A grand jury to ponder the arboretum statue? Please
E. Thomas McClanahanA group opposed to the controversial statue in the Overland Park Arboretum says it will gather signatures to convene a grand jury, which will look into whether the statue violates Kansas law against promoting obscenity to children.
Putting this thing in the arbortem was a dumb idea — it would be right at home in a museum of contemporary art — but pressing for a grand jury? Even dumber. Opponents are overreacting, trapping themselves in a ridiculous position. Here we have a made-to-order story for the national media. The rubes in Kansas, they’re at it again!
Artist Yu Chang says her work, entitled “Accept or Reject,” deals with the tendency of women to objectify themselves. But the lurid, in-your-face quality of the piece is out of place in an arboretum.
The city seems to have dug in its heels, arguing that this is ART, dang it, and that’s it. It’s protected by the Constitution and all that. Well, it may be art but art isn’t fungible. Some pieces speak more deeply than others and “Accept or Reject,” in my opinion is pretty far from being great art. To hold a mirror up to the world’s crassness and vulgarity, it exhibits those qualities itself. I think Yu Chang is engaging in political commentary as well as art, and those two two usually don’t mix well.
“Accept or Reject” doesn’t belong in an arboretum. But the opponents’ decision to pursue a grand jury will only generate copy for journalists and bloggers, without accomplishing much else.
Brian Berry
11 months, 2 weeks agoMr. McClanahan, You are correct. Why can’t the other columist be as level headed as you.
Nimai Evol
11 months, 2 weeks agoThere’s a certain Emperor’s New Clothes aspect to this. The artist and her defenders are claiming it’s art and if you don’t see it you’re an ignorant Kansas rube. Which precludes the possibility that it really is junk and the rubes are right. Cristo was a master of making junk art and getting paid a lot of money to do it. OF course the same argument can be made for the ice cream cones on top of Bartle but while that is garbage it doesn’t offend anybody. The clowns who bought this for the arboretum are inept and clueless but are hiding that behind the same argument that it’s art and if you don’t see the artistic value, you’re a rube. That we have that piece in that location is more indicative of the fact that Kansas officials are rubes than are the critics of it.
Sam Woods
11 months, 2 weeks agoHow ironic that a Chinese artist had to come to the United States to have her work censored.
Karen Parker
11 months, 2 weeks agoLook, I Am In Love… oh wait, Nimai Evol, Nobody used the words “ignorant Kansas rube” except you. If you feel the need to own that phrase it’s a (generally) free country, but artists don’t tend to think of their viewers that way.
Now, using your Cristo (sic) comments as an example, I can see that you may not be as versed in art appreciation as the average artist would prefer. And while that does not invalidate your feelings about either the art or the artist, it does put a big crimp in your “argument” that the work in some way lacks merit.
I do, however, agree with your assessment of the placement of the work given the rather conservative nature of the mid-western states. It may not have been the best choice for a location where others, with attitudes similar to yours, might come across the work and be offended by it.
Perhaps your local community college has an art appreciation course you can audit, so that you may broaden your horizons.
On the other hand, having taught those courses with students like you, do yourself and the instructor a favor and stay home.
Bill Mccwiliams
11 months, 2 weeks agoSorry Nimai, there were no clowns that bought this for the arboretum, this is on loan from the artist. Not one taxpayer dime was used in any way to fund this project.