Recently, I came across an article describing an interesting design for two towers connected by what would be meant to look like a pixelated cloud. In this “cloud” would be public gardens, a pool, and other services for the two buildings. The idea sounded fantastic until I saw a picture of the design. It looks almost exactly like the twin towers being hit by planes on on 9/11.
Despite the fact that the designers are based in the Netherlands and the towers are to be built in South Korea, these designs have caused quite a stir. The designers have come out with an apology to those who are made uncomfortable by the towers, but they have no intention to prevent it’s construction. Which raises an interesting question: Should artists and designers be constantly worried about cultural associations that may arise from their art?
On the one hand, 9/11 was a very big deal. The entire world has heard of it and even now, 10 years later, the wounds are still fresh in our minds. But neither the Netherlands nor South Korea have any particular connection to 9/11, and the connection of their towers to the attack would not be made. It’s a really nice design and concept if you don’t have those terrible associations. Does it make sense that they should sensor their work because it has bad connotations in other contexts?
This isn’t the first time that cultural contexts has been a problem for artists. For example, the swastika was an ancient east-asian symbol of good luck before it was used by the Nazis in World War II. Because of this, no one thought it would be a problem to have the symbol on a Pokemon card back in 1999. Pokemon didn’t just stay in Asia, and in fact became very popular in the US. The card incited a major stir, causing Nintendo to discontinue that card in America, noting that what was acceptable in one culture may not be acceptable in another. In 2002, a similar incident occurred with toy pandas that came with christmas cookies. The Chinese oriented company meant no harm and immediately apologized for their cultural mistake.
You can read a bit more about the towers and it’s controversy here.
Yossi raises a very important question: Should artists and designers be constantly worried about cultural associations that may arise from their art? It seems considerate to acknowledge another person’s culture, however shouldn’t an artist have the right to create whatever he/she wants? An artist shouldn’t be limited in his/her work just because someone else may interpret it differently. De Kooning, for example, had created many pieces that are controversial because of the ways in which he depicts women. Nonetheless, his pieces are still loved and appreciated by many.
It is true, though, that the new design of these two buildings, in addition to the swastika that was placed on the Pokémon card, is much more controversial. Especially if an artist’s purpose is to reach an audience and/or to appeal to an audience, it probably is not the best idea to upset them. This has a lot to do with money versus art as well like we talked about in class, because if an artist is not being careful of other cultures, he/she will most likely not benefit from it financially. Consideration is greatly appreciated and will most likely benefit the artist, but I would still argue that an artist has the right to whatever he wants to create.
When art is censored by public culture, it seems to lose some of its nature as art. Oftentimes, art makes intangible entities, such as ideas and emotions, tangible; thus, artwork has a personal connection with the artist himself. When the artist has the pressure of appeasing society, his creativity can be stifled. This certainly is not to say that there are no boundaries for art–many things can be taken out of context and brought to an extreme level of disregard for others. However, there must be some limit to this, right? If a piece of art is deemed offensive by some yet is true in its statement, why should the artist have to change or remove it? For example, there was a painting in the office building of a church that depicts a man from the shoulders up with a bandana tied around his mouth and a gun pointed at his head; in the background of the piece, there are clippings from newspapers regarding the Chinese government’s mistreatment of certain religious individuals. My mother’s Taiwanese co-worker saw this and was deeply startled by it because she had never heard of these things occurring in her homeland before. However, that advocates for the presence of controversial pieces because (with this example), there are governments that strictly control the media and which human rights abuses (if any) are leaked to the public sphere. With this type of art comes the possibility of pain because, quite frankly, sometimes the truth hurts. If art is supposed to evoke emotion, why do we get upset if it is a negative one?
I was familiar with swastika because I used to live in an environment mainly influenced by Buddhism. Swastika is a symbol of Buddha in Buddhism so it is considered a nice symbol in my country. I was so surprised when I see this symbol was also used by Nazi when I was learning world history in my school. I was thinking how could they use this symbol and commit such unhuman crime. And since their use of this symbol, swastika becomes the evil mark, which is refused by the western culture. I believe that people should respect other people’s culture and do not touch their forbidden things or topics, especially when people are in that culture. Recently, I read a news about a elementary Chinese teacher. She tells the students that Santa Claus does not exist and the gifts are all prepared by their parents. This unconsciously honest answer to the student bring her sadness. She was sued by some sensitive American parents because they think teacher should never told children about this sad truth, which will hurt the children’s feeling. I do not know that this is a violation of American Cultural norm until I read this news. It is important to know some norm of the new cultural environment that you move to, so that you will not make people mad and be considered impolite and rude.
Controversy in terms of architecture is actually very common. I’m sure many of you remember the mosque that was or is supposed to be built near the World Trade Center. It makes a great deal of New Yorkers furious doesn’t it? What about the Freedom Tower? I mean the design for it is absolutely beautiful, don’t get me wrong, but do we really need to replace the original towers? Do we really need a new “target”? What for? Seems to me that there are many incidences where artists/designers purposely create projects that will stir up riots. I suppose some artists enjoy the chaos they create. Here’s an example of a famous controversial art to help you understand what I mean: http://images3.makefive.com/images/entertainment/art/boldest-works-of-art-in-recent-history/piss-christ—andres-serrano-7.jpg
I agree with Yossi, the South Koreans, and the Dutch when they assert that although an apology was in order, there was no reason to stop the construction of this piece of architecture. Although it was insulting to many Americans, the Dutch and South Koreans meant no harm by it and it’s the intentions that count, right?
However, when reading about this controversy, I cannot help but to immediately think of a few pieces I had studied that stirred the public during their time. The first one and perhaps the most controversial is “Piss Christ” by Andres Serrano. It is basically a photograph of a crucifix submerged in Serrano’s urine. For reasons that are quite clear, this piece enraged the public. The work was commissioned by the government although they were unaware of what his subject matter was. And this, in critic’s eyes, denied the separation of church and state. Also Marcel Duchamp, the artist who left his legacy with his infamous “Fountain”, created a piece entitled “L.H.O.O.Q.” This piece is simply an appropriation of the Da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa” with a mustache drawn above her cryptic smile. Many were enraged, claiming Duchamp disrespected the Renaissance master and the art community.
However, I feel that no matter what, art will always be a culturally sensitive topic. Art’s objective is to invoke emotion from the viewer and of course, that emotion will not always be positive. Good art always possesses that wow factor and you can’t surprise and thrill people by coloring inside the lines. So, in a way, all good art that stirs the public will in some way be culturally sensitive.
Artists need to have freedom of expression. Imagine if they didn’t; artists such as de Kooning would never have existed. The freedom to express abstractly or otherwise simply would not and could not exist, and neither would originality! People who might take offense at certain aspects of iconic artwork should not automatically assume that the artwork is making any hint to the item of possible offense; they should realize it might be a normally accepted cultural symbol from where the artist comes from and not jump to conclusions. On the flip side, to dispel any notion of associating with the symbol in question, artists should make clear that if any such association comes up, they deny it and convince the public that they are working solely in the name of art.