LazlosBasement.com

The field of politics has been referred to as “the art of the possible,” but what place does art truly hold in politics (or vice versa)? While many artists would say that art should transcend - or at least be divorced from - politics, photographer Jill Greenberg seems to think otherwise. Greenberg, who exhibits her work on her webpage manipulator.com, made a very strong and very public statement about her latest subject, Republican presidential nominee John McCain, through her photography. Greenberg’s work has come under fire since one of her photos served as the cover for the latest issue of The Atlantic magazine. Greenberg was contracted to photograph McCain for the publication, but her website displays further photographs of McCain which are edited to literally look like something out of a horror movie. Perhaps even more provocative than the visual editing are the photograph captions, which read, consecutively:

Darkness is only driven out with light, not more darkness.” - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.*

*mccain voted against mlk day

It was really fun to cheat on my car-injury-disabled first wife.

and

I called my wife a cunt in front of reporters.

While the shock value of the photos is obvious, their place in contemporary American politics, not to mention the art world, is unclear. While politically motivated blue-state activists might consider the photographs to be visionary, one cannot help but wonder what Greenberg hopes to accomplish by displaying them. At the same time, although media-minded red-state activists have decried the photographs as “sarcastic” at best, Greenberg certainly cannot be accused of dishonesty when it comes to her political assessments. The Canadian born artist makes no bones about her liberal political tendencies, nor is this the first time her professionalism has been questioned. Slate notes that her series of photographs entitled “End Times,” which showed toddlers in the midst of tantrums, gained international notoriety as her methods were questioned and labeled abusive by some critics. Greenberg did not hesitate to answer the criticism with contextual remarks which, in retrospect, may have provided a preview of the current controversy:

They’re not meant to be read as mere baby pictures; they’re meant to be a statement. As Greenberg herself explains in the gallery’s press release, “The first little boy I shot, Liam, suddenly became hysterically upset. It reminded me of helplessness and anger I feel about our current political and social situation.” “As a parent,” she continues, “I have to reckon with the knowledge that our children will suffer for the mistakes our government is making. Their pain is a precursor of what is to come.”

The controversy over the McCain photographs will likely spin further out of control before it settles; Greenberg has already been dropped by her agent in retribution for the series, and re-signed with a previous agency. This is despite the fact that her photographs have graced the covers of national periodicals such as Time Magazine, Newsweek, and TV Guide. And since controversy is hardly a detractor when it comes to media coverage, it seems likely that her career will not suffer from the series in the long run. But it remains to be seen whether Greenberg’s honesty is really her best policy; the Atlantic has stated publicly that it may file charges against her despite using one of the photographs from the series on its cover. Her journalistic integrity, if she had any, is likely now permanently kaput. On the other hand enthusiasts note that art is not journalism, and as super-activist and singer Bono says, “It is the artist’s job to define the problem.” Clearly Greenberg feels that right-wing politics are the problem; but her work may ultimately backfire on her. It engenders a certain amount of sympathy for McCain and illustrates nothing so well as the divisiveness and single-mindedness of the blue state/red state controversy… and in the end we may decide that’s the real enemy.

Read more of our series on ‘expanding the concept of art’

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

In the wake of controversies caused by synthetic supplements, such as sportswear and prosthetics, which are designed to boost the performance of Olympic athletes, yesterday’s National Geographic honed in on a more organic form of performance enhancement - genetic manipulation, or “gene doping.”

“Gene doping” is a kind of genetic manipulation that could potentially allow athletes to grow stronger, faster muscle tissue, as well as recover more quickly from muscle fatigue. The science of gene doping came about as a result of research into degenerative neuro-muscular disorders like muscular dystrophy. National Geographic’s recent article “How ‘Gene Doping’ Could Create Enhanced Olympians” explains:

Gene doping uses techniques similar to gene therapies developed to treat muscle-wasting diseases, such as muscular dystrophy. Gene-doping may also work by modifying genes that are already in an athlete’s cells but whose functioning he or she might want to control. Injected into an athlete, a harmless virus could carry a performance-enhancing gene and splice it into a muscle cell, said Theodore Friedmann, a gene therapy researcher at the University of California, San Diego… A synthetic virus called Repoxygen, for example, has been used this way in animal tests to insert a gene for erythropoietin (EPO), a hormone that tells the body to make more red blood cells, which carry oxygen to muscles. EPO is important in the treatment of anemia, and it’s also a favorite doping agent for cyclists, runners, and cross-country skiers… Athletes are well aware of Repoxygen’s potential: A German coach was accused of trying to obtain it before the 2006 Winter Olympics.

Although genetic manipulation has not been a major issue in the current Olympic forum, scientists and athletes alike consider the possibility of future misuse of gene-enhancing technology to be an issue if increasing concern, which may take center stage in future Olympic games.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Danica McKellar shows off her new math how-to book, aimed at girls.

How hot is a smart woman? Just ask Danica McKellar. The sometime actress and model, best known as Winnie Cooper from The Wonder Years (Generation X’s version of That 70’s Show), also happens to be a math genius. Now she’s using her smarts and her celebrity to bring attention to the lack of educational material - particularly math books - directed at young women. And like any good activist, she’s not just pointing out the problem, she’s offering a solution. Her new book Kiss My Math offers female pre-algebra students a helping hand in language they can relate to. We’d kiss her math any day!

Bookmark It

Hide Sites