Rated art
a column by Chris Jungle

The high desert where I'm living is considered a gold mine for art, especially if you're into that Santa Fe style kind of groove. There are coyotes and kachina dolls, pottery and furniture, vases and rugs--all with a touch that can only be rendered correctly in the Southwest, and it's all pleasing to the eye. The area thinks it is so artistically inclined that it regularly employs artists to make creations for others to see. While it may sound like a utopia into which all artists would flock, there is (as always) a rub.

The people who are in charge of shelling out money for public art are city, county, and state officials, and while they are fairly good about allocating money for projects, they are not the best judges of the art themselves. I say this not because I think they have no artistic taste or flavor, but because they are public officials. Public officials take it upon themselves to try and please the greatest amount of people possible, and when it comes to art, that's a tricky proposition.

The goal of most art is to cause reaction by the viewer. Not always a positive reaction, but a reaction nevertheless. Recently at the University of New Mexico, a piece of art was initially approved for construction, but the artist put a row of barb wire on the top of the work symbolizing the tragedy done to Indians over time. Although I didn't understand the symbolism until someone explained it to me, I didn't think it detracted from the piece and blended quite well. University officials were appalled by the addition and demanded it be removed. Naturally the artist refused, and the University has not paid for the full amount as stated in their contract.

The reason for this whole mess was that part of the work had (and still has) a negative connotation. The university defends the notion that what they got was not what they paid for, so it ceases to be public art and becomes corporate art. There's nothing wrong with having positive art but it should not be the only kind. Imagine if every movie was done by Disney. It's kind of a spooky idea.

There is a solution to this problem, and I'm surprised it hasn't been put into practice years ago. We need an art rating system. Of course, we should follow existed rating systems so we don't confuse anyone. The last thing we need is another metric type rating system to frighten people. We can use the good ol' G, PG, R, X ratings.

G-rated art is for the sunshine world. It contains most of the art in existence from hotel wall paintings to the Last Supper. As long as it doesn't threaten in anyway, the art will have that loved-by-all rating. PG rated items contain negative or seductive influences. Nudity as purely nakedness, war perspectives, and barb wire on the top all fall into this category. Schools can force their students to look at either G or PG rated art for field trips.

There is no PG-13 (or 14) in the art world. There's nothing that a fourteen year old should be allowed to see that a ten year old couldn't look at and be confused. R-rated material will include nudity for sexual purposes and graphic violence symbols. Upside down American flags, using feces as material, and naughty words in big letters would bump any work into the parent-must-be-present category.

As a personal touch, I'm reviving the X-rating. NC-17 suggests that all of the smut and violence included is for artistic reasons, but since it's all art that would be redundant. Anything pornographic (that's right, porn is art), violent to the point where it would disgust doctors, or spiritually insulting to every religion.

This way all of the public officials can specify what reaction they want the public art to have. They can say "This is a G-rated art town. Give us more of those 'squares within squares' statues." Why, rating things has become an American tradition. Films can get one to four stars, clothes are either hot or not, CD's can have an 'must be over 18 to buy' sticker, we have the number one military in the world, SAT's and ACT's rank our children for success, alcoholic beverages are based on their percentage of alchohol (proof), and many women are known by their measurements. We need more rating systems. Not just for art, but for everything. Mainly because we've evolved past the point where we can admire something if it's good and respect everyone else's view if we don't think it's good. God bless America.

Chris Jungle is 5'11, 160 lbs., got a 27 on his best ACT, has no prior convictions, makes less than $20,000, and even though he graduated, still has four years of college athletic eligibility. His current human rating is 42.

return to the Shut up, I'm talking page
return to the LIES home page
return to the A&A home page