Paging Michel Houellebecq

Or P.D. James, maybe. Here's the artist John Currin, profiled in the latest New Yorker (it isn't online), on his turn toward pornographic subject matter:

"In art school, there's always a guy doing porno," he told me. "It's such an obvious idea, and that bothered me, but at the same time I kind of liked it, because this picture was going to be good. If there was a way to make good work out of something that's been responsible for a lot of surefire bad art, that was doubly appealing. People came into my studio and said, 'Wow, that's a beautiful painting.' It had a strange life I hadn't gotten before. But at first it didn't have much meaning for me. I liked it a lot, but I didn't know why I was making it."

A reason presented itself soon enough, in the headlines about riots in the Islamic world over twelve Danish newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed. "The response to that totally shocked me," Currin said at dinner that night. "That the Times decided that it was not going to show the cartoons - O.K., they're terrible-ass cartoons from a quality standpoint, but the idea that these thugs get offended and we just acquiesce, that was the most astonishing display of cowardice. And also the killing of Theo van Gogh, the film director, by some jihadist in Amsterdam - all of a sudden the most liberal societies in the world were having intimidation murders happen. That's when it occurred to me that we might lose this thing - not the Iraq War but the larger struggle." When I asked how this tied into his making pornographic paintings, Currin talked about low birth rates in Europe, and people having sex without having babies, and pornography as a kind of elegy to liberal culture, at which point I lost the thread. "I know how right wing this sounds," I recall him saying, "but I was thinking how pornography could be a superstitious offering to the gods of a dying race."

Nathanael Peters has some comments over at First Things' blog.

Comments

What does that last part mean?

Posted by Ben | January 27, 2008 1:16 PM

It's interesting that First Things, a longtime apologist for true obscenity, bothers with the work of an obscure artist. I wonder how often Neuhaus has rhythmically admired his collection of Abu Ghraib blow-ups.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 27, 2008 3:05 PM

First Things is a great publication. I know it's easier for some commenters to tie everything back to Chimpy McBushitler and the evil Repiglicans than actually, you know, comment on the post's subject matter. But remember, because Neuhaus and Weigel supported the Iraq invasion, they therefore support what happened at Abu Graib (and jack-off to the pictures, too!). QED.

Posted by Derrick | January 27, 2008 3:40 PM

I must say, the artist sounds much smarter and more interesting than the ones I've met who create "transgressive" art. Even the problems with his project are interesting. For example, he writes:

" . . . pornography could be a superstitious offering to the gods of a dying race."

If so, it would be an inefficacious offering. Pornography almost always (though perhaps not necessarily) divorces sex from procreation. And the description of Currin's work (which I have not seen) in the link sounds like it does, too:

"Actually, John Currin has more combined pornography with classical Renaissance art, as in his most recent picture of two women pleasuring a third in various ways, all set on a backdrop worthy of Michelangelo, with the prominent use of perspective to boot."

Hard to see how a lesbian sex scene would evoke procreation. Fertility goddesses usually have visible proof of procreation: pregnant bellies. Curnin's description of his project/motivation thus gives his painting a kind of sad tone. If the West needs to promote procreation, and if this is how the West wants to promote procreation, it may die out.

Posted by Pornography or Elegy | January 27, 2008 5:31 PM

I think the First Things blogger says "There is nothing more to say" not because it's obvious that Currin is wrong about pornography, or art, or pornographic art, being an element of a cultural clash between free-expression-ists and religious restrictionists. Rather, the First Things blogger is on the restrictionist side, but finds himself in uncomfortable company. He doesn't want to try coming up with a brief explanation of why when he wants to exclude John Currin from civilized society, it's standing up for moral values, but when an Islamist would want to suppress John Currin, it's part of their war on the West.

Posted by Another Ben | January 27, 2008 6:04 PM

I just realized that I'm more interested in ML&J's strange, juvenile rantings than I am in this blog. As I have said before, he is a sort of Frankenstein's monster of cheap, humorless, knee-jerk liberalism. It's really brilliant. I've been sharing my interest in ML&J with friends. They are equally fascinated. "Repiglicans;" "Dumbya;" it's almost too perfect. He's like a teenage, progressive, troll-bot of some kind.

Posted by Aaron | January 27, 2008 6:26 PM

Aaron writes: "It's really brilliant. I've been sharing my interest in ML&J with friends. They are equally fascinated. "Repiglicans;" "Dumbya;" it's almost too perfect. He's like a teenage, progressive, troll-bot of some kind."

I'd like to return the veiled compliment, but I can't recall a single contribution Aaron has made to this or any other forum.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 27, 2008 6:35 PM

Aaron, you're right about MoeLarryJim, a weird, juvenile caricature of knee-jerk liberalism. When one can get by the initial revulsion,his rantings are delightfully absurd. He is even more risible as Dennis Kunich on the left and Ron Paul on the right.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | January 27, 2008 6:44 PM

Ross,

It's obvious why this 'artist' would like to portray his 'art' as getting to the essence of the modern West. What's less clear is why you think we should give any credibility to the self-aggrandizing cant of a professional pornographer.

Obviously the modern West has far too much pornography, and yes, far too much casual sex, and we need to do something about that. But the low birthrates today are by an large a _good_ thing, although they're probably a bit lower than they should be. Yes it would be nice if Italy and Russia and Germany manage to raise their birth rates from, say, 1.3 to 1.9 or 2.0, a little below replacement. But remember that it's not too long ago that we were concerned about overpopulation- and even now we are straining the limits of the world's natural resources, at best. We ought not to be encouraging any country- other than a few of the small and underpopulated ones- to have significantly above-replacement birthrates.

While we should have some concern for the abnormally low fertility rates in some European countries, we ought to be much more concerned about trying to lower the birth rates in the two regions of the world where they are still very high (Africa and the Muslim world). Overpopulation, on a global level, is still a much bigger threat than underpopulation. On a personal note, the fairly low birth rate today makes me more comfortable in my desire to have three, since in the United States, at least, I don't really have to worry about contributing to overpopulation. As for the pornographer, he's a pornographer- why would you expect him to have anything either true or edifying to say?

Posted by Hector | January 27, 2008 7:15 PM

"Obviously the modern West has far too much pornography, and yes, far too much casual sex, and we need to do something about that."

Yes, obviously we have too much casual sex...obviously.

Posted by Glenn | January 27, 2008 7:20 PM

Peter Leavitt takes a break from washing out his Depends long enough to say: "He is even more risible as Dennis Kunich on the left and Ron Paul on the right."

Petey meant to write "more risible than," but his encroaching dementia got in the way.

As for who "Dennis Kunich" is, that's between Petey and his peculiar muse. I like to call his contributions here "leavittry."

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 27, 2008 9:44 PM

Derrick writes: "But remember, because Neuhaus and Weigel supported the Iraq invasion, they therefore support what happened at Abu Graib (and jack-off to the pictures, too!)."

It's probably more of a circle jerk.

Neuhaus also supports an Iran invasion. Some jerks never stop jerking.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 27, 2008 9:46 PM

Moe,

What Ross posted was rather open to criticism, and I criticized it. Why don't you also criticize it intelligently instead of making tasteless jokes about senile dementia. Youre a smart guy, I'm sure you could contribute substantively to this conversation (from a left wing point of view) rather than making comments about diapers.

i mean, I don't agree with anything that Mr. Leavitt writes, but poking fun of a man's age, is just bad taste.

Posted by Hector | January 27, 2008 9:51 PM

Hector:

Why must you interfere in our little games?

Posted by Aaron | January 27, 2008 10:11 PM

Hector replies: "What Ross posted was rather open to criticism, and I criticized it. Why don't you also criticize it intelligently instead of making tasteless jokes about senile dementia. Youre a smart guy, I'm sure you could contribute substantively to this conversation (from a left wing point of view) rather than making comments about diapers.

i mean, I don't agree with anything that Mr. Leavitt writes, but poking fun of a man's age, is just bad taste."

I didn't see anything of interest in Ross's post beyond the comparison I made between real obscenity (the Iraq War) and trivia (naked women touching each other). "Pornography" of this sort doesn't seem like a topic worthy of discussion to me. I just don't care about it.

As for Petey, I started making the jokes about his dementia and his leaky bowels and how his family won't let him use the clicker as a response to his constant comments about my so-called "adolescence." Since I'm long past that stage of life and I'm far brighter and more eloquent than his bedraggled old lousy-prose ass is, he has it coming. That he's a constant apologist for some of the worst human beings on the planet only adds to my pleasure in this regard.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 27, 2008 10:23 PM

Another Ben made a tremondous point that bears repeating:

Rather, the First Things blogger is on the restrictionist side, but finds himself in uncomfortable company. He doesn't want to try coming up with a brief explanation of why when he wants to exclude John Currin from civilized society, it's standing up for moral values, but when an Islamist would want to suppress John Currin, it's part of their war on the West.

I couldn't agree more. Here is the binary concept of "purity/degradation" at work. The moralistic intellectuals of First Things share a common mindset with the moralistic thugs of radical Islam that certain viewpoints must be excluded from social discourse, lest their respective visions of the "pure" and "beautiful" be "corrupted" by the "filthy" and "degrading." For the typical American conservative, pornography is "degrading" because it corrupts the moral ideal of women as pure and chaste. For the typical radical jihadist, caustic depictions of Mohammed are "degrading" because they undermine the authority of the prophet, and thus Islam itself.

I suppose we in America should be at least somewhat thankful that our self-appointed moral guardians's exclusionary repertoire hasn't gone beyond social stigma and intellectual exile to include beheadings. How polite of them.

Posted by Immoralist | January 27, 2008 11:56 PM

Moe, I'm not aware of any statements made by Neuhaus about the invasion of Iran. Granted, his views tend toward the neoconservative, but as far as I know he has not come out in written form for a so-called invasion of Iran. Do you have any proof to back up your assertion?

Posted by Derrick | January 28, 2008 12:13 AM

I'd say this counts:

"RJN 2.8.06 There are many things

By Richard John Neuhaus
Wednesday, February 8, 2006, 10:59 AM

There are many things that need to be said about the Muslim reaction to those cartoons in the Danish newspaper, and yesterday in this space Joseph Bottum said some of them very well. They need to be said because the most frontal challenge imaginable has been put to the West. It is a challenge that may soon be backed up by a nuclear threat from Iran.

The challenge is simply this: A very large sector of the Islamic world is now demanding that the West live by Islamic rules. The challenge is issued not just by radical jihadists but by governments such as Syria where “spontaneous” demonstrations are orchestrated by the state. "

But who knows, maybe Neuhaus has had a change of heart recently and no longer thinks Iran will nuke us over cartoons.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 28, 2008 2:38 AM

Immoralist,

Well, yes. Obviously I do think that some things are actually intrinsically good, and that 'art' that seeks to tear them down ought to be suppressed. I disagree with the Islamists about what the ultimate good things are, and so we disagree fundamentally about what sort of world we want. But my basic problem with the Islamists isn't that they are anti-liberal, it's that the specific content of their anti-liberal ideology is false.

Posted by Hector | January 28, 2008 10:06 AM

C'mon, Moe, that's pretty tenuous. He may very well support some sort of military response to Iran (I wouldn't be surprised), but that quote hardly supports an "invasion."

Posted by Derrick | January 28, 2008 10:30 AM

Re: First Things is a great publication.

It was a great publication. I still read it for some of the more spiritually oriented pieces and pieces of historical or abstract theological nature. On anything involving current political issues it has become nothing more but another propaganda rag for the GOP, mouthing a party line that is increasingly divorced from anything recognizable as a Christian point of view. Recently it ran a Gloabl Warming denialist article which had nothing whatsoever to do with its major theme (religion in the public square), and this in the same issue where Fr Neuhaus indignantly denied (in response to reader criticism) that the magazine had become too political.

Posted by JonF | January 28, 2008 11:16 AM

"Pornography" of this sort doesn't seem like a topic worthy of discussion to me. I just don't care about it.

This is, perhaps, the essential problem with Moe. He has a "King Charles' head" problem. Yes, he's often a troll, and often more a "charming" caricature of puerile name-calling and repetitiveness than anything else, but it's clear from occasional discussions (the long-winded books thread back when) that he's not actually a bot or a complete fool. The problem is that whenever anything appears about which _he does not give a flip_, or if he simply has nothing to say about something -- well, instead of saying nothing, he decides to randomly change the topic to something he does care about. That other people might want to actually discuss something he's un-interested in doesn't occur to him, because his intelligence is mixed with an extraordinary intellectual narcissim that cannot fathom how anything _not of interest to Moe_ could be of valid interest to _anyone_. Moe's not a positivist reductionist, from what I can tell, but this kind of "I don't get it, so it can't be worth anything at all" is common to both a certain kind of knee-jerk right-wing philistine who may be deeply religious and many "scientific" empiricists, who have a habit of dismissing any knowledge arising from an epistemology that isn't "the scientific method" (or whatever their caricatured, generally un-practiced in actual scientific work minds think that that method is like) as sheer nonsense.

As I said, King Charles' head. It's a shame. I'm sure I have my own, but I don't think I'm quite so easily mistaken for a bot that dumps in "Repiglicans" or "Abu Ghraib" as soon as my search query comes up blank for any other topic.

Not to say that Abu Ghraib or the often unwise foreign policy positions of FIRST THINGS aren't topics of interest -- and certainly relevant to this blog -- but that they're not really much to do with this post.

Gee, isn't psycho-analyzing people you've never met on blogs fun?

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | January 28, 2008 1:18 PM

But my basic problem with the Islamists isn't that they are anti-liberal, it's that the specific content of their anti-liberal ideology is false.

Hector: bingo! That's where I am, as well. You and I come from quite different points on the political spectrum in one sense, but we can agree on some things fairly easily because we're sympathetic to anti-liberal but also anti-totalitarian views with a basis in historical Christianity as politically normative.

To some extent, the refrain of "but you'd ban X, and the Islamists would ban Y! so you're JUST ALIKE" seems to me to resemble a non sequitur such as "Well, they outlaw political speech, and you outlaw theft -- you're both ANTI-FREEDOM"

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | January 28, 2008 1:25 PM

TMoC writes: "The problem is that whenever anything appears about which _he does not give a flip_, or if he simply has nothing to say about something -- well, instead of saying nothing, he decides to randomly change the topic to something he does care about. That other people might want to actually discuss something he's un-interested in doesn't occur to him, because his intelligence is mixed with an extraordinary intellectual narcissim that cannot fathom how anything _not of interest to Moe_ could be of valid interest to _anyone_."

This "change the topic" whine is simply ridiculous, since I don't have the power to derail discussions. Anyone can respond to any comment in a discussion at any time.

This topic was about a First Things article about so-called obscenity or pornography, and I made a simple connection about what real obscenity is. I think it's quite valid, and it in no way prevented anyone who felt like it from getting upset about naked ladies touching each other. So have at it, TMoC.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 28, 2008 2:57 PM

Fair enough, Moe. It doesn't stop anyone from discussing anything. Still, it's a bit like the guy who ALWAYS, ALWAYS, brings up his favorite topic in any conversation that he isn't particularly interested in. Even when the leap isn't completely absurd, it makes him look a bit silly and obsessive.

I'm not saying you're an idiot, I'm saying that you sometimes look like a Ron Paulite -- if anything that could REMOTELY invoke Paul appears, you invoke your equivalent.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | January 28, 2008 4:52 PM

TMoC writes: "I'm not saying you're an idiot, I'm saying that you sometimes look like a Ron Paulite -- if anything that could REMOTELY invoke Paul appears, you invoke your equivalent."

Except that I have numerous "favorite topics," and we both know you've got a few of your own. Hell, how many movie reviews have we seen around here that dwell on the pro-life angle when it's not central to the movie, and so forth?

The juxtaposition of the War On Terra with naked girls touching is more of a stretch than anything I've done subsequently. I still think it's quite valid to point that out.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 28, 2008 5:00 PM

The juxtaposition of the War On Terra with naked girls touching is more of a stretch than anything I've done subsequently.

True. I'm not saying much here because other than to say "yeah, that's pretty much where I am" to Hector, there's little to talk about with respect to the boring "pornography censorship" argument. Liberals ("conservative", libertarian, or modern liberal) in the John Stuart Mill camp aren't going to find the anti-liberal stance reasonable, and I'm not going to find their approach, with its devotion to content-neutrality of some sort, reasonable. I doubt that arguing is going to get anywhere on that one, really.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | January 28, 2008 5:22 PM

Hector,

Obviously I do think that some things are actually intrinsically good, and that 'art' that seeks to tear them down ought to be suppressed.

I don't understand the mindset of those who are so threatened by non-violent expression (artistic or otherwise) that they would advocate its suppression rather than respond to it or simply ignore it. Is the "intrinsic good" you wish to defend so fragile that you feel compelled to censor and ostracize anyone who dares to express disagreement with your conception of the good and true?

Why so afraid of art? Art tears down nothing except the sensitive convictions of fragile-minded souls whose self-worth is inextricably tied to some existing set of values. If your principles are as strong as you believe, they should easily survive artistic scrutiny. Perhaps you are concerned that others will not find your beliefs as convincing as you do?

TMoC:

To some extent, the refrain of "but you'd ban X, and the Islamists would ban Y! so you're JUST ALIKE" seems to me to resemble a non sequitur such as "Well, they outlaw political speech, and you outlaw theft -- you're both ANTI-FREEDOM"

Not quite like that. I am only saying that you and the Islamists are so obsessed with your respective concepts of the "pure" and "sacred" and "good" that you gladly advocate the suppression of non-violent expression that criticizes ("tears down") or posits alternatives.

Posted by Immoralist | January 28, 2008 11:36 PM