Spring Semester Has Begun

Yesterday was the first day of what will hopefully be my last semester of grad school. As excited as I am about this, I am also very nervous about how things will turn out - especially since I'm taking another class along with it. It makes my stomach hurt just thinking about it all. Yesterday, the thought of eating was gag worthy. 

But today, I feel a tad more accomplished and slightly less stomach-achy. I have the first assignment complete for the other class I'm taking - Survey of Western Art (fancy title for art history). And I established what will be my final project for my capstone. It's different and something that I'm not accustomed to doing, so that will be challenging, but I think it will work out as soon as I get all the details in my brain out on paper. I will be doing a photography project based on the photographs of Carrie Mae Weems and Lorna Simpson.

These ladies focus their photographs on views of gender, identity, culture, and history that is mostly centered around African Americans. I especially like Weems' Kitchen Table Series and Simpson's Five Day Forecast. They add text to their images to make the point that the meaning is constructed rather than understood. I would like to create my own version of a kitchen table series and a five day forecast of sorts along with a few other themes that I need to get worked out. 

At the moment, that's where I am. Next week the proposal is due, so I have to figure it all out by then (or most of it any way). Wish me luck!

From Kitchen Table Series, Weems, 1990

Five Day Forecast, Lorna Simpson, 1988

Pornographic sculpture? You be the judge.

I was reading this article about a sculpture titled Bear Eats Man (see below) in Socrates Sculpture Park (Queens, NY) that features a bear grabbing a man from behind and chomping down on his shoulder. Sounds decent right? Well…maybe not.

The sculpture has caused quite a stir among the people who frequent the park. There are some who feel the bear and the man exude bestiality in that the bear looks as though it has its paws placed lightly on the man’s hips instead of in a vicious grip, and the man, in turn, has an erection. 

The literature about the sculpture found here states: 

Situated in a grove of trees within an urban park, this narrative depicts a dramatic moment of shock and death. "Man" is depicted with eyes wide open, nude and in state of adrenaline-fed surprise. The wild bear looms over the man while sinking his teeth into the man's shoulder, succumbing to the physical power of nature and exposing his own vulnerability. The tableau of figures is a rather pessimistic, but perhaps realistic, idea that peaceful coexistence may not be possible.

Interesting to say the least.

There are school children who frequent the park, so parents are worried about subjecting their children to this kind of “pornography” (says George the Atheist in his blog from the article). So what did park officials decide to do because of all of the complaints? They built a fence around it and put a warning sign on it that says there is a nude figure and parents should preview it before letting their children see it.

OK. Although I may not particularly like the subject matter (or the subject that people think they’re seeing), I’m wondering…if they put the statue of David out there in all its glory, would parents (and others) be offended to the point of hiding it behind a fence? Is the real problem with this sculpture, then, the fact that the bear is behind the man or that the man is sporting an erection? Is it really OK to build a fence around a piece of art because people complain about it and don’t like it? Don’t children see body parts galore in art museums?

What are your thoughts?