I'm agree with Sontag's remark, below.  I once had the honor to meet her at a 
private party and she was a big girl, very imposing. That hair! I'd never 
disagee with her, not then, not now.
wc


----- Original Message ----
From: joseph berg <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thu, September 27, 2012 1:31:38 PM
Subject: Re: shock

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 7:14 AM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote:

> An interesting article in today's NYT contains comments by leading critics
> about
> the diminishing role of shock in the arts, or the difficulty of doing
> anything
> as art that is also shocking.
>
> Almost nothing seems to shock us anymore in the arts because the last
> boundary
> is the imaginative separation of life and art, regardless of efforts to
> breach
> it.  The most vulgar, violent, bizarre imagery in the arts is always,
> well, art,
>  and thus safely distinguished from real life.  We can calmly watch a
> cimema
> rape, murder, and mayhem, knowing that it occurred on the screen, in
> imagination, and not in real life. We can enjoy looking at a Peter Saul
> painting
> of the same -- so beautifully painted -- and walk away feeling good.   So
> argue
> the people quoted in the article.
>
> But the ancient Romans went one better.  When they put on a show of rape,
> murder, mayhem, they did it for real.  As everyone knows the fighters in
> the
> daily Coliseum (and elsewhere in the antique world)  the 'entertainers'
> actually
> killed each other; the misfit Christians were tossed to the lions for
> real. Now
> today that would be shocking.  so there really is one shock line that
> hasn't yet
> been crossed.  Maybe. It the early 70s there were rumors of so-called
> porno-snuff films in which female victims were actually said to be killed
> or
> "snuffed" on screen.  I don't know if any of those rumors were true, but
> the
> idea alone was horrifying. Maybe the next action movie will record the
> actual
> shootings and axings of the actors. Then the audience can send flowers to
> their
> families.
>
> I once suggested that since the museum is the only venue where
> moral-societal
> views can be tested or transgressed in neutrality, such as 'safely'
> displaying a
> desecrated flag or religious image, they should be the location of state
> executions.  That would bring home, i think, the reality of 'official'
> murder,
> making it a topic for moral discussion, at least.  It would be far more
> shocking, I'm sure, that the blandly reported executions now going on
> behind
> prison walls.
>
> On the other side of the issue, one can say that the shock-bar has been
> crossed
> so many times that most people are now numb to the usual, everyday sort of
> transgressions like four-letter words and all sorts of sexually explicit
> imagery, to say nothing of headless, blown-apart corpses and blood puddles
> covering our living rooms in lurid 3-D TV imagery.  It's freedom of speech
> of
> course.  But I'm not sure that the proof of freedom of speech needs to be a
> great loss of civility and dignity. Why is it that freedom of speech is
> mostly
> exercised with extreme vulgarity and incivility?  I can't get past page
> one of a
> daily free newspaper in Chicago without reading the f-word in several
> hyphenated
> forms.  If I were to complain, I'd be blasted as a terrible
> anti-free-speech
> person, a Republican, or worse. What ever happened to well-reasoned
> language and
> good ideas?  Aren't they the real substance protected by free-speech?
>
> If you want to do something radical in the arts, try doing something that's
> civil, passionate, and thoughtful, without the f-word and its variants in
> deed
> or image, if you can. How did Montaigne manage to write so much without
> resorting to ugly language?  There's a model for the real free-speecher
> radicals
> to follow.
> wc
>
>
- Ours is a culture based on excess, on overproduction; the result is a
steady loss of sharpness in our sensory experience.  All the conditions of
modern life - its material plenitude, its sheer crowdedness - conjoin to
dull our sensory faculties.

Susan Sontag

Reply via email to