Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

The Curious Case of Benton's Bazaaro

Published: Friday, October 30, 2009

Updated: Friday, October 30, 2009 15:10

Related Articles


Recently there has been a series of reactions to an alumni work displayed in the Chapel gallery. It is a work by Amada Benton entitled Bazaaro. This is a work designed to look much like a fashion magazine. It looks like the cover one might see for Vogue or Cosmopolitan. Benton's work is part satire and part critique of notions that underlie most of our print media with regards to images of women. It also takes issue with advertisement. It is made in such a way that it could and has been mistaken as an actual magazine - complete with fake subscription cards.

 

Before the exhibition officially opened this work was mistakenly removed by a member of the custodial staff. Bazaaro was handed over to a member of the chapel staff who briefly reviewed it and asked Student Life what should be done. After a quick preview the work was discarded. The object was discovered missing and the history of how the work disappeared was traced.

 

The decision to dispose of Bazaaro was a mistake and COMPLETELY reasonable. They did not know it was an art object. The artist went to great lengths to make this hard to determine. 

 

Amanda did not intend for the work to be destroyed but she can hardly be surprised that is was destroyed under these circumstances. The trajectory of this artwork from pedestal to trash is all part of the artwork.

 

Any artist who manipulates context and blurs the line between the ontology of objects knows there is a chance of a work being treated in some open manner other than mere observation typical of an ArtGallery.

 

Student life apologized for the error. Amanda is being reimbursed for any financial impact this may have had on replacing the work. Artists understand that the meaning of a work can be outside of their intention. The process of interpretation does not end with the maker; the audience is critical.

 

There has been a second removal of Bazaaro from the Alumni Show in the last week. This time the work was removed by a student who felt the work was offensive and should not be found located so close to the newly opened Prayer Chapel. The work was turned over to Security. Emails were exchanged and administrators consulted and the work has been returned once again to the gallery in the lower level of Wesley Chapel. In this case there was no confusion about whether or not this was a fashion magazine or an artwork.

 

Many questions are being raised about the appropriateness of such a work on campus, -questions about our chapel building and the limits of sacred versus gallery space. And, of course, the definition of what is offensive.

 

These are good questions to ask and questions Bazaaro has been designed to generate. A Christian Liberal Arts college may be one of the few venues left in our culture where these questions are taken seriously. The ArtDepartment has only two conditions they require for this conversation to take place. The first is the assumption that Art be taken seriously and has intrinsic value. 

 

The second condition is that we acknowledge that art can have more than one function. Art is not merely decorative where the function is to please. Some art is valued because of its beauty. Art is also rhetorical. It can challenge and disturb. Art can be subversive.

 

Bazaaro is a work intended to point out how our culture makes a commodity of women and sexualizes virtually all aspect of the market place. Some will complain that it actually becomes complicit in the very thing it seeks to critique. It is not always easy to find the partitions between the categories. To require art to be only one thing is too simple. The question here is does it serve a purpose valuable to this community and how should we react to work that makes us feel uncomfortable?

 

Censorship rarely works as a solution. 

 

Body image is a troubling issue among many students. Women suffer from this issue as well as men. Not to be bothered by Bazaaro is actually more problematic.

 

One example of disturbing material in Bazaaro is an ad that attempts to expose the marketing ploy of McDonald's. She is referring to the recent ad campaign of "I'm Loving It". The people who developed this ad know the slippery nature of the antecedent of "IT". Taken in one sense it has a slightly salacious quality. They want this flexible word to cling to things, to associations yet be able to deny them when confronted. What do they expect us to think they mean by this phrase? What do we love when we say, "I'm loving it"? Quality food? Quick service? The joy of not cooking? Neil Postman says that the more you try to deconstruct the truth claims of advertising the more you recognize that there is something else going on. He also points out that knowing you are being manipulated does not prevent you from being manipulated. This is the essence of Orwell's "Double Think" in 1984. Benton's "I'm Loving It" ad shows Ronald sporting with a sexy woman. Yes, it is crude and even a bit funny. But you look at Amanda's parody and then feel just a bit irritated that McDonald's chose this as the ad campaign. (The shrill documentary "Super Size Me" actually changed the marketing of MacDonald's. They no longer ask if you would like to Super Size your meal [it is super sizing us as well]). The obvious is only obvious when we recognize it as such. The world of advertising assumes that the message they offer is not seen front on but peripheral. And so it goes in this work by Benton. This one example reflects the many ways her vulgar images try to send to the mind outrage on the vulgar media which is itself so intent on using vulgarity to make money that they share a sense of responsibility for their impact on us much like most drug cartels worry about how heroin might be a tad bit disruptive to how individuals might thrive.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

4 comments Log in to Comment

Houghton_Star,Gerad.Gentry@houghton.edu
Sat Oct 31 2009 21:21
In reading Professor Murph’s response to my comments and the reaction of the community to Bazaaro, I agreed with most of what he said. He made an important point that whether or not something is “good” for Christians to engage in, the question of forcing others to adopt our perspective is dangerous and problematic (although granted a community must do this in some broader ways). Nevertheless, we as Christians ought to, as Murph suggests, engage in debate about what is good. Here, however, are a few further thoughts regarding his response:

If we are speaking of the viewer, then violence, torture, unlawful sex, ect… may be comparable in their positive or negative values. Whether someone can view a horror film or intense sexual scene and walk away enlightened, or at least no worse than they were is a question of the individual. We might even argue that in some cases it is unwise for people to attempt to participate, given the content (as Murph noted of torture).
But if we are speaking of the holistic art itself, we can say with certainty that some things are morally wrong to engage in. Loved ones engaging in something like firefighting is not a question of morality. Engaging in a sex scene as an actor does necessitate the ethical question. Whether Christians should endorse engagement in art in these ways is a moral question, not just a question of perspective or personal strength.

If we conclude that having sex for the sake of a film is not something Christians should do (we can determine this without forcing them not to and without looking down on them), then the viewer is faced with a second challenge. Not only must the viewer ask the first question, “is this valuable for me to watch/engage in”, the viewer must also ask, “If it is wrong for a Christian to engage in art in this way, is it still right for me to endorse it as a viewer?”.

We may personally decide that a given film (or painting) is not worth looking at due to its violent content, but for an actor to act out a violent scene is not an analogous dilemma (though we might ask questions here too) as for an actor engaging in a sex scene.

Once again, these questions could be raised in regard to depicting the nude. We may decide that modeling nude is acceptable for Christians to engage in, but it is still a question of morality, not a question of preference or strength. Are we engaging in something that, being sacred, is meant to be kept within the freeing beauty of those sacred bounds?

In the end, as Professor Murph reminds us, we need to be open to discussion and not quick to force our perspective on others.

Ted Murphy
Sat Oct 31 2009 17:40
(continuation of Murphy's comment - see below) Gerad states that there is something sacred in a marriage that provocative art may undermine. This is true not only of marriage but all of life. You have to decide where your limits are. One of mine is torture. I can not take it in art. It bothers me too much. Once I see this in a film or art work I bale out fast. The SAW films or Hostel hold no appeal or interest to me. If these things did not happen in real life I might have a different response. Do I challenge people who see these films? Yes- you bet I do. I do not judge them as worse people than me- but I do ask them “how can you watch this stuff?”

If all art were like Bazaarro our experience would indeed be diminished. But I am glad that some art is like this to keep lively our perceptions of the market place and the media.

Let’s keep the conversation going.
Murph

Ted Murphy
Sat Oct 31 2009 13:48
Gerad's concerns are something we all need to consider. There is good reason to proceed with caution. The problem comes in when we try to impose our personal limitation on everyone else. Kant's “categorical imperative” is tough to argue against on many levels. People ought never exploit each other for personal gain. This seems reasonable enough on the face of the assertion. What for me seems like taking advantage to another may appear to better define the nature of persons for others.

I may not like someone I care about to be an actor who appears in a film that has a sex scene in it. I may decide I could not be a model who poses nude. But this does not mean others must share my feelings about this issue. I would not like my son to fight forest fires- I think those who do this are brave and to be praised- but this does not mean I think another father who encourages this profession for his son loves his son less. I am glad there are people who investigate child molesters. But I could never do that. The horror they daily see- the cruelty they observe inflicted on innocent children would keep me awake at night. I don’t have the stomach for it- but no one would say because it is hard and grim no one should do it.

I have argued that certain novels should not be made into films. Take Günter Grass’ novel Tin Drum. Oskar is described as a person who refuses to grow up. He remains a small child his entire life. He has sexual encounters in the novel. This is can be read without impacting a real person. Oskar does not exist in reality. But a child cast to play Oskar in Volker Schlöndor’s film is a real person and performing scenes in which he is engaged in sexual acts cannot be said to be “just acting” for a child. To me it was morally wrong for David Bennent , who was 12 at the time , to appear in the film in that manner.

So this is for me a line I feel should not be crossed. But others may see it differently. They may persuade me to change my mind. I am open to this discussion. I believe Magnolia is important to watch. It is one of the few films made in recent years that tries to address the role of Grace in life without sounding silly or preachy ( though some critics viewed it as preachy and silly)

No one is saying “you should look at Amada Benton’s Bazaaro”

If you wish to not look at it or to stop once you have started to look, it is up to you. You can walk out on “Magnolia” if it bothers you. I have walked out of movies for the same reasons. But do not tell me there is something spiritually lacking in me if I choose to stay, look, contemplate or care about something you view as problematic. At what point does the Holy Spirit in my life have a valid guiding force if my community requires that IT play that role in my life? My liberty to hold a perspective on Art different from you is vital and valid only so far as I do not imposes ( with or through power) on you.

I know there are some who argue the “weaker brother”. They use it as a way to coerce conformity. I take issue with this on several levels. I do not see it as applied consistently in communities. It is only used to reign in someone in who wishes to explore complex issues or emotionally charged ideas. The weaker person is like the poor of whom Jesus reminds us is (are) always with us. Rarely is the “weaker brother idea” used to address capitalism or intellectual development. Mostly it comes up in issues of art expression and ...yes ...sobriety.

I also see the quick appeal to Philippians 4:8 as a misrepresentation of Paul’s intent. To apply this verse to disturbing art seems to me disingenuous. The application of this verse as some sort of “life Guide” has no practical effect. Life is not like that. We are often required to examine things which are not Good. Praiseworthy, Noble, etc. To truly apply this verse in this way would require I begin by not reading my Bible. (This is no joke – I set out around the age of 14 to read the entire Bible. I came to the text where Lot throws one of his daughters out to the men who rape her to death. This so horrified me I closed the book and refused to read on)

Paul WAS saying that to judge people, situations and life from the negative only was something that lead to a kind of bitterness. To judge people merely by their faults would lead us to a situation as presented in Measure for Measure. Hence Paul ( no doubt fed up by all the fighting he was hearing among certain groups) decided that they needed to follow a principle of looking at what was best in others not bad. I also sense in the tendency to pull out this scripture a deep disregard for Art as valuable. There is this “but come on- this is just art...it is not important in the great world of things”.

I do not think this is what Gerad thinks- but I do believe it is behind what others think and why they are so quick to throw this in the face of the Arts.

Houghton_Star,Gerad.Gentry@houghton.edu
Fri Oct 30 2009 14:55
Most Christians recognize the value of both engaging in art that challenges, and refraining from other aspects of art. Without going into too much background, a little thought will reveal that any definition of art that encompasses all that we want to include in that term, will always leave room for art that is unhealthy. If we recognize that the classification of art does not justify participation in the work, then we will be able to say that some pieces are art, without feeling the need to engage in them.

Where do we as Christians draw the line of what we are okay participating in, both in the viewing and in the creating? Take drama for example. We are generally okay watching a film that “has artistic value” when we would not be willing to engage in its creation. Is it appropriate to have a double standard of what we think is good for a film to show and what we think is good for a Christian to engage in? We must ask questions like, what is special and unique to a marriage relationship that, while worth considering fully in that context, is not appropriate for participate in other contexts.

Ask yourself the question: would you be okay kissing someone of the opposite sex for the sake of the show? You are after all only acting. If so, would you be okay lying naked with another individual for the sake of a film that has a good message or deep artistic value? So long, that is, you do not truly engage with the feelings and actions you are acting out. Yet again, would you be okay having sex with a person for the sake of a film in which such an action is “necessary” for a deeply contemplative concern that society needs to consider? At this point, most Christians have dropped off the bandwagon. Yet, the question is the same all the way down to a simple action, or the words, “I love you”. How much should Christians engage in that which made for marriage?

To apply this to paintings or sculpture, the fact that a piece may cause us to consider something valuable, does not justify participation in it. The hard question of “how much participation is good” has no clean answer. Is it fine for an artist to sit for hours painting another man’s wife in the nude, so long as he controls his own passions and paints her appropriately? Or is something lost in the uniqueness between man and woman and the value of the two becoming one and sharing this unique bond. Not all things that are good should be shared with others. Where is the physical line? Sex? An emotion? Full visual?

My suggestion is that while this changes based on culture, the important thing is that we not compromise these elements of the sacrament of marriage. Is a film like Magnolia worth what is lost in viewing it? Could we have considered the same concepts without engaging in it?

Additionally, I would like to throw out one further consideration. Does the fact that we do not respond physically to something, or that we are not excited emotionally mean that participation in it is okay? Certainly everyone who engages in anything long enough will no longer be moved in the same way by it. Does this mean that we have somehow triumphed over a previous weakness?

None of this is meant to conclude anything one way or the other on “Bazaaro”. Rather these questions are meant to offer a recognition that we need to be challenged, and we need to engage in these challenges in ways that do not compromise who we are in God.

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now

Log In