities some privileged artists do have. We need to be able to accommodate for everyone's diverse backgrounds and interests/beliefs. By that, we need to talk about public funding and who has access to it. African-Americans have suffered through centuries of slavery which induced psychological trauma. They never had a chance to thrive because it just keeps lingering around them constantly fucking up their lives. They had too much public neglect thus not allowing them to flourish by any means of fame or fortune. “Artists on color have always been especially dependent upon public funding such as that provided by the NEA, since they continue to lack the kind of private sector patronage that even moderately successful white artists take for granted "(Wallace 168). It has been existing especially since the era of when the television first came about. The Ed Sullivan Show was one piece of evidence that was known as a buffer for upcoming artists including those of color. Elvis Presley got censored from the waist down because of his legendary and thus "inappropriate" dance moves. The Rolling Stones had to change their lyrics to Let's Spend Some Time Together rather than Let's Spend the Night Together. There were countless chances that Ed Sullivan had to permanently kick these performing artists off for not respecting the demands of the family oriented audience. Ed Sullivan didn't care about who came on the show as long as they respected the boundaries of censorship and the importance of keeping it appropriate for the family. This was essentially the start of opening up the network to people of color as well. The article on Multiculturalism and Privilege expressed the fact that people need to be informed of the different kinds of culture that is out there and if not, they will know nothing but mainstream art. Linda Gibson said "until television presents black dance, art, salsa, jazz with the same regularity as mainstream programs, specific segments of the population won't think about it" (Haddock 147). Ed Sullivan was focused on pure talent rather than what their race or background was. From Martin Luther King Jr to Muhammad Ali to Louis Armstrong; Ed Sullivan welcomed all African-American people of their specialized talent on his show to really boost up the national ratings. There are some black and white videos on their performances and speeches here. They all had inner meanings to why they appeared on the show. Just like the Oscars performance or the Grammy Awards, someone needs to inform the public of problems such as equal pay or equal opportunity. There was always a way to preach about the positive influence these types of artists or people had on the public about what was acceptable in society.