Just Looking ...

When it comes to what we find most offensive (the penis) I think that Prof. Kalmar is probably quite close to the truth. The truth it seems rests in mass culture as was discussed. The Erect penis is almost completely absent, except for it seems in art. And this brings me to my thoughts from class. I felt that though I agree in theory that the penis is offensive in popular culture the representation of this in class was lacking. I undertstand why showing true pornography is perhaps uncomfortable for some, but I think when the alternative is works of "art" the impact of said offensive phallocentric object is lost on the audience.

Looking at Mapplethorpe's Penis/Gun piece I see only a work of art, especially because I have been told it is a work of art. I feel that as soon as we are told something is art it is normalized and more readily processed by our brains. The offensiveness of the erect penis and gun is washed away and we are left simply with "artistic" objects. One might argue that to some the image of the penis is "gross" or "repulsive" but I'm not so sure these characterizations necessarily coincide with "offensive".. a different gut reaction is produced. Repulsion can create a need to turn away because of fear though I think this is ultimately a temporary or a gut insitinct. I use this piece by H.R Giger (the famed artist responsible for the "alien" of hollywood notoriety) to illustrate that point (refer to image at the top). I have a feeling though this point may raise some arguments. "Offensive" images remain offensive in my thinking, particularly because offensive sexual images remind us of our own baser instincts that have no place in civilized society. But again the art object is different! It implies a different way of SEEING.

One needs only to look at the success of Nuit Blanche in Toronto to see the effect of calling something "art" and resituating its status. Duchamp knew this, Andy Warhol knew this too. I have seen this in my own personal experience as an artist/musician... the "band" robocopp (my "band") performs horrendous shows or performances where the subtle line between what is offensive or good and bad abject and horrible is tested all the while making use of a whole range of popular culture items. This is achieved both visually and sonically through gore and violence and horrible sounding music. But fundamentally at the end of a performance no matter how bad we've been we receive applause and kudos for performing such seemingly groundbreaking of an artistic endeavor.

So I'm suggesting here that to get a real appreciation for the shocking effect of the Penis Erect one needs to witness it as pornography, because pornography cannot seem to create itself as art, at least not without some undesired ironic effect. However I'd argue that in a hypothetical sitiuation an artist could remove pornography from its context through pastiche, as Duchamp removed the urinal, and make it art. Haven't seen this yet but I expect at some point it will happen, if it hasn't already.