I have been writing this blog for a little over a year. I have done well over 200 posts. I look at my web stats because I am interested in seeing what people react to.
In that time the one post that has garnered the most traffic, and by far the most traffic, is this one called 18,000 Naked Mexicans that I wrote on May 6, 2007. This is a commentary on the work of photographer, Spencer Tunick, who travels the globe taking pictures of naked people. I was curious about whether there was some artistic integrity to Tunick’s work or just hype. This quote is from that first post.
One thing I’m wondering is, do most of these people know who Tunick is, and support his work or, are there that many people that have a burning desire to get naked in public?
After I wrote that piece, I was contacted by quite a number of people who had been involved in these photo shoots. Every single one that e-mailed me, was very informed about Tunick’s work. They also seemed to be keenly interested in the discussion of artistic merit. This was a surprise because, I find that when I talk or write about artistic merit, it is usually something people don’t have any interest in. It is almost one of those topics, like religion or politics, that people would like to avoid in day-to-day life. Not only were the Tunick fans/participants very interested in the discussion of artistic integrity, not one of them said anything about wanting to be involved because they wanted to get naked in public.
Frankly, I was impressed by the sincerity of the group of people that contacted me. Several sent links to examples of Tunick photos and as I looked at them, I found a lot of the images to be very striking and visually interesting. I don’t think that they are just naked for the sake of naked photos. I get the feeling that there is purpose. I don’t know exactly what the purpose is maybe, but I did not get the feeling that Tunick was just photographing naked people for hype. What I get is more of a sense of human frailty then one of sensationalism. That being said, I am still stunned that there are that many people that want to get naked. That may be one reason that, for me, the work definitley has artistic value because it opens my mind to the fact that there are a whole bunch of people who feel and think differently than I do on this level.
This morning I saw this article from Breitbart/AFP entitled “Hundreds get naked on glacier to expose climate change”. Tunick is in Switzerland this time and he is again making a political statement with his art. This time though, there is a different dynamic as this session was commissioned by the activist group Greenpeace. This is from the article.
The campaign is aimed at drawing attention to melting Alpine glaciers, one clear sign of global warming and of man-made climate change, according to the group.
Greenpeace says the human body is as fragile as glaciers like the Aletsch in southern Switzerland and the world’s environment. The glacier itself is now shrinking by about 100 metres (110 yards) a year.
“I want my images to go more than skin-deep. I want the viewers to feel the vulnerability of their existence and how it relates closely to the sensitivity of the world’s glaciers,” Tunick said.
The group hopes its billboard and poster campaign showing people exposed to the cold will send a shiver down the spines of public opinion and politicians, and convince them to do more to tackle pollution and climate change.
Now, Tunick has every right to make a political statement and do work for hire.
If somebody is trying to make a buck off of art that they have created, one of the most viable ways is to let somebody else use it to sell something. That “something” can be a car, clothes, beer or even an idea such as global warming. This concept of using art to sell a product is so common place that we don’t even think about it. However, there are people that are bugged by this premise, that using art to sell something devalues the art. It’s an age old debate. When advertisers first started using rock songs to sell stuff a lot of folks were offended. Now, it’s everywhere.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with using art in advertising. I know that it is a revenue stream that allows some people to devote more time to creating. I think that the artist needs to use some discretion though. Bill Dees told me that he and Roy Orbison were approached by a fried chicken franchise back in ’60’s that wanted to use “Oh, Pretty Woman” in an ad campaign. The idea was something like; “Pretty chicken, walking down the street, pretty chicken, the kind I’d like to eat”. Bill and Roy politely refused that one.
The discretion also comes into play when art is being used to sell an idea by a politically motivated entity. This would go for a group of activists such as Greenpeace or a government. When a group like this uses art to promote an idea or cause it becomes propaganda. Propaganda sounds like an evil word but really it is just a form of advertising.
With propaganda, an artist risks attaching himself forever to whatever political entity is using his art. Politcal entities have a way of morphing as the winds change. They could stand for something you don’t agree with 10 years down the road and your piece of art is still attached to the cause. Political entities are polarizing in nature and the artist also risks losing followers that don’t agree with the political stance.
Tunick has decided to let Greenpeace use his artwork and by doing so he is endorsing them in whatever cause they pursue past, present and future. I would be very interested in hearing from some people who are fans of his work and seeing how they feel about this.
I am also curious about how supporters of Greenpeace feel about the decision to use Tunick’s work. Are there any people out there that are upset that the dollars they donate are going to be used in a P.R. campaign featuring photos of naked people?
I will say this much, judging by the amount of people that looked at my site when I have written about Tunick in the past, Greenpeace may well be on the right track. Any time I write anything about global warming, my web traffic goes in the tank. Maybe, Greenpeace has figured out a way to “raise awareness”.
Related posts
Tags: global warming, Greenpeace, propaganda, Spencer Tunick
Stephanie Vann wrote,
I think you’re probably right with that last comment. Tunick images have appeared before now in national papers here in the UK, usually along the lines of “lots of naked people were being photographed in place x”. The papers don’t seem to have really cared about the message, it was all the naked people that were attention-grabbing.
If the same holds true for the Greenpeace shoot, then logically people who would normally go “global warming. boring” will see the message simply because their attention gets caught by multiple naked bodies.
I’m always slightly intrigued by that because the pics I’ve seen in the past from this artist aren’t exactly what I would describe as titillating. The people in them just happen to have no clothes on. And there’s so many of them, that what seems to happen is a blur of skintones. Details start to get lost.
Link | August 20th, 2007 at 3:19 am