Art sucks. Literally. Some recent artistic events are sucking people into discussions about what truly constitutes art, and the art world couldn't be happier about it.
In New York, the Jewish Museum recently opened up an exhibit entitled "Mirroring Evil: Nazi Imagery/Recent Art," which features, among other things, a Nazi death camp built entirely out of Legos and a photograph of an artist holding a Diet Coke can while surrounded by concentration camp prisoners.
At Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, a student has started an art project to build a house on university grounds. He has proclaimed that he will live in the house for three full months and live by a code of complete silence. In order to ensure this, he has attached himself to the house with a plastic rope that he refers to as his "umbilical cord." And to top it all off, he will also be dressed as a lobster.
Not only that, but Carnegie Mellon University is giving him course credit to do all this and allowing him a tuition-free year at the school. No, I am not joking.
When I first heard these art projects, I have to admit I was a bit skeptical. After all, what does one make of art that may desecrate the suffering of Holocaust victims or of an artist who dresses up as a crustacean to get attention?
Most artists love the art. Many other people hate it. Hundreds of people have been protesting the exhibit at the Jewish Museum, and The Pitt News, Carnegie Mellon's independent student newspaper, has received over four pages of responses from students all over the world about the exploits of "Lobster Boy." But here's the bottom line. Everyone is thinking about it.
That's right. Artists have done it again. They've shocked us to the point of actually responding to what it is they are doing, and those sly rascals have gotten us thinking again about what art truly is. Heaven forbid they try and make us think outside the box a little bit.
Okay, a Nazi death camp built entirely out of Legos is a bit disturbing. And a guy who takes a three-month vow of silence while dressed as a lobster sounds a bit hokey — but that is exactly the point. One of the primary purposes of art is to get people thinking about themselves, the world around them, and pretty much everything else. Art exists because it makes people wonder.
When you hear a story about a guy who dresses up as a lobster and sets about building a house, you can't help but wonder why. Perhaps his endeavor represents an attempt to isolate one's self from the real world, as he lives alone in the house and lobsters scuttle along the dark and lonely ocean floors. Or maybe the lobster suit represents distraction, as it can't be easy building a house while dressed as a lobster.
When you hear about a death camp made out of Legos, you can't help but cringe at the image. As one observer said, "It really gets you in the pit of your stomach."
Many people often wonder what the purpose of art is. When they finally accept that it has a purpose, they then move on to the question about what actually constitutes true art. If I pick up a compact disc and place it on my head while standing on one foot and singing a song, would I constitute art? Probably not.
But a sculpture of a singing figure made entirely out of compact discs might actually be trying to say something as a form of expression.
Art exists to get people thinking. It thrives on shock appeal, because that is what it takes to get people to come out of their shells (No crustacean puns intended). All of those people who protested at the Jewish Museum and who mocked "Lobster Boy" for his eccentricity in actuality have gotten sucked in by one of art's oldest tricks. Perhaps if they sit back and actually think about why the art makes them so angry, they may actually learn something about themselves and art in general.
In the meantime, I have to go out and buy a kangaroo costume. I have some art I need to create.
Jonathan Winkler is a mathematics sophomore. He can be reached at jonathan.winkler@asu.edu.
