Responding to an article by Claudia La Rocca about this provocative MOMA exhibit featuring live nude models, here are some entertaining and interesting comments from readers (See below). Three brief comments:
- As amazing as it sounds, but after looking through Youtube and Google Images, I could not find a single image by Marina Abramovic that looked interesting or beautiful.
- This is another case where the substance of the article is less important than the variety of responses.
- I don’t have a problem with these kinds of exhibits. But I have to wonder whether a MOMA endorsement dooms it to oblivion by rendering it as official/ceremonial art; wouldn’t it be more exciting to see this same exhibit in a smaller art space in your own city. Gosh, imagine the tourists traveling to NYC just to see this exhibit! (Or should they go to the Radio/TV museum instead?)
If you go to NYC, don’t waste your time at museums. Go to a good bookstore, find a literary calendar and float around the city to go to free readings. That’s my idea of appreciating NY art.
As Andy Warhol said, "Art is whatever you can get away with."
I liked it better when my tax money was used to construct the face of the virgin mary with camel dung. THAT was art!
Groper = not cute enough to be an innocent toucher.
I think, that it is amazing that it has taken so long for the non-art of performance art to come to light. People are reacting to it with very bad behavior but, … after so many years of the art institutions pointedly trying to break down the the ivory tower of the art museums, making art touchable and interactive, and now, a performance artist wants to be objectified and distanced from the viewer. You can’t have it all ways, you can’t break all the rules, blur the edges, and then get upset when the rules are broken. I for one hope performance art goes away. If it is art it’s not good art.
"When will Americans finally accept that nudity is nothing special?" Oh dude, you must be a carnival of fun if you think naked bodies are nothing special.
If you’re standing around naked in a public place in NYC you’ll learn something about our populace.
The pathetic truth is that artists and performers who make this kind of trash/garbage/shock art revel in criticism, and view the disdain and contempt of the public as a mark of artistic "success." As a professional artist, I’ll be the first to say that this kind of mindless "art" has been stale for decades. There are thousands of young artists producing work of real excellence and merit, and it’s unfortunate that this kind of thing is still taking space and time away from more worthwhile projects.
I wonder how acceptable it might be for a patron to amble through, viewing the installation in the nude?
And to the empty-headed teabagger complaining about his tax money going to art: in this country, the amount of money per person per year that goes to public funding of the arts amount to about 75 cents. Get over it. But if it is really stretching you, post your address and I’ll send you 75 pennies. Otherwise, shut your whining pie hole.
#5, I would much rather have my tax dollars spent on this rather clever and original exhibit than, say, on bombs and missiles.
No 5 — from Texas says Please tell me none of my tax dollars were spent on this "art"…
How could they be? This was a MOMA show. And why does someone always post this remark? So worried about where his tax dollars go as if someone took his particular tax dollars and spent them on something he didn’t like.
Please tell me mine didn’t go to George Bush’s retirement fund. Oh? They did?
I suspect it isn’t the artist(s) who are on display, but the viewing public.
While uninvited groping is obviously inappropriate, a large degree of audience interaction should be expected. In fact, it seems to be invited. Otherwise, why bother with live human beings?
So this is fully protected by the First Amendment as "art," but strip clubs can be regulated because they are not conveying a fully protected message? This is legal and mental duplicity at its finest.