A younger generation – there, I’ve said it – is suspicious of the ‘art film’. The category itself is an odd one, implying as it does that other kinds of movies can’t be ‘art’. It was the collapse of the ‘high-low’ distinction that made the problem. What used to be arranged in a hierarchy had to be redistributed into genres, and those declared equal. Over here, Truffaut and Pasolini and that lot; over there, slasher movies. Trouble is, there is a lingering aura around ‘art’ which can’t quite be dispelled by reading Walter Benjamin. So the young are quick to pounce on any movie with arty pretensions. And so they should be.

Is a movie like Stephen Daldry’s The Hours an art film? Looks that way – literary subject, for example. But here’s Hermione Lee, biographer of Virginia Woolf, on the scene in which Woolf drowns herself.

Lee ? flinched at the portrayal of Woolf in Stephen Daldry’s film of The Hours. Woolf wrote Mrs Dalloway in her early 40s and committed suicide at age 59, but Lee argues the film makes it seem she killed herself immediately after completing the novel. Lee was also troubled by Daldry’s romantic recreation of Woolf’s suicide, in which she “drifts into this beautiful green leaf-shaded river with birds singing and wonderful throbbing music and sun playing on the dappled water”.

Lee explains, “Woolf killed herself in great agony of mind, on a bleak day in March, in a river where the water runs so fast that nothing grows on the banks.” When Lee confronted Daldry about his travesty of Woolf’s death, he retorted that Nicole Kidman could only film in July.

 

Christopher Hitchens has a useful piece in Vanity Fair. He recaps the fatwa on Rushdie and briefly works through the various outrages since then, Theo van Gogh, the Danish cartoons and the rest. His main points: that the problem for us now is self-censorship and that the multi-culti excuse-mongers need to reckon with the long lists of distinguished writers from the Muslim world who are as outraged as people in the West that their religion is invoked by hateful fanatics. I call it useful for latecomers to these debates – but it doesn’t hurt any of us to go over this ground regularly.

When Iran?s Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa on novelist Salman Rushdie for The Satanic Verses, it was the opening shot in a war on cultural freedom. Two decades later, the violence continues, and Muslim fundamentalists have gained a new advantage: media self-censorship. ? more

 

The star lot was The Golden Calf, a bull in a large gold-plated formaldehyde fish tank-a symbol of the worship of a false god. It went for ?10m, bang in the middle of the range. The Kingdom-yet another Hirst shark-went for ?9.6m, well above the ?4m-?6m estimate. This was an incredible, gravity-defying feat. As the sale started, one of America’s largest investment banks went bankrupt, and a giant insurance company, AIG, was saved only by nationalisation just as the auction ended. The shares of even solid, boring banks were crashing in London and New York. The art market was sending a confusing message. Could it really be that a dead bull floating in a tank was a safer home for your cash than a deposit at the Halifax?

_ Ben Lewis in Prospect.

One of those collocations around which ironies spin, a little planetary system of cool. But all, I think, to be resisted. True, it reads like a sketch for an episode in Rushdie. But also like the chapter opening of a future book about the decadence of capitalism.

Elephant stamp to the reader who can spot the source of the entry title.

 

The admirers and followers of the Alcoran insist on the excellent moral precepts interspersed through that wild and absurd performance. But would we know, whether the pretended prophet had really attained a just sentiment of morals? Let us attend to his narration; and we shall soon find, that he bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society. No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to; and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers.

_ David Hume, ‘Of the Standard of Taste’, 1760.

The Jewel of Medina was written by a journalist called Sherry Jones. It recounts the life of Aisha, a girl who was married off at the age of six to a 50-year-old man called Mohamed ibn Abdallah. On her wedding day, Aisha was playing on a see-saw outside her home. Inside, she was being betrothed. The first she knew of it was when she was banned from playing out in the street with the other children. When she was nine, she was taken to live with her husband, now 53. He had sex with her. When she was 14, she was accused of adultery with a man closer to her own age. Not long after, Mohamed decreed that his wives must cover their faces and bodies, even though no other women in Arabia did.

You cannot read this story today – except in the Koran and the Hadith. The man Mohamed ibn Abdallah became known to Muslims as “the Prophet Mohamed”, so our ability to explore this story is stunted. The Jewel of Medina was bought by Random House and primed to be a best-seller before a University of Texas teacher saw proofs and declared it “a national security issue”. Random House had visions of a re-run of the Rushdie or the Danish cartoons affairs. Sherry Jones’s publisher has pulped the book. It’s gone.

In Europe, we are finally abolishing the lingering blasphemy laws that hinder criticism of Christianity. But they are being succeeded by a new blasphemy law preventing criticism of Islam.

Johann Hari, ‘We Should Never Pulp Books out of Fear of Fanatics” August 2008

 

And here we go again. The Prime Minister’s nephew, who describes himself as an ‘artist/activist’, is in several kinds of trouble over a picture which shows Ronald McDonald carrying an Olympic torch and running happily past a Buddhist monk in flames.

Deep.

Juxtaposition is the method for the gormless dauber. It allows the cognoscenti to savour the politically OK interpretation (US = evil) while maintaining (of course) the spectator’s freedom to interpret. It saves artists the trouble of arriving at an intelligible or defensible position about anything whatsoever and leaves them free to sloganeer.

Now that the concept of vulgarity has been overtaken by progress we need another to capture work which cheapens human sacrifice. I couldn’t care whether Rudd’s work ‘references’ Banksy (‘reference’ is evasive cant). I do care when an image of ultimate human commitment and suffering is exploited to make childish political noises.

And I care that because of Rudd’s connection with the PM the dreary little episode will circulate for days in that murky asteroid cloud where celebrity merges with creativity. Art school students look on and learn: this is how to build a career.

The last self-immolation to make the news was, wasn’t it, that of a monk in Tibet?

 

Art community defends naked teen photo exhibition.

The moment this story broke this headline (on the ABC site earlier today) was sure to follow. The police are taking a look at the legality of exhibiting naked photographs of children said to be aged thirteen or fourteen. A critic is cited: these photographs do not sexualise the children.

Maybe, maybe not – I haven’t seen them. But we notice once again, as with all such events that the critic (and someone described as an ‘art market analyst’) defend the photographs by making an interpretation – they don’t sexualise the children. In other contexts, you may be sure, these same authorities will make the argument that the interpretation of art is down to the spectator.

It’s not news that the visual arts ‘community’ makes self-contradictory arguments. What’s interesting is the ritual character of these events – people shout, slogans are exchanged, the art world sees the affair as further evidence for the doltishness of everybody not in the art world, right-thinking burghers see it as further evidence of moral decline. Business then continues as usual until the next arbitrary crisis.

The fixity points to an underlying script. Perhaps the concept of art, whether emptied of all meaning, as conservatives claim it now is, or vastly enlarged, as in the aesthetic of the late Robert Rauschenberg, still operates as a quasi-sacred concept. ‘Art’ liberates the artist and the spectator from the rules that govern other forms of exchange. Remember the case of Serrano’s ‘Piss Christ’ (the crucifix suspended in urine)? Desecration was of course the point of the piece – everyone got that – but when Christians actually objected to the desecration of their sacred icon they were treated with derision. The function of the word ‘art’ here is to license licence: we will do as we wish and an invisible barrier will protect us. Well it didn’t in the Serrano case, and I doubt it will in the present one.

Theme Tweaker by Unreal