Last week, in a small, rather quiet town in Sweden, a group of young men wearing masks and holding hammers and axes entered an art gallery with the intention to destroy the Andreas Serrano's photographs in his latest exhibition, The History of Sex. These artworks displayed, very explicitly, different incarnations of human sexuality. What shocks the viewer is the highly charged contrast between the artful constructions of the photographs and the awkward intimacy of their subject matter.
If one were to think superficially, these photographs are about sex. Strange, weird, kinky and ambiguous sexuality. Animals, mimes, clowns and one armed fishermen are all included in Serrano's idea of historical tableau. There is nothing nice, neat or tidy about these photographs, and there is certainly much of which to take offense. How "taking offense to" morphs into "taking an axe to" may be beyond my scope, there was certainly a connection in the mind of the men in Lund, Sweden.
Their successful outing was recorded on a grainy videotape and then posted on YouTube, with their destruction juxtaposed with threats against degeneracy and rage filled metal music playing in the background. The combination of violence, anger and noise made for an eerie spectacle that brings to mind an aesthetic version of a murderer's taunt.
In contrast there was another act of destruction against art at the Musée d'Orsay, when five people broke into the museum and wreaked havoc, "left filth" and punched a four-inch tear into a painting by Claude Monet. Instead of political violence, the damage was the result of what some officials are calling "hooliganism," or the result of too many drinks. There was no message left behind for the rest of Western society, nor was the artwork in question anywhere near controversial. The Argenteiul Bridge probably hasn't shocked anyone for over a century, and even when it first appeared, Impressionism and Monet no longer had the avante garde position it had in the 1860s.
Despite the similarity of the two incidents, and the clear illegality of both, they raise distinctly separate philosophical questions. The Monet at the Musée d'Orsay clearly has claims to being part of a cultural heritage. It is a historic artifact that belongs to time. As such, the defaced French painting exists not only as an object of art but also as a monument to a historic lineage, making its destruction akin to the defacing of a monument, like the Washington Monument, etc.
On the other hand, extremely contemporary art, in its nascent stage, has no deep and abiding ties to a nation or a group identity. As such, in order to be disturbed by the incident in Lund, a less nostalgic quality than patriotism must be created, a feeling that relies more on the humanist and democratic side of our nature.
Admittedly, it's hard to muster sympathy for Mr. Serrano's work. After all the photographs of men and women in situations of bondage and sexual exploration were about as subtle as axes to the brain. However hard it may be, one must muster the sympathy that is required to defend the man's right to exhibit his work in peace and safety. Regardless of the subject matter or what the public may think of his intentions, the chief thing to keep in mind is that the destroyed photographs were the product of one man's vision. Despite the fact that the vandals were making a statement about their distaste for degeneracy in general, one man's output was sacrificed.
As members of an open society, it is our duty to defend creative license from violent destruction. Whether the object under assault is indisputably heavenly or questionably obscene, any attack that is purely physical and violent is completely uncalled for.
It is almost impossible to respond in kind to such criticisms, and is anathema to the requisite dialogue in a democracy between warring factions. I understand that in the current political and social climate, philosophies and belief systems are becoming more and more polarized; however, it is important to stand fast to the ideals of open discourse in democracy despite the temptations of easy answers offered by dogma and stigmatism. While our country has a small role in punishing the vandals (if they are ever caught), the incident in Lund is a reminder of the culture war we should be fighting. We shouldn't be fighting against degeneracy or obscenity, small ideas that become refuge onto which interest groups can cling. Instead, we should defend that which is the foundation of our culture, freedom of expression, on which our infinitely vibrant cultural history can stand.
