Glenn Beck.... the new Mapplethorpe?

Let me preface this blog entry by saying that I do not like or listen to any of the right wing talking heads or their radio and television shows and that this blog is written from my liberal/ artistic/ Buddhist point of view.
 I have heard of Glenn Beck but know nothing of him more than an occasional rant of his that I read in passing. So I did a double take when I saw an article about him and his art piece "Obama in Pee Pee"  (Yes, he called it that) A mason jar filled with Beck's urine (supposedly) and containing in it a small plastic figurine of President Obama draped in a white robe and wrapped in an American flag looking up to the heavens with a hands outstretched.

Obama in Pee Pee - Glenn Beck - 2012

My first reaction was not that of disgust or hatred towards him but "Wow, Glenn Beck does art?!" Having lived the latter part of my life immersed in art, the shock value of this piece seemed secondary to it's message but I'll come back to that...

Part I.

What the F#@k gives Glenn Beck the right to be an artist?!

From what i know, I have never known Beck to be an artist nor to have any interest in art. To me, he was just another hot head conservative, spouting dumbing verbal diarrhea across the airwaves of America. Right wing pundit yes, artist no, but that being said, there is a precedent of famous artists who started out in completely different careers like:

Henry Rousseau who was in the French Army and worked as a toll collector before he painted

Henry Rousseau - Sleeping Gypsy - 1890

And Paul Gauguin who was a Stock broker before he painted Tahitian women

Paul Gauguin - Two Tahitian Women - 1899 

and similarly famous people that are "secretly" artists, creating art on the side while doing what they are famous for, which is not all that strange because creativity in a person usually overlaps into different disciplines. Among famous actors such as the late Peter Faulk, and James Franco who [were, and] are painters and Leonard Nimoy who is a photographer, some famous musicians are also artists like:

American music icon Bob Dylan

Bob Dylan - Train Tracks - Drawn Blank Series - 2006

and Paul Stanley of the rock group KISS

Paul Stanley - Self Portrait - 2006

So what exactly makes one an artist? Is it years and years of formal training and practice? Can anyone be an artist? My answer to that question is Yes, anyone can be an artist.  But even saying that is being very general, If Glenn Beck is an artist, what the hell kind of art is Obama in Pee Pee and how is it classified? Well, if you delve deeper into the world of art you will find it has two main facets:
Aesthetic Arts and Practice Arts. Aesthetic arts is the branch of art in which art is created for the sake of beauty, art made under this branch is surface deep and will not necessarily have a message beyond itself. Practice arts, on the other hand, will more likely express a concept or idea which is intended to inform the viewer or challenge the viewer to think and perhaps question an existing ideology. Obama in Pee Pee falls under Practice Arts as it was created to elicit a reaction from the viewer and since it is the manifestation of a concept that Beck had, it can be labeled as Conceptual Art. I was intrigued by the offensive nature of the piece, not because I agree with it but because Beck was copying the work from an artist in the 1980's... Andres Serrano

Part II.

Following the leader

In 1987 , New York artist and photographer Andres Serrano created a piece of art in which a small wooden crucifix was submerged into a glass filled with his urine. He photographed it and manipulated the color and tone a bit and called it "Piss Christ". Needless to say, there was a public uproar over it and was denounced by public officials, church groups and private citizens. Serrano received hate mail and even death threats, his prints were vandalized at various exhibitions and in Australia, the court tried unsuccessfully to prevent it from being displayed in a gallery. Obama in Pee Pee sounds rather identical to Piss Christ. If you  put them next to each other, it is immediately apparent that both contain the same elements, an effigy of a highly regarded icon submerged in a glass vessel filled with human urine. 

Piss Christ - Andres Serrano - 1987

Obama in Pee Pee - Glenn Beck - 2012

When I first saw Obama in pee Pee, I immediately knew that Beck was trying to replicate Serrano's Piss Christ, granted it as an amature attempt but i was fascinated that he would choose to try and replicate something that when first unveiled was considered un-American and Filth. Both wprks of art are making a statement but just what Beck trying to say with his? As stated before, there are several messages that he is putting forth to his viewers. In Serrano's case, he has stated that the Piss Christ was a reflection of what was happening to Christian icons in contemporary society. this feeling was echoed by Sister Wendy Beckett a popular art critic who happens to also be a nun

Sister Wendy remarked that she did not see it as blasphemous but on the contrary, saw it as what we as a society had done to Christ in practice and that it was a reminder of the importance to reverence the death of Christ. In the case of Obama in Pee Pee, it seems to be a reactionary work of art, a reaction in particular to a painting by New York artist Michael D'Antuono "The Truth" which in it's own right is a painting that according to him, is a commentary on how varying political views skew how a single message is interpreted.

 Michael D'Antuono - The Truth - 2012

While D'Antuono is making a justifiable argument to back up his painting, Beck seems to just be reacting to the controversy and his own dislike of D'Antuono's painting, as if to say, "If he can do it, then i can do it too". Controversial art for the sake of controversy and yet the art world has shown that there is a market for just that...case in point Robert Maplethorpe.

Part III

Obama in Pee Pee is comforting

New York Photographer Robert Mapplethorpe is arguably one of the most controversial artist of our modern time. In the early 90's he unwittingly caused national uproar over his travelling photography exhibit "The Perfect Moment" which features among flower still lifes, overtly sexually charged homoerotic and sadomasochistic photographs as well as nude photographs of children. The controversy centered around issues of public funding for the arts, who decides what art is obscene and what are the parameters of censorship.       

Robert Mapplethorpe - Self Portrait - 1980

One of the most important questions that was brought up during all this was: if art can be considered a form of free speech, is it a violation of the first amendmant to take away federal money that was already given for funding based on obscenity issues? In other words, no matter how much a person may dislike another's opinion of something, the right to have that opinion is protected under the first amendment. Now, if an artist manifests his or her opinion into a piece of art, and others diagree with it or hate it, the artist still has a right to show it but if the art is seen as obscene to a certain percentage of viewers, do they have the right to force censorship on that art? Throughout history, artists have continually pushed the envelope of what is acceptable in a society and as an artist, I feel that this is one of the most important issues in the art world.  Not because it creates controversy but because it is something that is uniquely American, our constitution states that a citizen's opinion in the form of speech and action is protected under the appropriate conditions, this means an american flag can be burned as a statement about or commentary on society, such as the opening sequence to Spike lee's 1992 film  "Malcom X" which features the intercutting of the Rodney King beating video with that of an American flag burning synched to a Malcom X speech  

Similarly, The Constitution allows for and protects a Crucifix being drowned in human urine as a commentary on the sate of religion in modern times and surely it protects an effigy of the president of the US drowned in a jar of Human urine as a commentary on the right for controversial art to exist. 

The debate over who decides what is and is not obscene will go on forever but the important thing is that we have that right to speak our minds and manifest those opinions freely without the fear or retaliation or punishment from the government, private institutions, celebrities or private citizens. With beck's first attempt at controversial art, he isalready following in the shadows of giants but is it possible that he may some day eventually be on par with Serrano or Mapplethorpe in terms of creating art that challenges the status quo? Being the eternal optimist, what I can say is only time can tell. But I will refer to something that Sister Wendy Beckett said in the video posted above. 

Much of the art that is out there is "Comforting" art. Meaning the viewer can look at it and have an immediate reaction to it. this immediate reaction is comforting because by the very fact of having a reaction for or against the art piece reinforces that idea that the viewer's opinion is a correct one. By contrast, she states: "Real art makes demands". 

of course, different people will have different opinions as to what is Comforting and real art. If Glenn Beck is to start creating art beyond this impulsive first attempt, I for one welcome him with open arms into the world of art but f he is just creating "Obama in Pee Pee" as a markteing stunt, then it might be better suited for Regretsy.

Thanks for reading :)