Talk:Shock art

Reason Magazine in the lede

The current opening bit cites an article from Reason as though it's some kind of major authority. Shouldn't pride of place go to a more respected writer in the art world? Or at least a peer-reviewed academic publication? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.199.44 (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

I just removed the Hirst shark example, because I can't imagine at all what is shocking about it. There was stuffed shark hanging above the bar in a nearby Shoreditch pub for decades before Hirst exhibited his shark, its not shocking in the slightest. There probably better examples of shocking Hirst art, I think he did something with rotten meat and flies, but nothing on the level of Evaristti's work. +|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't 'Shock Art' just a term used by lazy journalists?

Could some discussion take place of the origins and evolution of the term itself before it is applied to all things 'shocking' in art as if it was a piece of precise cultural criticism? We all like to think we know what it means but essentially isn't it one of those phrases like 'boring art films', 'noisy music', or 'weird foreign food' that is used to dismiss something unthinkingly. This article refers to work and exhibitions "labeled" as 'shock art', without any perspective about this labeling. Among the sources here are online travel guides and business magazines that may not be really reliable. To my knowledge there are no books out there on the subject and it is not a term that has any real currency in art criticism.

It seems however that there is a case for the term designating a specific trend in art in China so maybe that could be developed. Nofoto (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

While the first source, which defines it, is indeed a business journal, it's a pretty targeted one: Art Business News. It's been a long time since I've worked on this one, but a quick glance at google books suggests that whether art critics are using the term or not, the usage of the term is widespread. For instance:

• R. Rawdon Wilson (May 2002). The hydra's tale: imagining disgust. University of Alberta. pp. 308–. ISBN 9780888643681. Retrieved 1 June 2010.
• Thomas J. Berghuis (2006). Performance art in China. Timezone 8 Limited. pp. 114–. ISBN 9789889926595. Retrieved 1 June 2010. (obviously, about the Chinese trend)
• Katarzyna Ancuta (6 December 2005). "Shock Art: Horror in the Gallery". Where angels fear to hover: between the gothic disease and the meataphysics of horror. P. Lang. p. 134. ISBN 9783631544488. Retrieved 1 June 2010.
• John Albert Walker (January 1999). "From Shock Art to Shock Rock". Art and outrage: provocation, controversy, and the visual arts. Pluto Press. p. 88-. ISBN 9780745313597. Retrieved 1 June 2010.
• Anthony Julius (2003). Transgressions: the offences of art. University of Chicago Press. pp. 207–. ISBN 9780226415369. Retrieved 1 June 2010.
• Jennifer Sigler (2003). Hunch 6/7. episode publishers. pp. 217–. ISBN 9789080536265. Retrieved 1 June 2010.
• Arthur Holmberg; Jan Geidt; Lynn Kasper (25 May 1999). "Shock Art". The lively ART: a treasury of criticism, commentary, observation, and insight from twenty years of the American Repertory Theatre. Ivan R. Dee. pp. 210-. Retrieved 1 June 2010.

(Wish I had access to those in 2007 when I salvaged this article; when I have time, perhaps I'll see if I can build it. There are more, of course, but googlebooks offers these as most prominent.)

If the art community does not take "shock art" seriously or recognize it, that would of course be worth discussing in the article, but inaccessibility of sources is always an issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:N mandates coverage by multiple sources to validate article topics. This does not have to be sources from genre specialists, such as art critics, or have to be valid in genre-specific commentary, such as art criticism. In Wikipedia terms, the fact that it is used by "lazy [or hard working] journalists" increases its validity, because it demonstrates extensive coverage; e.g. The Times has a section titled "Shock art".[1]

It is essential that all article content is derived from sources, and one thing to avoid is the addition of examples, which an editor might consider to fit the category, but which is not described as such by a source; or conversely the removal of something because of an editor's opinion, when it is sourced, as seems to have happened in the first post on this page about Hirst.

The article should not consist either of just a list of works, but should be readable prose. The first section should be the historical context. Immediately Caravaggio comes to mind.[2] Others would be Courbet and Manet, quite likely also the Pre-Raphaelites and Impressionists. There is of course Robert Hughes' well known book The Shock of the New,[3] so at least one critic has focused on the term.

Another aspect for the article might be to address "mock shock", sensation drummed up by journalists for copy, but something which doesn't really shock people at all. Again sources would be needed.

Ty 14:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Hirst reference is pretty offhand, but you are right it should not have been removed on the basis of my own opinion. I added it back in, though with a new reference that questions its place in the category (not shock art, not because it does not "shock", but because it may not be original enough to be "art".) +|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I lack the background to do justice to it. :) I've kept an eye on this one over the years just because it was such a departure for me and I developed an interest in the article, if not the art form (in fact, I wish I could unsee some of what I saw in working on it :P). I'd love to see somebody develop it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

These replies have helped me think through what I was trying to say in my rather clumsy opening message, and to do a bit of research. The question shouldn't have been whether the term is only used by journalists and it does seem that as well as being 'bandied around' quite commonly it is indeed applied in some scholarly contexts as well. The problem I wanted to raise is that of 'shock art' as a highly charged, contentious term, often used to dismiss artworks and ascribe an imaginary motivation to the artist (generally a cynical attention-grabbing and desire to make money - as the current introduction insinuates). As it stands the current intro gives a definition too readily and what's more it is not drawn from the text cited. It would be good if this article could draw the distinction between the various meanings the term has acquired.

We could draw out the following threads:

• common usage: "shock art" as a broad term used to describe art deemed to have been conceived with the intent of provoking offence or disgust - a "shock" to the viewer. (I have just this minute found an article called Shock V Awe by Dave Beech in the Oct 06 edition of Art Monthly http://www.exacteditions.com/exact/browse/334/351/1898/2/3/0/ which looks like it could be really useful here too).

• "shock art" (zhenhan yishu) a specific trend in Chinese art of the late '90s employing extreme body art, actionist performance and installations that dealt with taboo subjects. It seems that this provides the origin of the term.

"The term "shock art" (zhenhan yishu) was first used among artists and critics in Beijing in early 1999 after they had witnessed several works involving human corpses at the exhibition Post - Sense Sensibility: Alien Bodies and Delusion that was curated by Qiu Zhijie and Wu Meichun. The exhibition was only held for one day, on 9 January at the basement of the downtown Shaoyaoju Building 202, but had a huge impact on the local art scene [...] For further reference, see: Hong Wen and Gao Lin, "Gei ni yige zhenan" ("We will shock you") in Wenhua (Culture Monthly), January 2000" Performance art in China by Thomas J. Berghuis

• a term used by some critics (R. Rawdon Wilson in The hydra's tale: imagining disgust) to designate a current of transgression and taboo breaking in avant-garde art and culture - from Nitsch's cathartic Orgy mystery theater to punk and shock rock.

As for 'a brief history of shock in art' - the subject seems a bit too large and nebulous to be summed up with any great meaningfulness here - people have been shocked with monotonous regularity by pretty much anything. The Shock of the New certainly has a bearing on the subject as a general history of the various waves of avant-garde in the 20th century. In The hydra's tale referenced above the author suggests that "A history of shock art would have to include carnival but it should begin with Mennipus" p 331. Perhaps this would amount to 'original research' though.

I'll apply some of this when I have time if nobody has any objections. Nofoto (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a response to one point above: ""The term "shock art" (zhenhan yishu) was first used among artists and critics in Beijing in early 1999". A search of Google News Archive shows it in use from at least 1971:

Catfish Affair: Why Did We Laugh? Pay-Per-View - Los Angeles Times - ProQuest Archiver - Oct 17, 1971 I think didactic shockart holds a poor track record as a teacher of the larger public

In 1974 there was a publication by that name:

Guilty Pleasures; By Donald Barthelme. 165 pp. New York: Farrar,...$3.95 - New York Times - Nov 3, 1974 ... as is the furious interchange in the correspondence columns of Shock Art, a bilingual journal published in Milan

Also, I agree that different usages should be shown per WP:NPOV, bearing in mind WP:UNDUE.

Ty 17:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point - they must be referring to the term in the context of Chinese art only. I looked into those links a bit:

That first reference in the Google News Archive seems to be about Newton Harrison's Portable Fish Farm environmental art installation at the Hayward Gallery's 'Eleven Los Angeles Artists' where catfish were raised to be killed and then eaten by the public. If anyone has access to the full LA Times article it would be interesting to know what else is said. Is this the first show to be labelled (didactic) "shockart"?

The 1974 journal that is referenced is actually a fictional one invented by Donald Bartheleme for a piece called 'Letters to the Editore' - but it shows the term as part of the popular imagination nonetheless.

The archive offers another article from 1972 which looks useful, tentatively referring to the work of Tosun Bayrack and Mark Prent as "shock art". From the Village Voice (with a great illustration).

By the way, just to make things more complicated, I noticed that wikipedia already has a Transgressive art entry which covers some of the same ground - maybe a merge would be appropriate. Nofoto (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Gottfried Helnwein

I'm removing "Führer (1966)" from the list of notable examples. Both references only make casual mention of a work he created in high school, and as far as I can tell, no such work was ever exhibited anywhere. Skiguy330 (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Shock art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207041905/http://www.travelchannel.com:80/Travel_Ideas/Museums_and_Culture/ci.The_Brooklyn_Museum.artTravelIdeasFmt?vgnextfmt=artTravelIdeasFmt to http://www.travelchannel.com/Travel_Ideas/Museums_and_Culture/ci.The_Brooklyn_Museum.artTravelIdeasFmt?vgnextfmt=artTravelIdeasFmt
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2002/Art_Inhuman/inhuman1.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101002110359/http://www.spoonfed.co.uk:80/spooners/spoonfed-arts-team-8139/mark-mcgowan-to-re-enact-the-death-of-raoul-moat-3606/ to http://www.spoonfed.co.uk/spooners/spoonfed-arts-team-8139/mark-mcgowan-to-re-enact-the-death-of-raoul-moat-3606/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

lol

"The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living (1992), a dead tiger shark preserved in a glass and steel tank of formaldehyde by Damien Hirst has been grouped in the category of shock art,[18] but also criticised as an unoriginal product of "shock tactics" and not "real art""

Nigga, none of this stuff is real art.