Art Lovers discussion

This is just a question I have. I saw this post, it's actually a news article but not one I found very interesting. But in it was this picture. I've never seen these pieces of art before. Has anyone else? Are these famous and I've just been in a time capsule?


Marcia Schvartz's Doña Concha, 1981, foreground, and three paintings (1989–90) by Victoria Gil, background.

Are these just really just more for shock effect? Who can come up with something different? Unusual? I won't expound anymore. What are your opinions?

Heather wrote: "Are these just really just more for shock effect?..."

Well, they wouldn't be shocking to a dentist...

Every new art movement or development is usually shocking to people who are invested in the previous ones. Look at how the art establishment received Impressionism, or abstract expressionism, or Dada, or pop art, or any other art movement of the past couple of centuries.

The works in this photo don't really do anything for me. Then again, neither does Mannerism. But all it takes to change opinions is one brand-name collector or dealer deciding these are the bee's knees. Imagine how Van Gogh's story would've changed if Theo had landed a sale with the 19th century versions of Larry Gagosian or Bernard Arnault.

Here's Victoria Gil's bio: https://www.artland.com/artists/victo...

Lance wrote: "Well, they wouldn't be shocking to a dentist...

Every new art movement or development is usually shocking to people who are invested in the previous ones. ..."

Thank you, Lance.
I have heard that “shocking” is usually compared to what already has been. It was and maybe still is in music, too.
And it seems to be true especially to the people coming from the generation before the new movement which seems to be more provocative, or more unconventional.

The thing is, I was reading some art news and I happened along this photograph. I was thinking of Damien Hirst specifically. His works are or were shocking when he came around. IMO, some are still disgusting, or difficult to look at (cows head being eaten by maggots) for me and may still be for others, too.

Isn't he before the other two above in question? He is definitely more famous, I know that. I’ve seen plenty of pictures of works by Damien Hirst to think he is bizarre and original enough, and anything that looks even somewhat akin to doing the same seems to me to only be trying to out do his style or his ‘look’ of, for lack of a better way to say it, raw flesh and gore. Some thought of it as mere "shock effect" or if not his work, some of the contemporary art that came after his found that term added to their reviews.

I found more pictures and the real Marcia Schvartz's Doña Concha

I answered my own question! This first one is indeed something different than my first impression, too. It is not a sculpture in a museum of a standing woman without a head hanging up her laundry. (As I thought it was, thus the shock effect question)

It is actually a video! I posted a few scenes, here is a link to the video but the words are in Spanish (I think).

https://www.marciaschvartz.com/dona-c...
Audio-Visual: 3.18

1980

Here is a description I found by Valentina Di Liscia in a different article:
" “Doña concha,” a rather unsettling photo slideshow of the artist in a half-smiling papier-mâché mask, flowered apron, and rubber gloves, gratingly humming a bolero off-key while hanging her laundry to dry on the terrace of a run-down building."

Here is the front view of the top photo:


Obra titulada "Doña Concha", de Marcia Schvartz, expuesta en el Museo Reina Sofía de Madrid. EFE/Javier Lizón


I'll still add that Victoria Gil's three paintings are still up there for strange in my book. But that's my opinion. And Lance is right, they're right up the dentist's alley!

Lance wrote: "Heather wrote: "Are these just really just more for shock effect?..."

Well, they wouldn't be shocking to a dentist...

Every new art movement or development is usually shocking to people who are i..."
Great response, Lance. I totally agree.

I do not know the artist or the paintings but the style is familiar enough.

Actually they remind me of myself. Because when I was in high school I did a series of drawings of human faces contorted and flayed in various ways. Purely imaginitive though, not from life.

People said that mine were shocking too. But it was less about being shocking (maybe a little... I was teenager after all) than it was me trying to get my head around the anatomy.

My grandmother saved them all in a book.

Nowadays people seem more shocked by my trying to draw beauty than ugliness.

Hi Stuart!
That’s interesting to know about you! I don’t know your age or how long ago you were a teenager so I don’t know what movement of Art was present at the time you drew your faces. But in your explaining that most of the reason (besides just being a rebellious teenager) you drew those was to study anatomy, that makes a lot of sense! Just like the older masters like Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci did like studies on cadavers to figure out anatomy.
And I would think it impressive how you would be drawing at all only because I can’t draw anything let alone anatomy!

It was the 1980s... I was in high school from 1982-1986. It was the heyday of splatter horror films... Lucio Fulci, Sergio Martino,etc. and so on... I do not know I was influenced directly by current art at the time.I had some familiarity with that but my biggest influences were probably comics, role playing games, paperback book covers, animation, punk fanzines, music press like The NY Rocker but mostly comics... Alfredo Alcala, Tony deZuniga, Rudy Nebres and others like that. Dave Stevens was a big fav. Of course my grandparents introduced me to Picasso, Matisse, Cezanne, Gauguin, and also Gibson, Sargent, Whistler etc... Sometime around then I went to a Dali show at a small gallery... But comics were the thing I actively studied the most.

Stuart wrote: "It was the 1980s... I was in high school from 1982-1986. It was the heyday of splatter horror films... Lucio Fulci, Sergio Martino,etc. and so on... I do not know I was influenced directly by curre..."

Now I can totally see that with you only first saying the years you were in high school. I was only the four years following you in high school, graduating in '91 and I remember all of the horror film craze! I remember there was a movie that came out called "Heathers" that was big, (I guess). I never saw it but people would jokingly act as if I was one of the killer Heather's in the movie. It makes a lot of sense why and how that would have some sort of influence on you.
Thank you!

Heather wrote: "Stuart wrote: "I remember there was a movie that came out called "Heathers" that was big, (I guess). I never saw it but people would jokingly act as if I was one of the killer Heather's in the movie. ."

I remember Heathers... and I remember after I saw it having to go to life drawing class (because i was in college then) and my art that day being influenced by the movie I had just seen about 1990 I guess?

I think that was also the time that a raccoon stuck his head out of drain pipe where our model was standing only to be startled by all these people sitting there watching.

That’s a pretty funny memory!

It must have been Springtime because we were drawing outside.

The above art is ok.
Not so shocking.
At least for me.


To view the above art clinically ( as in the case of dentists or healthcare professionals) is one thing. That is an entirely different approach to it.
To glorify it or to make it a subject for shock value , is quite another.

But , if using it to normalise things like differences due to deformities in skin and the different parts of our body.. is very admirable and I have no problems with it.

I don't know about shocking.

Some shocking art or literature or facts is good for all of us, esp if it is thought provoking and helps us move beyond our comfort zone... being a little uncomfortable, at times, is maybe good for all of us.

But..I do not like the Macabre or those mutilated body art thing ( don't you dislike such an artist Heather ? Was that Damien Hirst ? I don't remember his name ) genre of art ... or the Horror genre in art , books or movies.. not my cuppa.
It does not shock me .
I just do not like those.

I think the Vienna Actionists in the 1970s were known for art projects that involved a lot of blood and gore and flesh... I remember some controversies about SRL in San Francisco in the 80s as well. but I think you are possibly thinking of the Body Worlds exhibition by Gunther von Hagens. Must be from 2001 because it was showing in Berlin when I was there... I guess it was a big deal because the line to get in went around the block.

siriusedward wrote: "Some shocking art or literature or facts is good for all of us, esp if it is thought provoking and helps us move beyond our comfort zone... being a little uncomfortabl..."

I think you're right about a little shocking to get us moving outside of our comfort zone whether in art, literature, etc. is good, and depending on what it is, as you followed up with the grotesque. I do not like the blood and gore, no. You got that right!

But when you say having a little shock effect to get us out of our comfort zone, it brings us, in a way, full circle back to what Lance said initially "Every new art movement or development is usually shocking to people who are invested in the previous ones." And I don't think we would have any new, good art if we stayed with what was already 'good' in the eyes of the public and never ventured out to accept what else is there.

Yes.. thats true.

Its just different and sometimes hard to understand or relate... but art is in the eyes of the beholder.
So subjective.

Stuart wrote: "It must have been Springtime because we were drawing outside...I think you are possibly thinking of the Body Worlds exhibition by Gunther von Hagens.
...

I have wanted to reply to this for a couple of days. I'm sorry for my delay. I haven't been active though I've seen the posts and had some ideas.

I wanted to ask Stuart...was your model naked standing outside in the Spring? This may not be an unusual question for most of you artists who have taken many art classes with models in different scenes, I'm just curious. They must have confidence! I certainly couldn't do that!

And referring to Body Worlds...I didn't know that was an art exhibit. I loved it! Of course, I was a medical major and loved my anatomy classes. I thought it was simply an exhibit of the body, an exhibit for educational purposes only, for the public at large, not just for lovers of art and especially not for art to display the body in, what some would think gruesome, detail. (I don't think it's gruesome, it's beautiful to me, it's perfect!) The part about seeing the embryo disturbed me a bit, but we are on a different subject here.

Heather, I do not know a ton about the intent of Body Worlds. I just remember the public discussion about it when it was touring. I had a nbr that was an archaeology student who went to see it as well. So I can see how it would be of interest from a scientific vantage point.

No models were naked when we met outside... There are probably rules about that. There are even rules about what you can do when you have a model that is nude in the studio. As there should be. When we met outside because the weather was nice and our teachers liked to change the scenery sometimes, the model if one was available, would just wear normal clothes... and if there was no model then teachers would often just send us out to explore and draw whatever we found outside the classroom. i like that. has a very school of the city feeling about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-As...

Some of my friends worked as models. I do not think the university paid particularly well but it must have been worth their time.

I once read an interview with Jello Biafra where he said he liked to use shock to unglue people's minds.

Picasso is also famously quoted as having said that art shouldnt be hung on walls but should bristle with rasor blades.

From my own DADA-inspired heart I have to agree.

Even explicit images have value.

Sometimes offending people is the point. I did a performance art piece in school where I wanted the audience to feel complicit ... which was also very dodgy territory to enter into.

But I imagine its that visceral emotional reaction from the audience that the Vienna Actionists were trying for as well.

Stuart wrote: "No models were naked when we met outside... There are probably rules about that. There are even rules about what you can do when you have a model that is nude in the studio. As there should be. When we met outside because the weather was nice and our teachers liked to change the scenery sometimes, the model if one was available, would just wear normal clothes...Sometimes offending people is the point. I did a performance art piece in school where I wanted the audience to feel complicit ... which was also very dodgy territory to enter into.
But I imagine its that visceral emotional reaction from the audience that the Vienna Actionists were trying for as well."

Hi! Me again!
I have to respond again to Stuarts post. As far as models outside, I never thought of the legal implications of that. Of course there would be rules and regulations against things like that. Indecent exposure, etc. I get it. I see your point.

And you say offending people is the point. Well, I know you think that and many other people share your opinion. I am glad I haven't come across any art such as the kind you described. No offense intended at all! Kudos to your ingenuity! I'm glad you have expanded the minds of the art world! I'm just not one of them who wants to expand my mind in that direction. Lol. I didn't know Picasso said that. Interesting. I can see that...

Thank you for sharing your insight and information! A very interesting and informative comment, Stuart!

This was a big issue in the 80s and 90s... I remember when the republican national convention met in Houston (1992 I think, right before Bill Clinton was elected?) A group of artists there put together a protest in front of the Rothko chapel in Houston to save the NEA. There were a number of controversial art issues in the news at the time and some people in congress (Jesse Helms, etc) went after the NEA that gave grants to artists.

I love the insurgent spirit of Picasso. I do not know for a fact how much of it is tied to the politics of the war in Spain but looking at paintings like Guernica I imagine so. There's a story one of Picasso's biographers writes that a German officer upon seeing the painting said to Picasso "This is very good! Did you do this?" To which he replied: "No, you did."

Heather wrote: "Stuart wrote: "No models were naked when we met outside... There are probably rules about that. There are even rules about what you can do when you have a model that is nude in the studio. As there..."

Yes!

Stuart wrote: "There's a story one of Picasso's biographers writes that a German officer upon seeing the painting said to Picasso "This is very good! Did you do this?" To which he replied: "No, you did."

wow!

Heather wrote: "wow!"

indeed!

I think the 'shock value' spoken about here does relate to the radical social reforms visible in particular since the avant-garde in the 19th century: the avant-garde was all about challenging the status quo, and I think this 'shock' is evidence that the work is successful in such methods, personally. Pussy Riot is a great example of this, as is the work of Ai Weiwei.

Schvartz is known for focusing on marginalised women in her art, that fall outside of society's "canon of beauty", and also for portraying things from a female perspective. I'm not as familiar with Gil, but it also looks like theories of feminism, production of stereotypes associated with gender and power relations all play key roles.

When this is considered however, these artworks aren't really anything new or outside of the art gallery's status quo at present: installation is very much a current trend, as is the signal-boosting for works from women dealing with feminism. Expanding the platform for both women and non-Western artists is very much an ongoing battle and has been for quite some time - but perhaps the upset caused by such works might reflect one of two things:

1) There is yet an expectation for art to look a certain way, in which case the tradition of a Eurocentric academic art still lingers.

2) Increasingly explicit work built to evoke a reaction might represent frustrations in the former point.

There's an interesting web series called "Shock Art" by art historian Christina Chau, and there's articles about it that can be found from google. Alas I've yet to find anywhere online where the series can be viewed itself, but if anyone finds something please do let me know!

Laura wrote: "There's an interesting web series called "Shock Art" by art historian Christina Chau, and there's articles about it that can be found from google. ..."

There's a classic art history text that my mother has on her shelf called The shock of the New.

Stuart wrote: "There's a classic art history text that my mother has on her shelf called 'The shock of the New'."
I've had a look and that seems to be a really nice overview of modern art. It also looks like Robert Hughes, the author, had an eight-part tv series with the same title back in 1980.

Each episode is currently available on youtube. :)

Laura wrote: "I've had a look and that seems to be a really nice overview of modern art. It also looks like Robert Hughes, the author, had an eight-part tv series with the same title back in 1980...."

Now that you mention it, I think that is correct. I had forgotten all about that series. I think my mom bought the book for a class. Presumably an art history class, when she went back to school in the late 80s. Thanks.

A very interesting thread. Many good points. Thank you.

If I feel that the purpose to shock is to obtain an ulterior motive such as fame, power or profit then I question it.

If I feel it is a byproduct of wishing to challenge the audience then I connect with it strongly

Whilst I generally enjoy art that shocks and is challenging I question its value or effectiveness for the general public.

I have begun to feel that if ones intention is to inspire change and reflection from the audience, then shock tactics may be good for exposure, but at the end of the day I suspect it increases polarisation and pushes people away. Whilst those who agree with you, cheer you on and tell you how brave.

Personally I enjoyed Paul Mccarthys Trump video at KODE Bergen. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/pro...

However I ask what is the point? Do you wish people who support Trump to question their actions? If so then this installation will only confirm and solidify their world view. In effect I would argue such a work is good advertising for Trump and polarises the populous further. And in that regard I become uncertain about the works value for society.

What about art that is shocking, but does not get exposure, can one then say it is shocking?

I think part of the shock value lies in the elevation of a work by institutions or media. Someone out there with authority thinks this is good, thinks this should be sean, oh my gosh…

My intention as an artist is not to shock, it is to inspire and challenge growth. However the audience might never get beyond being shocked or be able to move past the fact that they don’t understand it, are repelled by it or merely don’t like it.

Merely doing something different is shocking to some.

I am concerned for a society that becomes to comfortable and convenient. What would we become if we never were challenged?

Thank you for your time.

Bjørn wrote: "A very interesting thread. Many good points. Thank you.

If I feel that the purpose to shock is to obtain an ulterior motive such as fame, power or profit then I question it.

If I feel it is a b..."

What you said is so interesting! Definitely food for thought...
Thank you! It did make me think! :)