Holocaust Museum Art?

[realtraveller]

Check out this news story....


http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/37656.htm


If I were a shareholder in Lego Toys or the Coca-Cola Company, I'd be offended. I wonder what their lawyers are planning?

Otherwise, does stuff like this really illuminate any truths regarding the Holocaust?

[mrisch[$]]

Shareholders and lawsuits (which I think would be unfounded), I can see how this would be really controversial.

The Diet Coke one is perhaps best. Viewed in the "I'm disgusted" light, it makes fun of emaciated holocaust survivors.

BUT (and this is why it is being shown) viewed in the "Introspection" light, it highlights how name brands will endorse just about anything that will make a buck.

Explanations of intent would probably be useful, as well.

SO, while I am shocked at this stuff, I am not sure I am disgusted. I think the stuff is more anti-advertising and anti-corporate than it is pro-Nazi. I am sure that holocaust survivors may not see it that way.

[wivabef]

[Cynon]

Well I’m deeply saddened by this story. Being a historian and seeing an event of history being modified to meet a marketing strategy is one of the worse historical offences you can commit. In addition it wasn’t very tastefully done either. I wish I drank coke so I could say “I’m never drinking coke again” but unfortunately I can’t take that stand since I hate coke. So I guess I’ll have to say “I’ll continue to never drink coke!” Yeah that will teach them. But in all seriousness I feel sorry for any holocaust survivors that are having their records of the past being tainted by modern commercialism, this is very sad and pisses me off.



Rob

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Hard to say out of context ... but maybe it has something to do with the banality of evil?

Also ... just the fact that artists are now using holocaust imagery in their work is sort of interesting and probably deserves to be looked at. (I'm assuming that these were existing works that the museum brought together from different places, not things that were commissioned specifically for this show.)

[nicholmere]

I guess they didn't have time to put together a display of 9/11 victims? Maybe next year they can mount an exhibit of people jumping from the towers holding cans of coke, or perhaps someone with a little bubble above their head exclaming, "still ticking!" as they take a Timex off the remains of a body.

It's Art to some, but offensive to me.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

I have a fairly high tolerance for offensive art, though less for stupid art, and it's hard to say which this is without actually seeing it. I do understand why people will find it offensive, and I wonder if Giuliani will come out of retirement to try and shut the museum down ... but I think the way we think about the holocaust is itself a subject that is worth exploring, that shouldn't be taboo.

I have a question for people: What do you think about Mel Brooks' "The Producers?" He makes fun of Hitler, he plays him for laughs -- do you think that's intrinsically offensive? If not, how is that different from the art show?

[mrisch[$]]

In response to Cynon - these were not commissioned by Coke, etc. Indeed, Coke has always been very pro-Israel. The point of the show is that the author is commenting on marketing, not the products themselves.

[realtraveller]

I'm not a defamation lawyer, but I thought it was possible to defame an organization. This "art" says to me that Lego made little concentration sets and Coke sent Diet Coke to starving people. What did the "artists" have against these corporations?

Not to mention of course the belittling of one of history's great tragedies.

I hope no federal dollars were involved.

[mrisch[$]]

MAYBE the lego would fall under that, but it probably wouldn't. Do you really believe that that lego made this? I didn't think so, and neither will anyone else.

The First Amendment gives a very broad latitude.

[realtraveller]

Originally posted by mrisch
[b] Do you really believe that that lego made this? I didn't think so, and neither will anyone else.
[b]

As we're discussing on another thread, there are people who think the word "niggardly" is a slur on blacks; there are some pretty dumb people out there who just might think that Lego made a little concentration camp set.

[mtbat]

Originally posted by realtraveller


As we're discussing on another thread, there are people who think the word "niggardly" is a slur on blacks; there are some pretty dumb people out there who just might think that Lego made a little concentration camp set.

For the record, I do know that "Niggardly" isn't a slur on blacks/african americans.

I recall several years ago a shop on the Castro in SF was making and selling Barbie and Ken dolls that they did up as "Trailer Trash Barbie" and "Cross-Dressing Ken"(ken in a ball gown). They were told/sued by Mattel and had to stop doing it.

Hopefully Lego and Diet Coke do something simaler. This is NOT art. This is an insult to those who survived the camps and to those who died in them. I have, in my lifetime attended many many lectures done by survivors of the Holocast and those who liberated the camps. I cannot imagine that any of those people would support this so called "art".

Now, if they had done something with Bayer asprin I wouldn't have minded since the Bayer Asprin company bennifited from the research done on innocent victims in the camps.

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by realtraveller
As we're discussing on another thread, there are people who think the word "niggardly" is a slur on blacks; there are some pretty dumb people out there who just might think that Lego made a little concentration camp set.

This statement leaves me with the impression that you consider someone smart if they are offended by the same things that offend you and they are dumb if they're offended by different things.

My dictionary definition understanding of art used to be that is had something to do with the production of beautiful things. But it's clear that some artists are out to communicate some feeling or idea that has nothing to do with beauty.

If the idea they are trying to communicate is an offensive one, might not the images they create be offensive? Should people be allowed to communicate offensive ideas in ways that offend people? Should people be allowed to use the word "niggardly" freely? Should they be able to write and perform a play in which characters use the word "nigger?"

You ask "does stuff like this really illuminate any truths regarding the Holocaust?" Maybe the "stuff" is illuminating a feeling the author has. I haven't seen all the work, so I can't say what feelings it might stir up.

If there is controversey over whether or not this should be in that museum, I think that's fine. The museum should decide whether these works are expressing something they want to exhibit.

I won't prejudge these works. But I can comment on what I've seen. The small bit of the Coke image made me think of the absurdity, on some level, of a food product that is completely non-nutritive in the hands of starving people. Also, the juxtaposition of a product on which so much money has been spent to manufacture desire with people who have been stripped of the kind of artifices we surround ourselves with.

I dunno. While I found the one image shocking, and certainly not beautiful, and recognize how it might cause offense, I personally am not offended. And I am curious about the artist's intentions.

-JP

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by drmomentum
My dictionary definition understanding of art used to be that is had something to do with the production of beautiful things.

I think it's been quite a long time since artists have been interested in portraying beauty. But whether that's true or not -- and whether it's a good thing if it is -- may be a topic for another thread.

The small bit of the Coke image made me think ...

This is the chain of association I had from reading the description of the Lego piece ( "LEGO Concentration Camp Set," by Zbiginiew Libera - featuring a LEGO toy box with a picture of a miniature death camp made with LEGO blocks.):

First I thought of what's usually on the box, a picture of a pretty little house or something like that. Then I thought about how the artist made the picture on the box top -- he probably sat down with the blocks and built the little death camp and then painted or photographed it. I wondered how he felt while he was building the camp out of the blocks. And that reminded me of the documentary "Shoah," and the interviews with some of the people who had designed and built the real death camps, and how matter-of-fact they were as they reminisced (for the hidden camera) about their work, how they took pride in their craftsmanship -- how it could just as well have been a pretty little house they were building, and they could have been any old architects or any old construction workers -- they had the exact same pride in a job well-done, efficiently carried out -- they seemed to have put the "death" part of death camps out of their minds ... and the phrase "the banality of evil" popped into my head, and that reminded me of the book "Eichmann in Jerusalem", in whose subtitle the phrase originally appeared ...

The thing is to keep the memory of the holocaust alive, and to do that -- now that it's almost out of living memory -- I think you have be engaged with it. The memory is now mostly in images, and I think we've seen those so often that we have an almost knee-jerk response --- oh yeah, I've seen that, isn't that awful -- and had the museum put on a traditional holocaust show, I don't think it would have had much of an impact. This, at least, gives people something to think about and talk about and argue about -- it brings it into the present moment -- it's not something getting increasingly dimmer with time, but something that exists for us now.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by drmomentum
The small bit of the Coke image made me think of the absurdity, on some level, of a food product that is completely non-nutritive in the hands of starving people. Also, the juxtaposition of a product on which so much money has been spent to manufacture desire with people who have been stripped of the kind of artifices we surround ourselves with.

That's an interesting interpretation. And also there's the irony of the slogan "It's the Real Thing." And the artist calls it a "self portrait" -- it's only by an accident of time and place of birth that he's living his life here -- in a situation where survival isn't an issue, where we can afford to drink artificially sweetened carbonated water -- instead of in the camps. He could have been one of the people in the picture...
------------------
I guess one big question is who is the exhibit for. For people who know little or nothing about the holocaust except for maybe Steven Speilberg's film, I agree that this would be a terrible introduction. But are they the intended audience? My argument would be that they're not, and that it's intended for people who have thought about it enough that maybe they've gotten kind of numb, and it would help to be able to see it from a fresh perspective. Also, from the artists' perspective, should they have to live within the "firewall" that the rabbi in the Post article talked about?
-----------------
I have some relatives who are members of that museum. It'll be interesting to see how they react when they get the announcement. I'm guessing the older ones will say, "Oh, that's awful, I'm not going to go," and the younger ones will say, "That sounds interesting, I'd like to see it." But I don't know, that's just a guess. For myself, I'm probably going to be in NY at some point while it's showing, and now my interest is piqued, and I think I'm going to try to go. So thanks, realtraveler -- it wasn't your intent in starting this thread, but you did provide a real travel tip!

[pluckyduck]

Here I am in another art thread. How did this happen to me?

All right, let me start:

This exhibit doesn't offend me. I found just the brief descriptions of the projects thought provoking.

The Diet Coke piece made me think of Kate Moss right away...our generation of young girls who are starving themselves literally to death, ending up looking like concentration camp victims as they go to their graves.

The Lego piece intrigued me too...I took that, as well, as a comment on our current modern culture....we will merchandise anything that will sell.

This quote from the story seemed wisest:

Holocaust survivor Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, says "the exhibit is premature" and will be "as long as there are survivors alive who may be offended."

While art is often meant to shake people up, there's no need to shake up the survivors. Another venue, or another time would be more appropriate.

Andrea

[realtraveller]

Originally posted by AuntieEmma


. So thanks, realtraveler -- it wasn't your intent in starting this thread, but you did provide a real travel tip!

If you do go to New York, I'd be interested in hearing your comments on seeing this and what the comments of others viewing the exhibition were as well.

[eplovejoy]

If a purpose of art is to make people think, this thread shows that the artists involved in this exhibit have succeeded brilliantly. Just the idea that someone would associate commercial products with genocide has forced all of us to examine why we feel about that as we do.

One of the worst things we could do about something as staggeringly brutal as the Nazi Holocaust is to think that we understand. Exhibits such as the one in question challenge our assumptions, and I'm grateful for that.

It actually is not wise to propose that there should be a statute of limitations on art to protect the feelings of those involved in the events depicted. Such a prohibition, for example, would deprive us of almost every piece of editorial cartooning.

When and how to respect people's sensitivies -- and indeed whether to do so -- can be decided only by the person creating the work. I might be misjudging the survivors of the Nazi Holocaust, but I trust that their experiences then have given them the perspective not to be troubled by some gallery pieces now.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by eplovejoy I might be misjudging the survivors of the Nazi Holocaust, but I trust that their experiences then have given them the perspective not to be troubled by some gallery pieces now.

But what if some of them were troubled by the gallery pieces? I think some would be, some wouldn't -- survivors share a common experience, but probably a wide range of individual reactions in how they've dealt with it and how -- or if -- they want to think about it now. Should that be reason enough, as Andrea and the man quoted in the article were saying, to hold off on the exhibit?

Again, I'd like to bring up Mel Brooks and "The Producers." I'm sure the movie and play -- or even the idea of the movie and the play -- offended some people, including holocaust survivors. Was it wrong for him to make the movie/play anyway? Should he have waited until all the survivors were gone? And then what would have happened -- he's no spring chicken, and by the time all the survivors are gone, he'll be gone too -- so "The Producers" would never get made. And I could imagine if the Post had quoted the lyrics to "Springtime for Hitler" -- out of context, just the lyrics -- they could easily have worked up a full head of outrage ...

A note on the museum where this exhibit will be displayed: It's out of the way, not someplace people would stumble across while running errands, and it's relatively small by NY museum standards, with the special exhibits taking up most of the space, with only a little bit left over for selections from the permanent collection -- I think few people are going to go there unless they're going specifically to see whatever special exhibit is there at the time. So people who think they would be deeply offended by the show could -- and I think would -- stay away. So what it comes down to, I think, is whether the show should not take place because some people will be offended by the mere fact that it exists.

[kurt_messick]

Taking the line from the last message, that this is a small and relatively out-of-the-way place, might they be doing this in part to draw attention to themselves? Nothing like controversy and possible offensiveness to generate more heat than light.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

It's true, this kind of publicity is priceless and will draw in a lot of people (worked on me, right?). It's not totally clear to me though, just from reading the article in the Post, whether being shocking was actually the museum's intent. Maybe, maybe not.

[mrisch[$]]

Case in point: I just saw Spike Lee's Bamboozled.

This is a movie about modern African-American men doing a blackface minstrel show. On the one hand, some of their jokes are funny, and the dancing is fantastic (it's Savion Glover doing the dancing). People like the show, and even show up in the audience in blackface.

But the movie makes a real point - it shows the absurdity of making light of a historical wrong, and it uses modern entertainment to make that point. My wife and I agreed that it was a difficult movie to watch, but one worth seeing nonetheless.

I see the museum pieces as very similar. Of course they're offensive. Of course they're difficult to look at. But that are attempting to make a point, and I think they make it very well.