November 1st, 2008. Three days before the official election with the statistical landslide clearly pointing Obama as the true winner of this media battle I stop for a moment to congratulate the victory of the new King of Modern Democracy: Barack Hussein Obama II. After a long and excruciating media battle the war is over. Surprisingly there is only one victim: Us; and two distinct winners: Media and advertising.
I would like to congratulate the new president's campaign team for a tremendously well conceived strategy. What strikes me as odd is the similarity in style, scope, and approach between Obama and any of the new democratic kings of Latin America; namely Rafael Correa, Hugo Chaves, Evo Morales, just to name a few. I think time will slowly begin to reveal the details regarding the campaign strategy. Perhaps even as a Hollywood movie by Oliver Stone!! In the same fashion many books -already written- will be authored by experts. Textual interpretations of a fragile fresh baked history will overpopulate the shelves of Barnes and Noble and replenish the warehouses of Amazon.com explaining the reasons why and how Obama won with more than 60% of the voting from both: The American people and the Electoral Collage. This election will be historical not only because of the media over-coverage of it but mainly for the first overwhelming exercise of democracy in the United States history with real people, real American people standing in long lines to exercise the power of voting.
What is more important for the United States -and as a direct consequence the rest of the world- is the fact that a mestizo has become a new world leader. The simple fact that a hybrid human is now a president of the powerful decaying empire of the eagle and stars will have great effect in the rest of the world. Finally, yes finally the world is acknowledging and embracing the possibility of multicolored real people leading this world of us.
From the visual communication point of view this is amazing. Just try to imagine the series of portraits in every American Embassy of the world: White, white,white, white, mulatto. That simple fact, regardless of the politics that will follow, the international relationships that will evolve, or the future that our complex global culture will face, is outstanding, remarkable, and deserving of a huge applause to humanity.
It took more than five hundred years of modern history for a hybrid human to be accepted as a world leader.
The discourse of Geopolitics may even contemplate the past-distant possibility of betterment.
Good times shall follow for us all, the intricate and unique Human species.
Viva Obama, Long Live the New King of Modern Democracy.
Guido e. Alvarez
(I wrote these thoughts and nobody approved this message)
It took place, the final debate. During the next 19 days the public -I, you, he, she, it, we, you, they- will be bombarded with Advertising resulting in one major winner, regardless of who becomes the new king of the decaying kingdom of Democraland: Advertising or ARTvertising as I love to call it. Today I delivered a new brief to my students in the Creative Lab I am teaching. It is about politics and the power of persuasion. Here is the brief.
After having them watch "How Art Made the World" (PBS-BBC 2006 production) to establish a historical foundation. [ No pop corn, I forgot! :( ] I asked to design two collages, one supporting and the other fighting against the candidates. I will publish the results here in about 10 days. Before the elections of course.
I can't believe how fragile the definition of reality is among us, the people. To prove this point I am going to write a quick "effective" speech. The challenge is to generate a series of visual stimuli through the typed word that will make you feel... well... hopeful ly confused.
Let's see.
Dear constituents, people of this amazing unique and blessed country. The most important Empire of all times. You, yes, each one of you! You have been chosen to make one of the greatest historical decisions of all times. A decision that will define the next four years of our life. I am not here to make promises that I won't be able to fulfill unlike the other candidate, who won't keep his promises. I have a record, a wife, children who attend school. I have experience the other candidate does not. He is not ready to lead. Our children need a future. We all need a future. I am good, a hero, experienced. Him? He is bad, a novice, he needs time to mature. I have experience. I believe in war as means to protect our borders abroad. I believe in God and I have the greatest hopes in this country. I am ready to serve and I have served. Many years and I am ready to lead and I have led. My experiences as a war hero had taught me that wars are bad but necessary to promote world's peace and democracy. It is our duty and moral responsibility to use our military power to promote peace at any cost. The other candidate will increase taxes and make everybody pay fines on business. I won't, my plan is strong, our economy is healthy. Him? He will make taxes more difficult for you to afford during these hard times that we must face as a country. I support life, not dead. God not evil. I will promote education and heroism. Mothers are good, criminals are bad. Children need to be raised by families. Families are the fundamental structure of society. Social security is good when it works. I will make it work. When it doesn't it is very bad for society. Our army controls our borders and it is the most powerful in history. Immigration is a very important issue that I am willing to talk about. This country is made of immigrants and our borders are well protected. Immigration should be resolved by preventing nuclear power and armaments of mass destruction to develop communities, peoples, cultures. Our borders will be open and welcoming to legal immigrants and programs will be developed to open possibilities to those who are undocumented temporary workers. Unlike my opponent's plan our plan contemplates opening the channels of communication. We will punish terrorist wherever they are. We will search and find them and have them pay for their crimes. We will make our best moral attempt to control nuclear power of mass destruction and the price and quality of your food and gas. The search abroad was good not bad. We won the war but it is not over and it won't be over for the next few years for it is the best opportunity for our troops to fight for our country. A country that I love. The war to terrorism and policies of mass destruction was very effective not ineffective. Drugs should be controlled and as a president I will control them. It is time to make history, your history, our history. I will be your next president with your vote.
God bless this country, god bless you.
s. Mr Any Candidate.
Confused? Excited? Frustrated? I go through all those feelings after listening to the debates; the commercials, the blogs, the promises. I believe we should really demand real change of the way politics are conducted around the world and stop treating candidates as mere commodities for sale, as TV and movie celebrities. We -the people- should stop these pseudo-kingdom-games that demand pseudo royalties; pseudo kings, and pseudo queens. It is time to elect a whole group of people to represent us at once, not individually to form a congress. It is time to stop this so call individuality within a seemingly organized community and begin thinking as a real community. A real community; yes. Obviously, that is not going to happen and we will continue to be kept as "individuals" who consume media and believe in HD reality as the current powers construct it for us. Obama? McCain? There is no difference really; the fundamentals will remain unchanged unless the ones in power demand otherwise. Change is nothing but a concept to help us hope for improvement. We demand change within the boundaries of a secured position in time and space. All the change we can handle without the human price of a real revolution is that of the seasons, and daylight saving times. May we live in boring times. Let's hope.
Now, the latter one is charged with more meaning yet what really defines its effectiveness is the medium and the images that support it. Language is indeed powerful.
The Word is God. Keep that in mind when you are working in your projects. The best projects in terms of communication and aesthetics (which is also communication) will appear in this blog to support and demonstrate the outcome of this exercise.
Ebay is
filled with outrageous stuff, so are Art Galleries and Musuems. What defines outrageous, crazy, unique -the highly sought after status of a master piece- is
not the product itself but a combination of medium, context and audience where a given piece of art, or piece of shit for that matter (Manzoni, 1961) is displayed.
Even though its value is defined by the spur of the moment and its critical acclaim (now also its symbolic value in terms of the stock market) what really takes any given piece of art (or shit) into the realm of High Art is defined by the buyer. One buyer, any buyer with economic surplus that is.
Artists and galleries can ask for thousands and thousands of dollars and that is not a problem at all. The problem is in the eye of the beholder... the pocket of the beholder really.
No buyer, no High Art, that simple.
I am trying to sell a master piece I conceived using an EBAY auction, and a very particular price. Want to find out? CLICK HERE
What could make this piece of art a master piece, part of History itself, would not be the medium, the audience, or the context but... the buyer! I am auctioning one of my pieces of art. A composition using "Holy Virgin Stamps" and Star Wars (Virgins as well.) All the elements designed inside an IKEA ready-made frame.
What could make this piece unique and transcendental is that a millionaire-billionaire, an eccentric intelligent one who clicks the buy now button.
I think I am asking a decent price for a well though out piece of High Art without the high artist, the high gallery, the high curator, or the high buzz attached to it.
I'll see what happens. Maybe tomorrow I will finally have the financial resources to being my everlasting Interdisciplinary Communication Center: La Molienda. One eccentric billionaire, that is all that I need. That is the beauty of the internet, to dream about impossible realities that could all of a sudden become as real as could be.
I have always been infatuated with technology. My affair with it however, is always short-lived. My other passion is to breed cyborg brain children, as in fusing ideas that are not supposed to happen. This addiction comes to be a little difficult when contemporary production and post-production software's learning curve becomes a mountain and the prices simply unattainable.
Yet new media and the marketplace continue to change the rules of the game as the net connection speed becomes the norm rather than the exception. Look what Oliver Stone's team had come up with using YouTube as the means to present a very well designed video editing interface.
By creating a competition and offering a juicy eight thousand dollar gold medal for amateurs -that is most of us- the Oliver Stone company receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in free advertising through media buzzing opposed to spending thousands and thousands of dollars in commercials to advertise the movie.
This buzz is a digital red carpet to movie palaces for the average user who after dealing with the interface becomes "part of the production crew" of the movie. This coincides -sure, why not?, let's pretend- with the premier of his movie "W."
In advertising, and particularly in new media advertising, timing is everything, and Oliver Stone W's timing could have been better with election month, the stock market turmoil, the volatile price of oil, and the American recession.
Another record breaking movie is about to pop out of its shell... will it fly?
Obviously I had to experience the interface myself, here my two cents:
I insist, it is a very nice well designed interface. Go try it, it is as easy as could be. I would even argue that Apple and Adobe should take a very good notice of it as a great example of a straight forward nice way of making things available for a great deal of people. Way to go Mr. Oliver Stone. Once again, way to go.
What about the yellow cameras distributed among the carefully chosen audience in this (d)elections second debate? Where they trying to disrupt the so treasured concept of immediacy so natural to the digital era? Film? 35mm? It was certainly weird to see people reaching for the cyclops viewer of those retro looking cameras. I assume it was a matter of national security. Or at least I hope that was the case. Of course it might be another great branding/advertising effort by Kodak to sell their remaining 5 million units resulting from their neglect to see the digital era blasting along. Either case, the mystery remains. What about those yellow cameras during the debate?
Finally found the time to put together about 50 designs for tees and other products.
I wanted to introduce my on line typoshop test drive version 1.0.0.1
take a pick here:
http://www.cafepress.com/hyperscholar
It plan to continue a slow and steady growth in terms of the number of products you will find. Eventually I will be able to take care of the interface design myself. In the mean the code term "cookie cutter" design fits it.
Check out the political ones, they are fresh and fun... and if you feel like treat yourself with a smart-tee by wiimoo.
wiimoo. (guido after midnight)
Guido E. Alvarez VCU MAXT program Ph.D. Student.
""Let my playing be my learning, and my learning be my playing." Johan Huizinga
Thanks to our great very basic, ad-free, GPS I managed to flow through Washington's D.C. Friday afternoon rush hour. I made it on time to the National Reagan airport. Actually, I made it earlier and found some spare time to surf through the windows waiting for my wife's grandpa plane to arrive. After a long drive entertained by political talk shows about the latest moves by senators Obama and McCain I found myself standing in front of a magazine about them. It was located on top of many other magazines and the great illustration went through my retinas and got caught in my brain net. It all made sense. It was a composition intended to work at multiple levels depending upon your selection of background and foreground motifs.
The bold colors and the play among the elements put it all clear in my brain. Election is about perception, not about facts. It really depends on how we chose to focus the bigger picture. Yet, do we really focus? Is that a process we do it on our own, by exercising freewill? I don't think so. Over the years I have been teaching communication design and photography. Every class, to every new crop of avid learning students the principle is the same: In the design process the designer is the one in control of the composition. Every single details counts. The more detailed oriented you are in terms of intention and attention the better.
In a different store, one devoted entirely to political souvenirs I saw two cutouts of both candidates and several objects ranging from coffee mugs to photo books.
Over the last few days the TV network began airing an advertisement where Obama is compared to music queen Britney Spears and to paparazzi herder Paris Hilton following the yellow press methodology of establishing make-believe facts that nourish the middle and lower segments of the population, those who trust television and media as a source of ultimately truth.
Additionally, Senator Obama made a remark about looking different than past presidents on the American bills. This remark cost him thousands and thousands of comments about playing the "race" card as if this was not a game. A game? Yes, politics today is a game, a game among what I call "The Mediarchy" or the modern monarchies using all sorts of media as the kingdom to rule. A kingdom where reality is defined by the shallowness of the screen whether it is a cellphone or the most current laptop released five hours ago. The population conforming the kingdom is us. We, the ones who believe what is in front of our eyes without questioning it. The ones who trust the press, the figures, the movies, the horoscope, the rites, and myths. We are the ones making sure that the make-believe works.
The future of millions of people and the future of the world itself depends upon who will win the elections here in the United States of America; the country with no name. I come from a country that doesn't have a name either but a condition, a quality, a way of perceiving reality; I come from Ecuador, a country named after the Equator line, trapped in between symbols, mountains, and most definitely: uncertainties. We have had way too many presidents in way too few years. I have lived in the midst of a political Unrest as long as I can remember and I have been forced to participate in elections ever since I was 18 and able to vote. Having participated in so many elections I have been able to experience the construction of reality that all president-wanna-Be's go through and how media has helped construct that reality. A reality that tumbles down as the newcomers arrive to the presidency house and hit reality, lobbying, corporate interests, a gazillion of needs, and a higher number of strong walls against any great will. What is happening between Obama and McCain is pretty simple to me, a mind game of perceptions. A construction of a virtual reality that we must consume. However, they feed us with so much stuff that we cannot digest anything hence we don't think about it and keep the decision making process on the surface of the problem. We believe what we see, don't we? By association we define what is good from what is bad for us now, in the future. The difference between the two contenders is huge and points to compare exist all along the way: Age, color, flavor, sound, you name it. The comparisons will continue yet I wonder if the human is a creature so week. Are we that weak? Do we really believe what we see and hear as the main source of thoughts, ideas, and opinions? I decided to run a little design experiment to better illustrate my point. I went fishing in Google images for portraits of Obama, and McCain. I found many as expected. Then I continued collecting celebrities in different fields of life, characters that you and I can identify with, or at least remember from major media events. Using these characters I composed a series of images that better explain how fragile our definition of reality is. Many visual conjectures were constructed, you be the judge and experience how fragile our construction of reality and eventually the construction of a final decision could be. We associate the elements of what we see (perceive) to those we have stored in our brains as positive or negative experiences to define a meaningful conclusion to us. Let me show you some examples. By the way all the images have been grabbed from Google images to be used for commentary as a teaching tool for my design classes and the benefit of my students.
If you want to make Senator McCain perceived as negative you do this:
The association of McCain and Senator Palpatine is defined by the color of the hair, age, posture. McCain being in front of Palpatine makes him look stronger, supported, defying. His subtle smile makes him powerful by contrast to Palpatine's gesture. When the hands are compared we find McCain's hands to show a fist whereas Palpatine show relaxed, insecure gesture. By contrast Senator McCain is the one in control, meaner than Palpatine himself, and probably more powerful.
What about making Senator McCain look really nice and harmless? Well, it takes a few changes here and there:
Mahatma Gandhi is brought into the picture and his gesture now works in unison with Senator McCain's one. He is lower than Gandhi to signify his position of power and I applied some blurring effect to the frontal image to make your eyes focus on his eyes. We surf and image from set of eyes to set of eyes looking for clues about emotions. We are constantly looking for information that help us navigate a person. What about his grin, the same exact grin than in the previous study? In this particular case McCain's smile works in tandem with Gandhi's making them one, smiling about the same topic.
Is he good? Bad? Mean? Does he have good intentions? In this case all meaning associated to Gandhi helps McCain look "nice_r" to us. In media this could never happen because of Geopolitics of Power and how they serve as behavioral patterns for an specif culture.
Mean again? Really mean? I found a negative icon, one of the most negative icons of all times and establish the visual association between them. Adolf Hitler is in the background. Keep in mind that every single detail is important. In this case the gesture of the Führer is opposed to the that of the Senator. Once again Mckein is perceived as stronger, comanding, in control.
The positioning of the elements is the key element to accomplish the final meaning: ruling with a strong fist.
Keep in mind that Senator McCain photo is exactly the same, it hasn't changed. Our brains associate elements depending upon the context where they are placed and our reading will continue to be from left to right and from top to bottom. Those are also very important design fundamentals.
What about Obama? Let me make Obama mean as hell. Somebody we should be very scared about. Let's make Obama a COMMUNIST!!!!
In today's Free--Trade America the real curse word is not the "F" word rather the "C" word: Communist. Since communism had been proven useless the new curse word in contemporary terms is "socialist." Mainstream media uses socialist as the extreme far left, and far left is the worst thing that could happen to a society. Or so the experts say. However, to make the meaning of this picture even worse I can switch the icon behind Senator Obama, from a dead figure -harmless- to a living figure that communicates the same level of threat but intensified by the modernity of the icon. A real threat.
What about making Obama a positive icon? Association is the most powerful tool in design composition. We survive thanks to our capacity to "ingest" different meanings and by the position of the items we assign different flavors to them to finally digest them as one single message. Most -if not all- of the times this final message is Mediated by... Media of course and private interests. OK, so let's make Obama a great person:
By establishing a comparison between Obama and Mandela the final message is: One is as good as the other. Both expressions are peaceful, relaxed, triumphant. Both smiles, both gestures are alike. Both are slightly closing their eyes showing wrinkles in a good way, wrinkles as signs -symbols- of wisdom, of experience. Using Photoshop® we could enhance this image even more by working the tone of the skin, trying to make them the same so the viewer establishes the final connection.
A step further into creating a mythical image is to get rid of the full color reading by converting both images to gray scale. See the result:
By placing two images on the same horizon the designer makes them equally important. The first reading would define the context to the second one. If there is no text mediating the images the viewer will perceive them as communicating the same meaning.
By flipping one of the images the comparison is enhanced. Both addressing the same audience.
Finally, by using text and semantic "glue" among elements of a composed image it becomes a mediated one. Mediated images are the most powerful tool for communication. This "glue" is supported by the typographic message in flat static design or as voice over in kinetic imaging.
The narrator of an ad or the typed message becomes the leading guide of the final message. Using the last example two possibilities to demonstrate it. In the first one the "race" card is directly used. The typed message: "Free at last" makes several layers of reference to Martin Luther king, to Mandela himself, to history. The positioning of the hands towards the future also work in conjunction with the color red that becomes and image -symbol- by itself.
For the second example the color changes, the text changes therefore the meaning changes. A key word is included, one that incorporates the possibility of uncertainty in the reader. The flipping of Obama's image makes his finger point towards Mandela's face in a resentful way, as looking for a Scape goat. The pink color is also establishing a relationship between the meaning of the word and the gender associated with it.
Will Obama win? Unfortunately, I cannot tell. The nature of this mind game between the candidates and the Media playing a fundamental role in the process makes the whole picture very hard to read. Take "The Washington Post" for instance, to illustrate an article entitled: "Too fit to be president" from August first, 2008 they used a comparison among past and present presidents to both candidates. I may be wrong in my analysis but from the communication design point of view I could claim that the editors of this paper are Republicans. Why? Very simple, look how both Democrats have been depicted in contrast to the Republicans.
While Senator McCain and President George W. Bush are wearing a suit and professional looking, serious, conducting business, both Democrats, former president of the United States Bill Clinton and Senator Barack Obama are doing exercises. I could even claim that the basketball attached to the hand of Obama constitutes a great example of what media people refers to as the "race card." Obama is not a basketball player per se, why wasn't he depicted running as Clinton? Why aren't they wearing suits? Or why aren't the Republicans wearing sportswear? This major American paper is read by around seven hundred thousand people around The States. How will they react to it?
Strictly from the design point of view Obama is running against the odds as the Republican party will use all possible visual cues to diminish his level of credibility. They will concentrate on facts based on misleading perception aiming towards proving undeniable facts such as:
He is too young. There is no way you can add years to what you already have.
He is too fit.
He is too risky.
He is orange code.
He is too fashionable.
He is too hybrid.
He represents change and change represents uncertainty.
He is too thin.
He is too dark.
He is too different.
He is not a warrior.
He hasn't been in a war.
He hasn't killed "The enemy" whatever that is.
He is abortion.
He is not against gay marriage.
He is too good looking.
He is too tall.
He commands the language too well.
I can't believe that the Republicans are using the "war" card as their first and foremost strategy and people are buying it!!!! How could you possibly believe that the war is a success!!! Where is the success? Nothing is under control, the oil prices are not controlled by Americans, people are dying in both sides of the field, no progress has been made. Millions of dollars are spent daily to play war in the other side of the world yet people are still dubious about something new that doesn't promise more weapons, more spending in the military. How is that possible?
Is media so powerful? Not in terms of financial power but in terms of convincing power. Are we so primitive creatures that buy the allegories you get in exchange for your life? Is a great place in the beautiful Arlington worth continuing with this two sided massacre? Is patriotism worth so many young lives? Yet we still buy what's in the news, the media, and advertising. We still buy the pursue of honor in exchange of one's life through a commercial. Are we that primitive? Have politicians turned into media celebrities? Are they part of this new Mediarchy?
I hope one day the running for president will turn into a reality TV show. A non-stop 24 hour broadcast in the same fashion as Peter Weir's "The Truman show" where we get a chance to learn how the candidates snore, breath, use the restroom, shower. A continuum debate among them dealing with daily problems such as the amount of salt in the soup, the dressing for the salad or the number of times they look at the mirror. We are getting there, that's for sure.
In the same fashion of Dalia Lama we are very close to requiring candidates to be picked, nurtured and raised from the early beginning just to make sure they don't sin, lie, deceive, curse, or fart.
At this level of the game any sudden movement without preempting the pre thought could be fatal for the final outcome.
What about us? Are we school of fish that move towards the light, whatever that is? Evading any possible danger, any possible source of unknown, nervously trying to hang in there close, together but staying as far apart as possible avoiding any physical -let alone emotional- involvement.
Regardless of which team manages to take its driver to the podium, the race is wearing us all out.
Finally, some final samples of basic digital compositions with mediated text so we all can enjoy the power of communication design and how it could easily alter the way we perceive what we choose to call our "reality."
“Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion” Democritus
From the early beginning humans grouped into forms of complex organized social structures universally defined as culture. Cultures then grew into bigger and even more complex groups empowered by an established set of rules abided by every member of the group; the concept of convention was born along with a more subtle one: imposition. According to the Greek philosopher Democritus (460-370BC) we live as a CULTURE by means of convention while seeking happiness as the ultimate existential goal both individually and collectively. For Democritus we are nothing but atoms that attain this happiness by finding stability in moderation, equanimity and the absence of disruptive desires that disturb such particles. Reaching this ultimate goal in existence could imply the use of force to impose a set of rules as the best way to establish order out of chaos. Twenty four hundred years later the Government of the United States of America strives more than ever to impose by the use of Military and Mass Media’s brute-force its politically driven agenda of "Democracy" with a general public unaware of the fact that the all mighty United States of America IS NOT A DEMOCRACY BUT A REPUBLIC!! This concept of Democracy has not changed much from the foundational thoughts of Democritus and its ethereal roots. We are taught to believe that Democracy is the only way to attain this “atomic” concept of “freedom” and “happiness.” We are indoctrinated by: Television, radio, magazines, newspapers, and lately the World Wide Web, and -why not- blogs too on how amazing and necessary Democracy is for us as the only way to attain happiness. This evasive concept seems to work not only by the application of reasoning established by the linguistically skilled political intelligentsia but mainly by the use of effective means of imprisonment and isolation of the individual as penalty for trespassing the boundaries of control (Foucault, The Order of Things 1966)
This "blegssay" will attempt to survey how Fine Arts, Communication Arts, Literature, Music, Sports, and Advertising messages support a thesis/formula to produce economically successful pieces of communication that will attract media attention as they are combined intelligently. Using the proposed formula any artist, designer, or communicator may be able to seed the idea of using controversy as a another commodity in a successful way to generate large amounts of income in today’s global culture.
Controversy means to “turn against,” to dispute to swim against the current. When controversial art makes it to Mass Media it means that the status quo is being defied. As the ruling powers of democracy are being challenged they have to take action to secure their always safe position. Museums and critics have gained a secure place as interpreters of meaning about Art, we -the people- don't question their say but accept it silently. The Blackstone paradox principle is applicable for the Arts and Communication scenarios as well; in order for Art to exist as means of the expression of Freedom and Democracy a very well constructed and controlled environment needs to prevail; that of the Museum and the Critic to assist the general public into differentiating between good and bar art, high and low art; to embrace it, applaud it or conversely to deny its existence by public rejection. However, their presence -paradoxically as it should be- is totally necessary in order for the whole convention to work and to provide a reliable structure to apply the formula of Successful Index that will be explained later on in this electronic text to secure reaction from society and the establishment.
CASE STUDIES.
In 1917, Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968) was an influential board member of the Society of Independent Artists. He was a respected artist who was co-developing a movement (a non-movement as he may have argued) based in New York. This movement was set against the mainstream culture and what they conceived as a powerful monster called Industry with its mass produced objects as art-commodities. Using a Bedfordshire model urinal as his canvas he signed a pseudonym on one of the urinal sides: “R. Mutt 1917,” the he entitled it: “Fountain” and submitted the piece to an important art show. The piece was the central point of much debate among the members of the society about what is and how art is defined and ultimately they decided to hide it from the show. The exhibition committee was not aware that the piece was authored by Duchamp who was an important figure associated to the group as a member of the board. Since the show proclaimed that: “All art will be exhibited," Duchamp made his point and as a result he resigned from the board of Members along with Walter Arensberg, an influential art collector who helped Duchamp present this piece. “Fountain” helped to stir controversy about what is art and how it is presented to the public it served as the theme for many books, scholarly articles, movies, documentaries and infinite number of analysis that affect art education to this day. Duchamp claimed that the piece’s intention was to redefine art from a physical activity to an intellectual act of interpretation.
The piece itself became an icon of Contemporary Art History as it was voted among the most influential artworks of the 20th Century. The actual piece disappeared but authorized replicas by Duchamp himself are exhibited in several major museums in America and Europe. The replicated pieces suffered some attacks over the years. The Neo-Dada performance artist Pierre Pinoncelli urinated in it in 1993 while on display in France, and in 2006 he attempted to destroy it with a hammer and eventually got to chip it as it was being exhibited in the famous Pompidou Center in Paris claiming that Marcel Duchamp would have love the destruction. It is very interesting to note the overtones of authorship in this case. Duchamp intention appear to be precisely to obscure his fame and name to demonstrate how art is perceived when it is not attached to a famous name. That is the most important message of “Fountain.” In fact, it could be even argued that the piece itself was a well thought out and performed act of communication that resulted to be ineffective or perhaps asynchronous to Duchamp’s time. According to Barthes: “To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing.” This thought becomes tangible with Duchapm’s “Fountain” when he decides not to sign it. By signing the piece Duchamp would have provided an author to it making his ultimate message obscure by validating the piece as art to be appreciated and not a message to defy the established concepts or art interpretation.
“Sensation” was an exhibition originally curated by the London Royal Academy of Art in 1997 and comprised works of Art by young British emerging artists including Chris Ofili, Damian Hirst, and Marcus Harvey among others. Harvey presented a portrait of a child serial-killer done with children’s hand prints which attracted enough public attention to the extent of vandalism attempts to the whole exhibition as thoroughly explained in a great hypertextual essay entitled “Hype-Art” written by Thomas Locker (Ph.D. Royal Academy of Art 2000.)
“One of the reasons Myra is interesting is because the source of the image for the painting was from a police photo that was originally massively reproduced in the mass media. The image has gone from being an image in the press, to being a painting and then back into the press again. It really challenges the mass media and the general public to think about the production and consumption of shock.” (Locker 2000)
While being exhibit in London is attracted more than three hundred thousand people to it the pieces comprising the exhibition were a selection of Charles Saatchi’s collection that added another layer of controversy to it. The Royal Academy used a public disclaimer for those interested in viewing the exhibit:
"There will be works of art on display in the Sensation exhibition which some people may find distasteful. Parents should exercise their judgments in bringing their children to the exhibition. One gallery will not be open to those under the age of 18."
In 1998 the exhibition moves to Bahnhoff in Berlin where becomes so popular it extends its showing beyond the scheduled dates. This extension is remarkable given the German culture and its attention to maintaining the planned norms. The same year the collection owner: Charles Saatchi sells 128 pieces of it, including Damien Hirst’s “The Lovers” for approximately two and half million dollars. Chris Ofili became the winner of the prestigious Turner Prize Award. This announcement provoked the reaction of the British artist Ray Hutchins (then 66 years old) who places a large heap of manure on the steps of the Tate Gallery in London with a sign reading: “Modern Art is a Load of Bullshit.” In 1998 the African descent British artist Chris Ofili (born 1968) was brought into the light of fame as he was included as part of Charles Saatchi’s “Sensation” itinerant exhibit. Ofili made it to social and public critic when he presented an art piece entitled: “No Woman no Cry.” The painting is a collage piece with a very unique component: Elephant dung.
Ofili studied art in London, at the Chelsea School of the Arts and also at the Royal College of Art where he graduated in 1993. Ofili got worldwide recognition thanks to Charles Saatchi. One of the most controversial pieces he has ever produced is entitled “The Holy Virgin Mary.” This particular painting of the Virgin Mary is quite contrasting to how
she is usually depicted in folk imagery through the Catholic world.
That is a white, blue-eyed, young, shining, and frequently a floating
icon. Ofili’s image was the interpretation of Virgin Mary as an African
woman of dark skin in a style far from the canon of Eastern beauty and
archetypical imagery. To increase controversy the picture was made out
of an animal’s excrements. This piece makes total sense when it is
analyzed in its creative process of making in regards of its context. Ofili is of Nigerian descent
and traveled to Zimbabwe after winning a scholarship to conduct
research. In Zimbabwe he found that elephant dung was used as an
important component of rituals and celebrations. He also researched
cave paintings that influenced his own painting style. On top of these
observations Ofili was interested in producing art pieces that will
question the established archetypes assigned to racial and sexual
symbols. “No Woman no Cry” is said to be a piece that denotes these
studies but “Holy Virgin Mary” has a totally different construction in
terms of symbolism.
By the time he exhibited the piece Ofili was a member of the Young British Artists with numerous national and international prizes representing Britain. In 1999 an exhibition of the piece in the Brooklyn Museum of Art made it into the news when Dennis Heiner (72) a Christian who felt offended by the piece threw white paint across the work and proceeded to smear the paint over the canvas effectively obscuring the Virgin from view. Before the opening, Scott LoBaido, a self-proclaimed artist (described by the news clip which is by itself very interesting) was grabbed by the police outside the Brooklyn Museum as he hurled horse manure to its façade. As a result the piece was protected behind Plexiglas.
It rallied Christian groups to protest against the Brooklyn Museum for showing the work. As a result of these and other public demonstrations for the exhibition of this piece Mayor Rudolph Giuliani withheld the museum’s monthly funding and threaten eviction. Among his public statements there are: "insulting to Catholics,” "there is nothing in the First Amendment that supports horrible and disgusting projects," and "if you're going to use taxpayer's dollars, you have to be sensitive to the feelings of the public." (Freedom Forum 1999.) Giuliani claims that Saatchi and exhibit sponsor Christie's Auction House are actually engaged in a conspiracy to sell the works for higher value by means of shock. (The Observer 1999.) The case went to the court and Giuliani was forced to back down as the Museum’s lawyer, Floyd Abrams, filed a preliminary injunction suit against the city. As a result of this controversial scenario the National Gallery of Australia canceled their planned exhibition. The gallery director, Dr. Brian Kennedy's public statement about the cancellation read: “not because of moral outrage about the art, but for reasons of ethics.” The ethical issue was said to be the connection between Saatchi as a direct commercial sponsor of it and the works of artists.
PETA (The People of the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and the Brooklyn Animal Defense League rallied for protest outside the museum as they reject another “Sensation” artist: Damien Hirst and his work “Butcher shop series,” that includes large complete or sliced dead animals such as a cow, a sheep, and a tiger Shark!
These pieces are displayed inside large glass and metal tanks filled with formaldehyde. “I am aware of mental contradictions in everything, like: I am going to die and I want to live for ever. I can't escape the fact and I can't let go of the desire.” (Quoted from an interview in 1992.)
Similarly to Ofili, Hirst followed the same path, he won the Tuner Prize and was chosen by Saatchi as one of the Young British Artist “Sensation” exhibition. As a result of the controversy, the media coverage, and Saatchi’s Gallery sponsorship Hirst begins to sell his pieces in six figures. “Away from the flock,” a postmodern sculpture of a sheep immerse in a tank had a two hundred and fifty thousand dollars price tag tied to it.
This piece -as expected- generates protests and acts of vandalism performed by groups of vegetarians during its exhibition in London: The Stuckists (STUCKIST MANIFESTO.) “If Turner was alive today, they say, he would stand no chance of winning the Turner Prize.” Hirst’s most controversial piece must be by far, his sculptural tank entitled: “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living."
This piece comprised a 13-foot tiger shark suspended in a tank of formaldehyde which after several years begun to rot and deteriorate.
Hirst was paid for it 8 million dollars with the condition of replacing the shark with a “fresher” one as the original was disintegrating. This act in itself was theme to debate as the questioning of what is art and how it should be conceived, restored, and maintained was brought forward for Academic Analysis. This piece was bought by art collector Steven a. Cohen bought it for 8 million dollars in 2005 from Charles Saatchi who paid "only" 50 thousand pounds for it; an invoice that caused a sensation itself at the time. Hirst’s sculptural pieces have already beaten those prices commonly assigned in private auction houses for works of art by Velasquez or Raphael.
Cohen, as an act of generosity to the American public or perhaps due to the lack of space in his living room has lent the huge (in)famous piece to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (MET) for public display for a period of 3 years. His latest work, entitled: “For the Love of God,” uses a platinum cast human shaped skull encrusted with diamonds. The skull is comprised of 8601 flawless diamonds for a market value of a figure between 10 and 12 million Sterling Pounds. The said art piece was sold for about 100 million dollars in London’s famous “White Cube,” a value that made “For the Love of God” the most expensive piece of art ever sold by a living artist.
Richard Polsky, a California private dealer said: “This is all about investment, not about art collecting.”
Hirst retained a participation to oversee the global tour. According to White Cube, Hirst sold an extra 130 million Sterling Pounds in some other works including a record auction of 9.7 million pounds for one of his pill cabinets; a auction completed by phone through Sotheby’s Auction House. A big influence of Hirst art making comes from another (in)famous British artist: Francis Bacon (1909-1992) who was widely known for the selection of his themes and his unique treatment of the paintings who were described as nightmarish and grotesque.
Francis Bacon was a collateral descendant of Francis Bacon, the XVI century philosopher, artist, inventor, and scientist who became part of history for the development of a scientific method of inquiry known today as: The Baconian Method or the scientific method. Interestingly enough Bacon dealt with alchemy and the occult. He is the owner of the aphorism: “Knowledge is Power” (Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est) that he wrote in his book of collected essays entitled: “Meditationes Sacrae” in 1597.
The effects of public shock and controversy are infinite and can be found all over the world and in all sorts of media. How could we forget Super Bowl XXXVIII, not for the scores or the teams at all. Do you actually remember the teams or will you hit the hyperlink to "refresh" your memory? As a matter of fact I challenge you to name the teams before jumping into the hyperlink, or the place, yet we have Janet Jackson’s well crafted “unexpected” breast exposure very fresh in our memory.
This incident (sarcastically named: The Nipplegate) opened a can or worms about censorship, fines, morality and the appropriateness and control of content in broadcast television. However, from the perspective of the artists involved might be different as it could be argued that Timberlake, the artist’s hand that generated the “wardrobe malfunction” as it as officially stated; career skyrocketed and Jackson one was kept firm in spite of her evident decline thanks to the additional media attention. As the case studies to populate this blegssay were chosen the pattern remained: Shock value, dead, bodily parts, censorship, sex, blood, nudity, and the list keeps going on and on on a vicious loop of communication success.
Take for example a different medium like cinema and a very different piece of art: Ruggero Deodato’s Cannibal Holocaust (1980.)
An extremely controversial movie filmed in the Amazon rain-forest about a documentary crew that got lost in the jungle and was eaten by Cannibals. It is by far one of the best known exploitation films of all times (Tinto Brass’ Caligula is another) where the same said “items” are integral parts of the movie: shock value, blood, censorship, religion, the forbidden.
The film was very conceived to the extent that Deodato got himself very close to be consider for a murder trail. He had the seemingly dead actors signed agreements stipulating that they will “disappear” for a year to provide a sense of reality to the movie. This plan provided the “elevation” of the movie to a potential “snuff” one resulting in the full capacity of the audience, media attention, and the pocketing of 16 million dollars for it. Its fame increased as it was banned due to the gruesomeness of its scenes and story in Iceland, Malaysia, Philippines, and Singapore. The most controversial aspect of the movie was the slaughtering of real animals for the film. This act brought a lot of media attention world wide.
It may seem that the nature of sculpture, three dimensional art, the use of animals, or real people as in films is the key factor to provoke controversy and the potential generation of revenue. However, controversy is found in other places. places that were conceived until a few years ago as sacred, untouchable; even friendly: Cartoons. One of the most controversial cases ever brought into the media attention was Mike Diana’s gore drawings of sex and disturbed themes. In 1990 Mike Diane a young nobody begun producing an underground adult comic book named: Boiled Angel. His drawings granted him legal psychiatric treatment as order by a Florida judge after he was connected to a murder case where his magazines were found.
The actual killer was apprehended and Diana was released but later on he would be prosecuted and found guilty of using a school photocopier where he worked as a janitor to reproduce offensive and inappropriate material. He was sentenced to a three year probation, he was subject to inspection of obscene material production and he was to keep himself away from any children under 18 years old. He was also ordered psychological testing, to enroll in a journalistic ethics course, to pay a three thousand dollar fine, and finally to perform over twelve hundred hours of community service. His societal “sin” was to draw with a very particular style every possible human taboo, sometimes even fusing them all together: bestiality, pedophilia, bestiality and pedophilia. The irony behind this case study is precisely the value Diana gained as a result of such controversy. His comic books are now revered and sought after by comic fans around the world. Diana is an interesting case since he did not take off as an author. It seems that there are boundaries after all and that children are, at least in media terms, protected from public exploitation. In fact, I am having second thoughts about making this particular image public. I am pretty sure I will be asked to take it down or my blog will be censored as a result of it. The "warning" sign that I posted as the opening image was the result of the inclusion of this image in this research project. It makes me feel very bad to include it but if I don't then I this paper would not be controversial and I wouldn't prove my point, would I? Is there a JSTOR kind of blog? More academically oriented? I am scared now but I will move on and time will tell. Anda is a sample of what extreme controversy would define off limits. His work creates a limit, boundaries within censorship that some people cross occasionally just to find out that "forbidden land" exists. NOTE: AS YOU COULD SEE I COULDN'T DO IT. THE IMAGE IS EXCESSIVELY OFFENSIVE AS TO MAKE IT PUBLIC WITHOUT A PRE-SCREENING.
Following the lines of that type of medium, a controversial cartoon case gained worldwide attention, it is known as “The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.” It begun after the publication of twelve editorial cartoons depicting the Muhammad, the Islamic Prophet equivalent to Jesus in the Christian world in the Danish newspaper “Jyllands-Posten.” It was meant to be a satire of a supposedly self criticism of Islam’s extreme self-censorship but it turned out to initiate worldwide demonstrations to try to censor the Danish paper. As a result of the controversy the cartoons were reprinted and published in more than fifty countries worldwide.
The protests escalated to confrontations of police forces and demonstrators that resulted in more than one hundred deaths, fire set to the Norwegian and Danish Embassies in Syria, flag desecration, and death threats. The Western world fought back with “Buy Danish” campaigns and other attempts to support freedom of Speech in the world. The reaction developed further into a boycott in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Middle East countries. Embassies continued to be set of fire with more than 130 people being killed in Nigeria, Libya, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Death threats and rewards were offered for the responsible of the cartoons. The controversy included the resignation of four ministers in India. An eleven million dollar reward was set for the beheading of the Danish cartoonist who caricatured Prophet Muhammad. This incident would be named: “Cartoon Intifada” to establish an analogy between the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip that begun in 1987. According to world economic figures global exports were reduced by 15.5% and a 50% cut in Middle East exports costing about 134 million sterling pounds in losses.
The Jyllands-Posten case is an extreme example of how a misuse of a given vernacular, a seemingly benign one can lead to dead and intense economic loss. Apparently there is a list of specific “untouchable” themes that will secure media attention when depicted in selected contexts that generate controversy regardless of the media used. The serious problem behind this controversy was the factual consequences that resulted from a page of cartoons. The debate brought up in media about this particular topic was intense and valuable.
While the “Free Market” takes over the control of the world through the one thousand masks of corporations and Lawrence Lessig attempts
to provide the legal foundation for a new way to interpret ownership,
philosophical based sharing, and copyright issues; controversy had
become a commodity.
As soon as a creavite attaches controversy to a cultural
product, art piece, advertising piece, song, music composition, performative act, dance, theater piece, book,
movie, etc.the potential of success is there; an index is born. One that is capable of being
measured and analyzed systematically.
This index is an intellectual device created to measure the potential economic and historical success of a cultural piece of communication. It comprises four main factors that could vary depending upon the context where the final piece is applied. S stands for Sock Factor, K for King. A means Archetype, or symbolic perception of an image, and finally M means the chosen Media to support the piece existence. Communicators, namely advertisers, artists, designers, literary authors, singers, performers, and all other public characters have learned in schools or by self-teaching processes using their own methodology, how to effectively develop an elaborated code to combine each one of these components to generate controversy and ultimately, by doing so a way to secure economic success and a place in history.
It could even argued that there is a formula designed to create this index; and that it may have a meaningful name. I will call this index S.K.A.M. (aka SKAM).
SKAM® Is calculated by adding (controversy is always about adding real or imagined value to something) the components that construct a cultural controversial message/product. SKAM® is capable of projecting how successful an art
piece, a show, a movie, a concert, a new line of beers, any cultural
product might be brainfactured.
The components use to compute are:
THE SHOCK FACTOR TABLE: Shock Factor: It is defined as the level of impact that an image
(visual and audible) presents to the society. It is directly connected
to moral values and ethics conducts in a particular given society. It
may vary from culture to culture nonetheless every culture has an
established code.
S9Pedophilia: Sexual feelings derived towards children. S8Bestiality: Sexual intercourse between humans and animals or extreme cruelty to animals. S7Cannibalism: Human flesh consumption by other humans. S6Sodomy: Sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation. (Hence the rejection of Homosexuality as a life sexual practice) Human excrement and other bodily waste and parts. S5 Use or depiction of human dead bodies:
It is important to note that there is a key distinction between real
corpse depiction and mediated one, specially through Television where
it seems that dead bodies are accepted during supper time with no
problem or while eating popcorn in a movie theater. S4 Religion: Specially major ones as they have their dogmas reinterpreted or questioned and their icons used recontextualized. S3 Iconic symbols: Once images, sounds, textures, scents become archetypes they are subject to effective shock. S2 Nudity:
Specially involving public nudity. Adults in general and the people of
the United States of America specially tend to be a very “Nipple sensitive”
culture. Here nudity is defined in practice as the public depiction of
one or more nipples; Obscenity as the depiction of male genitalia. Even
the Victoria Secret catalogs digitally erase the nipples of their models to avoid, in this case controversy. Here is an example of an image i digitally manipulated to (poorly but effectively) what I a mean by "Nipple Sensitive" society. By elimination of the Nipple by means of screen obscuring through pixels of by eliminating it altogether the need of censorship also disappears, or does it?
S1 Swearing, insulting, scorning, name calling:
All these actions are mild since they can be reinterpreted or
obliterated with a “beep” super imposed during editing or even in real
time with more advanced technology.
THE KING FACTOR TABLE: King Factor: This is defined as the most important factor of
them all. Without a high level K, there is no impact or public and
historical transcendence whatsoever. It is based on the The Emperor's new Clothes
Danish Fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen (1837.) This factor
establishes the success of a product depending upon the support,
lobbying, or leverage of the mediator between the artist and the public
which also serves the function of funding source.
K9 Tycoon: A wealthy, powerful person in the business who couldn't careless for media critic about his or her decisions in regards the type and quality of cultural products to support and finance. K8 Pending: In definition process. Email me suggestions. K7 Pending: In definition process. Email me suggestions. K6 Pending: In definition process. Email me suggestions. K5 Pending: In definition process. Email me suggestions. K4 Pending: In definition process. Email me suggestions. K3 Pending: In definition process. Email me suggestions. K2 Pending: In definition process. Email me suggestions. K1 Pending: In definition process. Email me suggestions.
THE ARCHETYPE FACTOR TABLE: Archetype Factor: The grade of success and recognition of a theme or event used as conceptual foundation for a cultural product ranges within an scale from 1 to 9. The level of recognition of an image is called an archetype. The higher the "A" factor the more apprehensive the piece will be for society. A higher "A" number will secure the Media attention. An archetype is the extreme iconicity of a person or thing
that has been imitated and overused to the achievement of universal recognition, a somehow "fixed" perception
had developed as a result.
Archetypes have fixed meaning in time and
space transforming their connotative openness to a denotative
connotation; an image that carries its context within, as an intricate
component of its semiotic nature. For instance an image of an
eye connotes vision, perception, etc. But as an archetype it denotes
the visual field. A light bulb denotes illumination but as an archetype
it also connotes the creation of an idea. The use of archetypes is an
essential component for a successful combination of ingredients to
create controversy.
In terms of archetypes and images the qualification is straight forward and fairly simple. The grades range from 0 to 9 also. Zero represents no universal recognition and 9 a true universal archetype. The Archetype Factor is not tied to morals or ethics so there is no emotional charge. in theory, about how to read these values. Negative or positive archetypes are equally graded since the principle is recognition is the central point not its semantic value. A crucifix, for example bears a grade “9” along with a photo of Adolph Hitler even though they correspond to extreme different semantic interpretations. Here is a short list of some symbols and their grades as an example to illustrate the sense of classification:
A9: Swastika, crucifix, Jesus, the Pope, children, Hitler, Che Guevara, Mother Theresa, Mahatma Gandhi, the Jewish Holocaust imagery, serial killers, the Prophet Muhammad, Buddha, Shiva, Mussolini, Steven Spielberg, Pixar, some children's fables, The Christian Bible, The Coran, Coca Cola, Nike, the Car, the bicycle. A8: Worldwide brands, minor religions, politicians, historical figures, flags, national anthems, cultural symbols and landmarks. A7: Artists and public figures, Presidents, singers, performers, celebrities, public institutions, writers, poets and authors. A6: Minor brands, museums, private institutions, important and influential business people. A5: Every day life characters and "normal" people, groceries, packaging, public and private services, daily objects such as those for cooking and cleaning. A4: Experimental young authors and artists, emerging new artists and public figures. A3: New media writers, bloggers, “facebookers”, “myspacers,” and the like. A2: John Doe and offspring (generic human being.) A1: New inventions, innovative products, new artists, new technology based devices.
THE MEDIA RESPONSE TABLE Media Response: Media happens, "it is the Message" according to Marshall McLuhan; the way we apprehend meaning to make it ours through a complex chain of classifications and comparisons happening in regards our individual life experience. By default artists, designers, musicians, dancers, etc are media aware consciously or subconsciously. It could also be argued that the MEDIA is the context and it is precisely the context the supporting skeleton, flesh and blood of an exhibition or performance. This factor becomes even more important when it works in unison with a Public Relation person. It is most effective when the Media has been previously and carefully selected along with the context. There is no point in creating controversy if the context and the media are not going to render the efforts true and tangible. Based on these basic considerations the table is as follows:
M9: Massive Audience such as: SuperBowl, Prime Time TV, CNN, major Newspapers,
Times Square in New York, National Geographic, Discovery Network, some
internet sites such as google, yahoo, Amazon, The New York Times
online, NPR, PBS, BBC. Major museums as The Guggenheim, The MET, MOMA,
etc. Major department stores, and national and international
franchises; books; specially paperback ones. Advertising, the music
industry. Talk shows with famous hosts. M8: National newspapers, local news, radios, TV stations; everything local as it is covered by the press and all possible media. Magazines and focal advertising, Bloggers as serious writers. M7: Public Institutions and public spaces, the city scape, streets, art books, consumer products and packaging. M6: Spam Email, regular bloggers, personal sites, socializing on line networks such as: Myspace, Facebook, Second Life, etc. M5: The individual and his or her close family
The previous lists don’t attempt to be comprehensible in any way, shape or form; rather they are meant to present a quick sample to illustrate the calculation methodology to obtain the SKAM®. It functions as an analytical tool to asses and self-asses controversy as commodity.
Ironically the verbal perception -also the visual- of this term connects to "scam" and scam artist with its connotations and denotations. This simple formula could previse how successful your content may become as the final piece is commodified when it hits the public realm and the individual.
The “controversy as commodity” thesis is controversial in itself (hence theoretically successful) as it challenges the concept of art making, cultural construction, and conceptual art development that claims free form and non-rational thinking that connects the author with an unknown process of creation, more emotional, more visceral than by the use of cold blooded intellectual brute force. Here are some examples to better illustrate this formula:
In 1989 American photographer Andres Serrano wins the “Award in the Visual Arts” competition, sponsored by the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art’s National Endowment for the Arts. His piece is entitled “Piss Christ” (linguistic shock value by juxtaposition of meanings) and depicts a very aesthetically pleasing crucifix submerged in a glass of what is said to be the artist urine. The piece obviously gained international media attention. The SKAM® for this piece turns out to be very high as Serrano uses several S9 points (Jesus, crucifix, urine,) a public space, public funding, and reaches massive audiences thank to the Media management for controversial art. A copy of this piece was sold for over one hundred thousand dollars after the news were exhausted in every media and Art TV show; nowadays is valued even higher.
The use of archetypes secures an expected reaction from any given audience. Da Vinci's’s “Last Supper” had been overused to the extreme of switching the Apostles and Jesus for anything from lizards to dogs to rats; from drag queens to fetishes; from difference races and genders to food and models for Worldwide clothing companies.
The “Last Supper” as an archetype to produce the same controversial
public reaction can be seen in another similar piece (must be similar
since both use the same formal foundation) called: “Ecce Homo.” A
controversial exhibition comprising twelve photographs by the Swedish
photographer Elisabeth Ohlson Wallin who chose to depict the characters
of the Last Supper as society outcasts namely: homosexuals,
transgender, AIDS victims, lesbian, bondage, fetish, etc. The
exhibition toured Scandinavia and Continental Europe between 1998 and
2000 raising many questions and debates among the Church leaders about
the appropriateness of the subject matter.
As soon as you create a piece based on Leonardo da Vinci’s Last Supper the current Status Quo, the public, the Government, the Art World, and the Media will react to it. It is a given, a fact of life. Serrano made one (included in the photograph above,) and Renee Cox presented her interpretation of the Last Supper by da Vinci where she appears as Jesus, naked surrounded by African American dark skinned men with "Judas" brilliantly depicted as a white man. She names the piece: “Yo Mama's Last Supper” and the media finds interests in her work as it is exhibited in the Brooklyn Museum of Art (Renee Cox is a Black African American Woman.)
Evidently, she is immediately "tagged" as “controversial artist” and aside from her personal cause, authorial intent and her beautifully crafted photography the result is the same effective commodification of controversy. Had she been wearing clothes, for instance, the final result would have been different because it could have been argued that Jesus was a man with female features, dark skinned, etc. Cox makes sure her message is crisp and clear and nudity carries a high shocking factor as well.
In 1995 Cox along with Fo Wilson and Tony Cokes created the Negro Art Collective aimed to fight cultural misinformation about African Americans. She has also created “Raje” an alter-ego superhero who fights racism and teaches children African American History. Her works has been featured in a Fin de Siècle art festival in Nantes, France. Cox’s Last Supper interpretation had been shown in the Venice Biennale in 1999. The piece’s uses the same principles described before except that this time the symbols are reinterpreted to adjust to her communication and authorial intent: to juxtapose archetypes. Cox depicts all apostles are black except Judas who is white. The Brooklyn Museum of Art included her piece in 2001 as part of the exhibit entitled: Contemporary Black Photographers. The photograph made it to the news when Mayor Giuliani commented about it. He claimed that Cox was showing her anti-Catholic position. Later on in 2001 he created the “Panel of Decency Standards for All Work Shown in Publicly Funded Museums in the City”
Madonna, the singer, performer, actress, and now “author” is one of the best examples of controversy as commodity. She has been defined as “Queen Midas” based on the Greek Mythology of King Midas. Everything she touches renders a very high SKAM®. She uses religion, sex and the media to effectively make money. (Like a Virgin 1984.) Every time she appears in public she makes sure the Media has something to ruminate about. During her presentation for the MTV awards she french-kissed Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera during the ceremony in live TV.
In 1992 her book entitled “SEX” was launched to the U.S.A. market advertised as a forbidden publication. The book was a large format 128 page photography book with the work of Steven Meisel and it included a CD entitled: “EROTICA.” This publication is very comprehensible and it includes photographic references to each and every one of the social taboos attributed to sex and sexual deviant practices. It is important to note that all photographs are "suggestive" never explicit. That is a very important consideration since it allowed the publishing house to market the book as a photo book. The censorship was part of the marketing campaign of the music album. The publication was originally sealed so only the ultimate buyer of the product could open as he was invited to "tear off" the contents as a conceptual approach to packaging design.
In 1999 the book was a hard-to-find collectible publication offered only through ebay -between 300 and 600 dollars-, collection houses, and special collection departments in certain Libraries. I had to drive a couple of hours just to have a chance to take a look at it for a project I worked on. Today there are many reprints available on Amazon for 150 dollars.
The SKAM® factor works flawlessly for Madonna's products as she's mastered the mixing of the ingredients to come up with a fresh new sameness for every project she launches to the market every time.
Lately, Madonna has focused her creative input into the world of children’s books. Is she ever hires Mike Diana to illustrate them it will be an immediate economic success; at least for a while.
As in any product launched to the market the quality of it must meet the high standards of the consumer out there. Take for example the multi-million dollar project that Mel Gibson presented using controversy as his canvas. The ingredients are the same: Jesus, bodily fluids, blood, religion. Transgressing the boundaries of what is accepted in the name of... Money making.
Gibson’s film was aesthetically pleasing, well crafted, and presented in such a way that media would fish and hunt Gibson for news, statements, thoughts. He talked about the Jewish people, he made the audience connect with Jesus’s physical pain.
Regardless of the accuracy of facts between the movie and history, what we see on screen is perceived as reality, gore, sensation, memory, and a chance to become a voyeur of God himself through his son. With a moderate budget of 25 million dollars for such a production and 10 million dollars for advertising the movie made about 600 million dollars in revenue making it the 11th most successful movie in history. "The Passion" was an extremely well crafted and thought out movie with no details left aside. Every shot is there for a reason, every drop of blood is making some dollars. SKAM® works like a charm in this one.
It opened in Ash Wednesday on February 25 2004 (I got to see the first screening in Richmond with two tickets as I didn't have anybody to go with!!) which was an added value to the artistic vision of it. As expected the movie did not obtained any major recognition from the Academy.
On the other hand artists and culture makers must be aware of what stepping off the limits really means. The other side of a well conducted SKAM® could result in isolation, social outcast and mental anguish. Most artists manage to obtain an expected level of success out of mixing the ingredients for controversy. However, what comes next should also be taken into consideration.
As I conducted research for a this paper I came across with Robert Sherer’s "males nudes." In 1989, American artist Robert Sherer displayed for the first time his show called: “Re-Presentations.” It was comprised of oil painting rendered in the style of Classic Art. The main difference was that his subjects were nude males shown in famous female poses as a social commentary about the way Western Art History is taught. As a result, his pieces have earned him a position among the most censored artists in the United States and an economic success according to his site: “His 1995 out-of-court settlement of an ACLU-sponsored ten million
dollar lawsuit against the Barnwell County Museum marks one of the few
cases wherein an American artist has received financial recompense for
a First Amendment violation.” Here is a poster that I received from him that shows the level of rage and intolerance that an artist may have to experience by applying (perhaps without meaning to) the principles of SKAM®:
His site explains how the exhibition was widespread covered by national media and the acts of censorship have been documented by many First Amendment advocacy groups and censorship organizations including The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Campaign for Freedom of Expression, the Individual Visual Artist Coalition, Inc. among others. This is another example of the commodification of controversy. However, the final outcome of the protests, the public pressure, and the harassment to which the artist was exposed to resulted in his change of perspective as he explains in an email sent to my VCU address a few days ago:
From: Robert Sherer <robertsherer@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: November 28, 2007 5:13:34 PM EST To: Guido Alvarez <alvarezge@vcu.edu> Subject: Re: paper about art and censorship
Guido,
Definitely, the painting titled "Sweet Dreams" (see attachment) has been in the most trouble. It has been censored four times and was once attacked with the word FAGGOT written across it in red lipstick. During a live broadcast interview on talk radio in South Carolina, one of the pro-censorship Christians stated that all of the paintings, but especially that one, "subverts God's natural order by placing men in positions God intended for women." When I asked him how that statement could possible apply to Sweet Dreams he stated that men are not supposed to take care of each other, that God intended for women to take care of men, to be by their side during illnesses.
My second case of censorship, in Edinboro, PA., was solely about this one painting being censored by the university. As a result of death threats, the university gallery where my thesis exhibition was held was forced to post disclaimers and to check IDs for underage viewers. Someone wrote on the wall, "It's not a gay lifestyle, it's a deathstyle."Conceptually, the primary reason why this particular painting has caused so much trouble is probably due to the fact that homophobia is so deeply programmed into all of us that we freak-out when we see two men engaged in any act of kindness or tenderness or non-defensiveness toward each other. How many pictures from art history can you think of wherein men are depicted expressing compassion for one another? Almost none! In fact, the only acceptable images of men engaged in compassion for one another are a few scenes from the Bible.
Contextually, the primary reason why I experienced so much censorship during the late-80's and early 90s is because the Christian right were becoming empowered as an organized and computerized entity during that time period. Looking back, it seems that just about every time I showed my male nudes the Christians knew about it in advance and had their local members protesting the exhibition of my artworks. They were so well-organized that two weeks before my solo show at the Barnwell Museum opened the entire town was blitzed with posters stating, "Lock up your children - the Sodomite artist Robert Sherer is coming to town!"
The only regret I have regarding the exhibition of these male nudes and the resulting controversies is that I finally became so tired of being demonized and having to defend myself that I gave up painting them altogether. During 1993-94, every time I started to paint another male nude a troubling voice in my head would say, "So, is this going to be the one that gets you killed? I now realize that my surrender represents a form of self-censorship. I suppose, in a manner, that the Christian right won the battle with me.
Personally, the most insulting aspect of being a censorsed artist is when people suggest that I deliberately went out of my way to create art works that were controversial. This body of work was my MFA thesis - it deals with serious issues regarding gender and perceived passivity in the reclining figure pose. Believe me, if I wanted to create deliberately controversial artworks, I am sufficiently creative to unleash a torrent of truly blasphemous works upon the world...
The ultimate case of SKAM®, or controversy as commodity is by far the amazingly high quality art/design of Oliviero Toscani and Tibor Kalman for United Colors of Benneton®. In more than a decade what begun as an exploration of the global human creature evolved into an advertising style that has proven successful every time is had been implemented. “…In advertising the signification of the image is undoubtedly intentional; the signifieds of the advertising message are formed a priori by certain attributes of the product and theses signifies have to be transmitted so clearly as possible. If the image contains signs, we can be sure that in advertising these signs are full, formed with a view to the optimum reading: the advertising image is frank, or at least empathic. (Barthes 1977) It is precisely Barthe’s comments on the frankness and empathy of advertising that creates the controversy involving United Colors of Benetton’s campaigns since 1985. Benetton (later re-branded as United Colors of Benetton) is an Italian clothing manufacturing company established in 1965 that has become a “$2 billion fashion empire producing 80 million pieces of clothing a year for 7 thousand franchise stores in over 100 countries.”1 In 1984 the company launched their new approach to advertising by presenting a campaign based on the slogan: “All the colors of the World” that was based on a seemingly equality of races of the world through colorful clothing. That campaign alone brought attention and controversy in South Africa because of the use of black and white kids together. By 1986 Benetton begun its mass media controversy thanks to a now famous (or infamous depending upon your opinion) Italian Photographer, Designer and Art Director named Oliviero Toscani. From 1961 to 1965 he studied photography and design at the Hochschule fur Gestaltung in Zurich. He is the master mind behind the internationally renowned campaigns launched by Benetton involving controversial imagery and polemic discourse that made the news throughout the world creating different responses in different cultures. The campaigns use juxtaposition as the main tool to create meaning by using socially unmentionable subjects to create awareness of different issues such as: race, ethnicity, gender, firearm control, world hunger, pollution, religion, politics, and sex. The “make it controversial” approach begun in 1989 with a campaign called Handcuffs which chose the subject of race to design a series of images2 juxtaposing black and white models to convey the message of connection. The image of a white hand handcuffed to a black’s hand is, according to Benetton: “The most awarded image in Benetton’s advertising history.” The black community in the USA reacted strongly against this campaign. The reactions led the way to the following eighteen years of Toscani’s relationship with the Benetton firm. The 1989 campaign made it to the news and arose the word of the black community in the United States. The issue according to the European Centre for Conflict Prevention, pivoted around an image of a black woman breastfeeding a white baby 2 that led the black community in the United States to accuse the company of perpetuating the racist stereotype of the black nanny and implicitly endorsing the subordination of black women. (People Building Peace, 1999.) The next highly controversial campaign was made public in 1991 with a photog
