pARTicle theory ep.3- Shock Value

Summary

This conversation explores the concept of shocking art, examining historical and contemporary examples. The speakers discuss how art can provoke shock, from Botticelli’s *Birth of Venus* to modern works like Maurizio Cattelan’s banana duct-taped to a wall. They consider whether shock is intentional or a result of societal context, questioning the role of elite art institutions and the commodification of shock. Key topics include Duchamp's *Fountain*, the cultural shifts in art, and the line between meaningful provocation and mere sensationalism. Ultimately, the discussion highlights how art that shocks can evolve from controversial to commonplace.

Takeaways

• 😀 Shocking art is often subjective, depending on cultural context and individual perception.
• 😀 Historically, art that was considered shocking, like Botticelli's 'Birth of Venus,' may not have been intentionally provocative by the artist.
• 😀 Modern works, such as Maurizio Cattelan's banana taped to a wall, spark debate about whether they are truly shocking or simply audacious.
• 😀 Duchamp's 'Fountain' is another example of art that was initially shocking but is now part of the canon, despite being a critique of art institutions.
• 😀 The line between art that intends to shock and art that becomes shocking over time can blur, as demonstrated by the evolving reactions to both Duchamp's and Cattelan's works.
• 😀 Some contemporary art, like Matthew Barney's live animal installations, raises ethical concerns that go beyond just shock value, as it can be seen as cruel or inhumane.
• 😀 Sensibilities about what is shocking can shift over time, as shown by the changing reactions to nudity and religious themes in Renaissance and Baroque art.
• 😀 In some cases, shock is used to critique societal norms or institutions, like the example of Manet's 'Olympia' confronting the viewer with a nude body.
• 😀 The concept of shock in art is not always inherently negative, and what was once shocking can become mainstream or even parodied over time, as seen in films like 'Beetlejuice.'
• 😀 The commercialization of art and its ability to shock can sometimes backfire, with artworks like the Cattelan banana losing their ability to provoke real surprise or discomfort once they become part of the art market.

Q & A

What is the main theme of the conversation in the script?

The main theme is the concept of 'shocking art' — whether art is intentionally created to shock, how the perception of shock changes over time, and how cultural and historical context influence the reaction to certain artworks.

Is shocking art always intended to provoke a reaction from the audience?

No, not always. The script suggests that some works considered shocking in their time may not have been intentionally provocative by the artist, such as Botticelli's *Birth of Venus*, which was shocking due to cultural context, not the artist's intent.

How did the 'banana with duct tape' art by Maurizio Cattelan provoke reactions?

The banana with duct tape artwork by Cattelan shocked many because of its audacity and the perception that it critiqued the art world itself. The piece's value and the reaction it garnered seemed to expose the absurdity and elitism within the art market.

How does Duchamp's *Fountain* relate to Cattelan's banana artwork?

Both pieces aim to challenge the art establishment and question the notion of what constitutes 'art'. Duchamp’s *Fountain* was an audacious move to challenge the definition of art, much like Cattelan’s banana, though Duchamp’s work has since become part of the art canon despite its original provocative intent.

What was the significance of Duchamp resigning from the board after submitting *Fountain*?

Duchamp's resignation from the board highlighted the tensions within the art establishment. His act of submitting *Fountain* anonymously and then resigning when it was rejected became a publicity stunt that blurred the line between performance, art, and institutional critique.

How do the reactions to shocking art change over time?

As time passes, what was once considered shocking may lose its shock value. This happens as the context changes or as the work becomes normalized within art history or popular culture. For example, today, Duchamp’s *Fountain* is part of the canon, whereas when it was first exhibited, it was seen as deeply provocative.

Can shocking art ever lose its ability to shock?

Yes, shocking art can lose its ability to shock over time as it becomes more familiar or as societal norms shift. For instance, the banana taped to the wall, initially shocking, may eventually lose its provocative edge as it becomes more widely recognized or replicated.

What does the script say about the role of cultural and historical context in determining what is shocking?

Cultural and historical context plays a significant role in what is considered shocking. For example, nudity in Renaissance art like *The Birth of Venus* was shocking in a Christian-dominated culture, but today, nudity in art may not carry the same level of shock, highlighting how societal values and norms influence perceptions of art.

What is the critique behind Chris Burden's shocking performances?

Chris Burden’s shocking performances, such as locking himself in a locker or having someone shoot at him, were intended to push the boundaries of what could be considered art. These performances also questioned the limits of the art world and explored personal and societal tensions around violence and sacrifice.

What is the broader message behind the use of shocking art to critique societal issues?

Shocking art often serves as a critique of societal issues, such as wealth inequality, institutional elitism, or the commodification of art. It can be a way to question the status quo and draw attention to problems that are otherwise overlooked. Cattelan’s banana, for instance, critiqued the absurdity of the art market and elite control over cultural production.