DAMage Report - A Horse is a Horse of Course...Unless it's an Artist

Carol Jensen, a multimedia artist, jewelry maker and musician taught her quarter horse Buggs to paint two years ago. Her intent is to fill a gallery with her horse's paintings one day, or possibly take his show on the road. The paintings sell for between $75-$125 each and the horse has produced around 30 "abstracts."

Mary Lou Schumaker points out "Let's not forget that Buggs' work is being made with a heavy dose of help by Jensen. She is selecting the palette, directing Buggs and moving the canvas. To call this a true collaboration feels like a stretch. One way to look at it -- she's turned Buggs into her own abstraction maker. And that's their real value -- their novelty, that they're being made with the help of a horse."

Intent is fundamental to art - the artist has to be intentionally setting out to create in order for the label or art, good or bad, to be applied. Everything else is happy accidents. So without intent can the horse be labeled an artist? Isn't it more accurate to label the horse, or any other animal as a tool or part of the process, while the artist would have to be the trainer - whose intention it was to create these pieces using her horse?

The article states that "Horse-produced art has attracted a fair amount of media attention in the last couple of years. Cholla the painting horse has had watercolors displayed around the world. The earliest documented art-producing animal may be Congo, a chimp that painted and drew in the 1950s and the Milwaukee County Zoo's elephant, Brittany, earned minor fame with her painting abilities. Cheryl Ward has coined the movement "interspecies collaborative action art" to reflect the partnership between human and animal.

I don't disagree with the novelty or even entertainment value of using these animals as tools to create art. It doesn't appear that they suffer any abuse to get them "trained" and as pets probably enjoy the attention. I do toss down the bullshit flag though and draw the line at calling these animals artists.

No insult to the intelligence of animals and it is acknowledged fact that some critters can be down-right creative in problem solving and behavior. But slapping the title artist on to them demeans Art... in my ever so humble opinion.

Abstract art is so often viewed with disdain by those that don't understand it nor understand how bloody hard it is to do an excellent abstract that captures and holds the viewer and says something more than "paint on canvas in random patterns." An excellent abstract, such as a Kandinsky is completely about intent, emotion and creative delivery of artistic vision in a way that is unique and inspiring.

The biggest irony is that true abstract paintings are so intellectually and emotionally based that it often does take a degree in art to fully understand them and walk away with an OMG epiphany after viewing some of the masters of abstract. Yet it is invariable the art that is most often slapped with the "oh my kid could do that, my dog,... my horse." In reality it takes an extraordinary amount of study, intellect and talent to produce a successful abstract painting. Throwing paint on a canvas in mimicry of Pollack doesn't cut it as original, outstanding art. He did it, he claimed it - it's done.

Now dress that horse in a tutu and get it to pick out paint colors on its own then slap them on the canvas without instruction, while neighing the theme song to Mister Ed and I will concede and be impressed.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/87733497.html

DAMage Report - Sexually Abused Toons

Christopher Handley, a comic book collector was sentenced to six months in prison for possessing manga drawings. Handley must also serve three years of supervised release and five years of probation. Handley must also participate in a treatment program as directed by the U. S. Probation Officer. The last provision is "intended to provide him with diagnosis and treatment for mental health issues."


Manga is a japanese form of comic illustration that includes sexually explicit graphics. The collection that the U.S. Post Office seized as it was being shipped to Handley included comics of children being sexually abused. 


Handley did not have any criminal history nor did he possess any real child pornographic images. 
Although the psychologist assessed that Handley was not "disclosing enough" Handley admitted he searched the Internet for manga with stories involving the sexual abuse of minors. The prosecution stated that "The works at issue do not even have arguable scientific, literary, artistic, or political value, such as Vladimir Nabokov's famed novel, Lolita, Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, or even Alan Moore's recent, but controversial, graphic novel, Lost Girls. By the defendant's own statements, the works for which he was convicted of receiving and possessing are clearly obscene." Okay, so Handley, by his own admission, perved over nasty fantasies involving cartoon minors. Ick. 


Oh and by the way, for anyone wondering if looking at manga comics leads people to becoming sex offendors: "there is currently no risk assessment developed to estimate risk for future sexual offending for individuals possessing sexual images in Manga or Anime." In other words, it's illegal because.

One of my heroes, Neil Gaiman, who fought in defense of Handly, recommended that anyone interested in comic art look through their comic book collection. S. Clay Wilson's Underground Comix...even Neil Gaiman's "Sandman" series could be considered obscene. He said "I wrote a story about a serial killer who kidnaps and rapes children, and then murders them."  (The Doll's House) "We did that as a comic, not for the purposes of titillation or anything like that, but if you bought that comic, you could be arrested for it? That's just deeply wrong. Nobody was hurt. The only thing that was hurt were ideas." (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/11/24/neil-gaiman-on-the-obscenity-of-manga-collector-christopher-handleys-trial/)

It comes down to the line. Where is the Perv line in art? Where is the art line in art? We've talked about what constitutes art on this show several times - this is an example of what happens when a legal system determines something is NOT art and is not protected under creative laws. 


I just posted several nude drawings I did on my facebook page, some of which explore bondage themes. If my friends network didn't consist almost entirely of erotic authors, artists, performers and art lovers - there is no doubt that my  ONLINE DIGITAL "ART" would offend some. But I'm protected because it's art. But for how long?


http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-02-11/christopher-handley-sentenced-to-6-months-for-obscene-manga

DAMage Report - You're not Black So Give it Back

Let me start by saying this kind of shit burns my ass up. Intolerance, discrimination, elitism, narrow-minded weenies: they are all my biggest hot buttons and will inevitably bring out the ginger in me.

A white sorority team won an Atlanta Step Show contest and walked away with a $100,000 prize in what  has been a black-only competition.  The lily-white girls winning has caused an uproar on both sides of the discrimination issue. So much so that the sponsor, Coca Cola, has announced scoring discrepancies and also awarded a black sorority team with a co-win prize of the same amount. Controversy arose when some complained that step shows are supposed to highlight the black Greek tradition. (Think about the term black greek tradition for a moment will you.)



Are you fucking kidding me?

At what point in time will we stop with the stupid shit and quit qualifying people on their skin color, ethnic backgrounds, religious preferences and sexual orientations? Since when did any of that have a damn thing to do with artistic ability? Apparently not only can't white boys jump, white girls can't Step in some narrow minds.

I respect an ethnic group's right to dominate or focus on an area of the arts that is rich with cultural history, but it doesn't give any group an exclusive, nor should it. It certainly doesn't invalidate other artists' right to explore those areas and topics. Billie Holiday rocked the blues but so did Janis Joplin. Think of the loss if someone had insisted that Janis wasn't allowed to sing in a predominantly black genre of the arts.  Or if someone had told Jessye Norman she couldn't sing opera because that is only for fat white chicks. Native American made arts hold a higher value as they should because it reflects a direct line back to a rich cultural history. But that doesn't mean I can't paint a damn half naked warrior on a pony if I want. Or do african drumming (which i love), or belly dancing in turkish veils, or any number of other arts related activities that tie back into a particular culture. Exploring them and exploring the history or beliefs of any group of people is not only healthy, it makes us better people.

Stereotypes and moronic rules of who can and can't explore subjects and ethnic genres in the arts are debilitating to everyone. The barriers that keep being thrown up need to come down. People need to stop dictating what others can and cannot do - in the arts and in life.

http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2010/03/white-sorority-wins-100000-ste-002571.php