"? the War" art show at Corey Helford in LA, Dec. 4, 2007
Corey Helford Gallery is having an Anti-War Show called "? THE WAR" Tuesday, December 4th. It's for one night only. Twenty percent of the proceeds will go to a charity that supports veterans. They are also giving away free posters of all the works in the show. People have to show up to collect their free posters.
Some of the artists include, Andrew Brandou, Gary Baseman, Joe Ledbetter, Fred Stonehouse, Chris Reccardi (shown here), and Luke Chueh. Here's the link to the show preview: Link
the latest
latest episodes
Wow. I don't mean to sound bored but what a stampede of cliches this promises to be. The true believers gather like sheep to celebrate a collection of empty gestures. Very powerful I suppose if you're into the type of engagement that changes nothing. Keep dreamin' its 1968 kids!
I can't agree with you more, Hirudo! Who are these artists who think anyone cares what they have to say about a subject as important as WAR? I mean, don't they know enough to leave it to the professional politicians? 1968 ended on January 1, 1969 -- and not a moment too soon IMHO!
H.
Hughelectronic I love the sarcasm! Let's go burn a draft card together. And yes let's leave it to the politicians. Wow another slam-dunk cliche. Do something other than parade cliches in front of cliche lovers. Is anyone who supports the war going to see these images and suddenly stand up to say "Yes, that's right let's end it now!!" No. Just like no one changes their political belief because of a kickass opposition bumper sticker. It's pathetic really. But your shrewd, world wise sarcasm proves my point. Hit me with your next cliche baby.
Hirudo, this obviously isn't artwork that is meant to change people's minds. It's artwork that brings like minded people together. Don't miss the point.
Calabanos -- I concede to your point. And thank you for such. Yet, I can't help asking what is the point of art work that aims to just bring like minded people together? It seems to unintentionally denegrate the medium. And I say that without a hint of scorn or sarcasm. I am open to being taught however.
Hirudo- Uniting people is not a trivial task. It is also historically a fairly common use of art that goes back much further than 1968. The Pyramids, the Eiffel tower, the Sistene Chapel, The Statue of Liberty, the Lincoln Memorial, the American Flag, the murals of the Social Realists, graffiti art, the music of Metallica, and on.
Don't forget, also, these paintings were probably picked because they would make good posters. Posters being given out for free and all.
Hmmm ... Looking at the previews, there even seems to be an obscure reference to the conflict in the DRC - something which the US more or less ignores while the rest of the world sends in peacekeeping forces. That at least is beyond being a "cliche" (sic).
What exactly are you attacking, Hirudo?
1. That like-minded people cooperate on an art project?
2. That people create anti-war protest art?
3. That people aren't doing (2) effectively enough?
4. That the anti-war arguments are becoming clichéd?
Or, are you just trolling?
These artists have given up their time, effort and creative energy. So far all you've offered has been vitriol. Until you can contribute something constructive, perhaps you should shut up?
I don't think I am attacking anything; I am commenting. I am delighted by the happy thought that these artists created these pieces etc. I am not trolling, though I am interested that someone would see my comments as trolling. I forgot Kieran O'Neill that the role of comments is to applaud whatever is offered.
You forgot to answer O'Neill's questions.
I'd be interested in seeing your response to Calabanos too.
One immediate positive result of this event: twenty percent of the proceeds will go to a charity that supports veterans.
Leo Tolstoy used to talk about great art as having two components namely, that which celebrates G-d the Father and affirms the brotherhood of humanity. Now doubtless the readers of BoingBoing, myself included, are too world weary to buy into that type of tripe. Just saying that a work of art is justified (and frankly I agree with GK Chesterton that a work of art is self justifying in itself and needs no validation from external sources) by its ability to engender community among its viewers seems to me starved for meaning. To say that this showing of art sparks community among those who agree with it seems, sort of simplistic -- and what I write here is doubtless an expression of my limited understanding. I say it is simplistic because there are many moments of artistic presentation that spark community but remain ugsome. Think here of Nazi rallies, Nazi art, North Korean propaganda extolling the Dear Leader, NRA Posters,etc. Are these all equally worthy by the mere fact that they engender community among those who already agree with the images presented? Or perhaps they are worthy of appreciation because they are given out for free. If either of these are true then art is worthless, like in Derrida's example of the power of a cliche (my apologies to those who are better spellers) which he likens to a coin whose markings are rubbed off by use and therefore without real value other than the value given by its user which is to say "It is worthwhile because I say so."
Now I am supposed to answer Kieran ONeill's bullet points. Ok. Let me take them in order:
1. I am thrilled that like minded people get together to explore an art project. Therefore I applaud grade school students, highschool students, residents of nursing homes, etc all of whom enjoy the benefits of community born of art projects.
2. Let's see do I protest that people join together to create anti war art? Nope. I think its pretty nifty. Since people coming together to create art is the sine qua non of artistic expression I simply can't wait to see the BiongBiong sites extolling National Rifle Association poster art contests....
3. Ok, number three from Kieran ONeill was asking if I was upset that number 2 wasn't done well. No I don't think that's what my beef is. But Kieran ONeill knows me better than that .... so before I read his answer (and thereby learn what I think) let me say that no, I don't think that a group of people who all agree with each other a conviction and so get together to applaud the convictions they share merits any attention from anyone. Why should it? What's great about a group of people rushing out to meet those they already agree with? That seems tautological to me.
4. This one seems like a tautology welded to number three. I say this because I don't know what standard by which we are measuring this art. If community with those who we agree with is the gold standard then by all means this is wonderful stuff on par with all of work produced by the USSR in the field of Socialist Realism, or in the US of A with the Republican Party's Idolatory of President Reagan.
All of which leads me to say that the best thing about an empty cliche (however you spell it) is that you can pour into it anything you want and agree with it and celebrate it.
I humble await your thoughts.
Mark -- I agree with you completely. That is something upon which I can wholeheartedly agree. Thank you for reminding me.
Hirudo : What is your point exactly? I'm still not getting it.
Art is art, whether it's good or bad art, or whether it agrees with one set of political beliefs or another.
Picasso created tons of pro-Communist art posters near the end of his life, and considering the stories leaking out of Communist Russia at the time, they supported something I didn't agree with. Those posters are still considered art though, whether I agree with what they represent or not.
So what are you upset at? Are you saying you don't agree with the political message behind these pieces, or are you saying that you don't think this is art?
Art can be about a lot of different things...including being a symbol meant to bring together a group of people (or created by a group of people) who share a common belief system.
Are you saying Southern, turn of the century, African-American quilts are not art? What about choir music? Do you think choir music is art?
Will Boing Boing post a story about NRA themed art? Maybe, I don't know. Boing Boing seems to me to be a hodge-podge of four interests - technology, the "strange", art, and "progressive" ideas, and so posts stories about such things. A web-site devoted to Baptist choir music MAY post a story about Taoist chant melodies...and it may not, depending on whether it strikes their fancy or not.
Why are you upset? I'm having trouble understanding why this bothered you.
I'll be there. I'm super excited. Beyond the political aspect, this show is bringing together some really talented folks.
It'd be worth your time, Hirudo, to read the press release and scroll through the work thinking about the curatorial focus.
I have to go back to your original question. what is the point of art work that aims to just bring like minded people together? The obvious answer is, to bring like minded people together. From the press release "the first group show to exhibit original works ... solely designed to create iconic imagery for the new anti-war movement".
I agree with you, many of the images are cliche. They seem to lack the depth of thought this issue requires. But to be fair, they are meant to be "iconic imagery for the new anti-war movement". It's a rare artwork that's not going to come off as trite in that context. Hell, "Guernica" probably wouldn't even make it. If anything, the gallery is trying to draw a crowd by bringing in a group of hip artists under a popular and pseudo-revolutionary banner. Does this denigrate the medium? I'm not sure how it could. It's how the business works.
More than anything, I'm bothered by your suggestion that an artwork needs to be justified. A search for justification in every artwork would limit its expressive potential. The whole concept of justification shouldn't even be brought up. It limits observation by imposing undue personal bias.
I agree with you that the purpose behind the work is simplistic. I don't see much of a problem with that. Art is a tool, not some great esoteric thing. Simple ideas can sometimes have very powerful effects.
This is a great conversation on one of my favorite topics. I have to agree with Calabanos' side of the table. I've authored the Groundswell Blog for the past six months on subjects pertaining to art and activism. In that time, I have a) questioned the role that art plays in social movements, and b) found very few contemporary artists that truly create "iconic imagery for the new anti-war movement" - or any other movement for that matter!
However, I'm not trying to denigrate the artists for trying. One important role that art serves is probing the borders of what is socially accepted. I think readers here would support this exhibit with the free speech argument. Without it, we wouldn't have anything but state-controlled art and propaganda.
I agree with the assertion that art needs no justification. Here, though, the artists are setting out to prove a point, and that needs to be well-reasoned. Probing why this art is valid, then, is more a question of whether the artist is justified in using this medium to make a political point.
The answer there, for me, is "Yes, and always." Artists can be vanguards and harbingers as easily as they can be soapbox loudmouths. Whether they can inspire the public to act is up to us.
It was a cool show last night! Either way