The Birth of ... Federline?
So, I'm looking through the paper the other day. I was sitting there having my coffee and when I saw a certain something, I nearly spewed it across the table, I was so amazed.
Apparently, some artist somewhere in the U.S. (I didn't pay that much attention to the details) has made a statue/sculpture of Britney Spears giving birth. There was a picture of it above the article. She's on her hands and knees buck naked on a bearskin rug, gripping the bear's head as she prepares to expel Federline Jr. from her primary orifice. Apparently the baby's head is visible emerging from her other end.
Now, I'm all for supporting artists. I consider me to be one myself. I am certainly against censorship. It's not that I consider this offensive. I mean, Britney Spears nude, squatting down ... it's nothing we haven't seen before.
But I started thinking about the great paintings and sculptures of the Renaissance. The Birth of Venus. The Pieta. The Mona Lisa. Somehow I can't see a sculpture of Britney Spears squatting naked on a rug giving birth to her firstborn qualifies. Or ... maybe that's what scares me. Will some people actually think it is? The line between art and parody and utter ridiculousness is so blurred these days. Anyone can call themselves an artist, if they have enough money and infamy behind their name.
This artist, whatever his name is, says he believes his work is a validation of pro-life, of childbirth and motherhood. Right. It was absolutely hideous. Apparently this guy has the reputation for being sarcastic, he created some other work recently that was a parody of something or other.
And for the record, Ms. Spears did not pose for this great work. We'll give her that much credit.
Hmmm ... a naked, pregnant Britney alongside Christ, Mary Magdalene, and various other great people of history? Not that it would ever happen, but seeing that thing yesterday made me imagine it sitting alongside the great work of the Renaissance.
Like I said, I nearly spewed my coffee all over the place.
Apparently, some artist somewhere in the U.S. (I didn't pay that much attention to the details) has made a statue/sculpture of Britney Spears giving birth. There was a picture of it above the article. She's on her hands and knees buck naked on a bearskin rug, gripping the bear's head as she prepares to expel Federline Jr. from her primary orifice. Apparently the baby's head is visible emerging from her other end.
Now, I'm all for supporting artists. I consider me to be one myself. I am certainly against censorship. It's not that I consider this offensive. I mean, Britney Spears nude, squatting down ... it's nothing we haven't seen before.
But I started thinking about the great paintings and sculptures of the Renaissance. The Birth of Venus. The Pieta. The Mona Lisa. Somehow I can't see a sculpture of Britney Spears squatting naked on a rug giving birth to her firstborn qualifies. Or ... maybe that's what scares me. Will some people actually think it is? The line between art and parody and utter ridiculousness is so blurred these days. Anyone can call themselves an artist, if they have enough money and infamy behind their name.
This artist, whatever his name is, says he believes his work is a validation of pro-life, of childbirth and motherhood. Right. It was absolutely hideous. Apparently this guy has the reputation for being sarcastic, he created some other work recently that was a parody of something or other.
And for the record, Ms. Spears did not pose for this great work. We'll give her that much credit.
Hmmm ... a naked, pregnant Britney alongside Christ, Mary Magdalene, and various other great people of history? Not that it would ever happen, but seeing that thing yesterday made me imagine it sitting alongside the great work of the Renaissance.
Like I said, I nearly spewed my coffee all over the place.
posted by emily pound at 7:07 AM
4 Comments:
Hi Jennie,
I have heard of the work you're speaking of. I don't know if you've ever heard of Sister Wendy, but is an actual nun who is also an art expert. She did a series of shows on PBS analyzing paintings and sculptures and such. Those shows were extremely interesting and entertaining. She mentioned "P**s Christ" and she was actually quite unoffended by it. She said she saw it as the artist showing how the whole world degrades Christ by putting him in this bottle of p**s. Then, again recently, another artist did a painting of the Virgin Mary with cow dung or something.
Surprisingly, I'm not offended by those works as opposed to this Britney piece. Those artists seem to be actually trying to make a statement ... outwardly it may seem just a flagrant sign of disrespect of a blatant attempt to get publicity. They may be those things too. But at least those works deal with actual philosophical issues.
Britney giving birth to the next generation of my-mommy-is-a-music-mogul-who-got-famous-shaking-her-tits-and-ass (a la Madonna -- nice pun there)? That's something else.
Although the way people worship celebrity today, maybe the artist was trying to portray her as some kind of holy figure by immortalizing her in this piece ... and laughing out his ass at the same time. Who knows. It just really made me kind of nauseous.
Dear Emily:
I enjoyed your description of your reaction to this rather bizarre piece of "art". It doesn't sound like something which would really do anything for me. However, one of the aims of art is to provoke a reaction. In traditional art it is to evoke beauty, tell a story, create an emotion of love or devotion or religious zeal.
I've seen the piece of the Madonna with the cow dung, which even though it was in the Brooklyn Museum(which is less than five miles from my desk), I didn't see until I was in London where it was in the Saatchi Gallery. Its presence created a firestorm of media with the Mayor of New York rallying to the cause of punishing the museum for showing it(It's City funded). Of course he failed because of our First Amendment freedom of expression. But when I saw it there wasn't much to look at and it didn't seem to be worth all the hullabaloo it generated.
Many modern artists create work to challenge the viewer to confront their prejudices and beliefs and artificial limits of acceptable behavior. The emotions of repulsion, anger and disgust are strong. As strange as it may appear the artists who do this type of work feel successful if a reaction like yours is evoked.
While I suppose there might be some sick folks who actually find the piece you spoke about sexy or attractive, I suspect that the emotional reaction it provoked in you is precisely what the artist was looking to achieve.
Gotcha.
Huge
Hi Huge,
I remember all the media hullabaloo about the cow dung piece and the Mayor of your great city trying to stop it from being exhibited. It's a fine line, isn't it, what some people consider art and other people just consider trash.
No, not a fine line at all. Some people think something is trash and others think its art. That's the point.
My take on it is if you don't like the reaction you get in viewing or experiencing the art you don't like it. That doesn't make it great art or trash or whatever.. it makes it art YOU don't like.
Huge
Post a Comment
<< Home