Art and pseudo-art.

St. Thomas Aquinas had a simple definition of beauty as "that which, seen, pleases." He evidently thought that art had some connection with beauty and pleasure. For many of our contemporaries, however, art is not something which pleases, but something which shocks and disgusts.

On a CBC program at the end of October 1999, a woman representative of the Winnipeg artistic community declared that we have no right to ridicule or question art which seems offensive: art has the function of upsetting our habitual beliefs and attitudes, destroying the stereotypes which govern our lives. If you object to art galleries mounting exhibits of dead rabbits in picture frames--real rabbits-- then you show yourself as one who needs to be jolted out of complacency. Art has to involve social protest, doesn't it?

The obvious answer is that the children of light are not very enlightened if they think that this is true of art. The famous flesh dress, an objet d'art featuring decaying meat, did not reveal by itself what its purpose was. It had to be accompanied by a manifesto, explaining that its subject was the exploitation of women. Most real art does not need to be accompanied by manifestos; most art does not involve social protest, though of course some can do so.

Today's arty crowd loves to thumb its nose at the philistines--those "contentedly commonplace in ideas and tastes." But they themselves are philistines--contentedly satisfied with cliches about art's necessity to scandalize--epater la bourgeoisie. Why should a Winnipeg art expert expect the general public to accept what a special coterie regards as the prevailing fashion?

London

As it has often done, the Tate Gallery in London, England, is trying to extend the boundaries of modern art. Recently it had an exhibit consisting of a woman's messy bedroom--with an unmade bed, dirty undergarments and contraceptives, both used and unused, on the floor, and nothing to relieve the impression of untidiness and squalour. Perhaps this exhibit makes a statement--that this is life as it is today--and that one's reaction would be that the exhibit itself is not immoral but in bad taste, just another of the Tate's stunts, even if the woman who owns the bed reveals herself not to be a very moral person at all.

Toronto

Far different was the Langer controversy in Toronto a few years ago. Kate Taylor of the Globe described some paintings by this artist in one of her columns. She was revolted by their depiction of children in erotic situations. Her instinctive reaction was that this sort of thing should not be allowed. Then the artistic community got together. She recanted in a subsequent Globe column, still thinking of Langer as immature but praising him as immensely talented and shying away from any imputation that censorship was needed to deal with people like him.

In a court hearing to decide whether the pictures should be destroyed, art expert after art expert came forward to declare that Langer was the best thing since Michelangelo; they were demanding that society suspend its normal judgement process. The reaction of the man in the street would probably be that these pictures were to be shown; but art here claimed exemption from moral considerations.