Maybe I’m old-fashioned and somewhat cliche, but I don’t see any flaws in the argument that much of the ‘modern art’ we see nowadays has little, if anything, to do with art. It’s not a terribly easy argument to make, though – try to look for a definition of the word and you’ll see vague description after vague description talking about the expression of creativity or a mirror to nature.
Regarding the definition of pornography, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said “I know it when I see it.” Increasingly, I’m growing to feel that way about art. I am by no stretch of the imagination an expert on the history and development of art, but I consider myself more well-versed than the average person. By no means does this give me the authority to say with any confidence that something is or is not art, though I have to confess that it is not at all rare for me to have raised an eyebrow when confronted with attempts at modern art.
So when I saw Ohio artist Richard Whitehurst building ‘The Rape Tunnel’ and calling it a piece of art, I can’t say I was entirely surprised. This man also created ‘The Punch You in the Face Tunnel’ – and is currently embroiled in litigation with a young woman who he punched in the face after she entered the tunnel – and seems to be running with the definition of modern art as anything that expresses an idea or concept.
The idea’s pretty simple: enter The Rape Tunnel, get raped. I’m not entirely sure how Whitehurst plans to get away with such a thing, though when asked about his plans for what goes on inside the tunnel he said the following:
“I want to make it clear that I plan to make the experience as unpleasant as I possibly can to anyone who dares to crawl through the tunnel. I will try to the best of my ability to make them regret their decision.”
The words of an unhinged man? Quite possibly. The words of a man who completely misunderstands the very concept of art? I’d definitely say so. But here’s the problem: Where, exactly, can we draw the line in saying what is and is not art?
I’d like to pause very quickly and assure you that I in no way condone, support, endorse, approve or enjoy the idea of something like this existing and continuing to exist under the guise of art. That being said, I would like to know exactly what the boundaries are in terms of what we would call art and what we would just call derogatory nonsense. Can we call anything that expresses an idea ‘art’? The man who put a Bible in a jar of urine and watched as it made him (in)famous was certainly expressing something – you can’t take that away from him, much as you may want to – but if the application of that expression is so grotesque or off-beat or requires no true talent whatsoever, can we truly call it art?
For those who would take the talent road, I’d ask you about some of Jackson Pollock’s works. The abstract expressionist movement was full of people who simply flung paint around or produced minimalist works that almost anybody could create, so what, talent-wise, separates some of these painters – Pollock excluded, as he actually did exhibit quite a bit of talent when he wasn’t just throwing paint in every direction – from some of the modern artists we so readily scorn today?
It’s possible to go back to Caravaggio or Leonardo and point out their obvious technical prowess. They’re legendary masters of the field for a reason, and nobody questions their genius or ability. We can even go back to Dali or Magritte – gentlemen who created works that don’t make a whole bunch of sense on the surface – and praise them for their abilities and their talent at expressing abstract ideas through surreal or oddball concepts. Tell an art scholar that any of those four weren’t talented artists and you’re likely to get slapped in the face. Tell them that Whitehurst is an artist as talented as any of those four and you’re likely to need a helmet. Is that right? I think it is, but I’m sure there are plenty of people who disagree.
Maybe the talent of modern artists – ones who would turn a toilet on its side and call it a work of expression – doesn’t lie in the actual production of pieces we would normally consider art. Maybe their talent lies in expressing things in ways we never would have thought to express them. I have trouble buying that, though, because it’s very easy to warp things however you want them to be warped when you’re dealing with the purely theoretical.
For example, watch this: The Rape Tunnel is actually a very intense look at the difference between consent and lack of consent. By entering the tunnel, you’re expressing your freedom of choice and willingness. Thus, should you enter the tunnel and get raped – which seems likely, given its intent – you have consented to that rape and as such have not truly been raped at all. It’s a complicated and intricate look at people who are, at their base, complicated and intricate.
I don’t agree with a single damn thing I wrote right there, but it could very easily be taken as a valid argument in support of The Rape Tunnel. This is why it is so difficult to attack the notion of what is or is not art: it’s incredibly easy to defend almost anything, so long as you’re capable of twisting ideas and words around enough. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while, and if someone placed a piece of dog feces on a sparkling china plate and spent the next four hours telling you exactly how they thought it was a legitimate work of art, the odds are that something in that four hours of idiocy would actually end up making sense.
Once that foot is in the door, you’ve lost. And that’s why we’re finding it so difficult to figure out exactly where to draw the line.
More importantly, it’s why some idiot in Ohio has constructed a tunnel in which he plans to rape people.
Note: It’s important to note that there aren’t many details out there regarding this project, so there’s a chance it’s a hoax. Regardless, the majority of these points stand.
