Goya, the Chapman Brothers and Jonathan Jones

I think this kind of reaction is exactly what the Chapmans are trying, simultaneously, to evoke and disdain. They play a double game, presenting brutal acts and challenging the audience to accept or reject the total nihilism implicit in the acts themselves, and their representation of them.

Imagine the Chapmans saying 'This means nothing. And until you accept that it means nothing, this kind of thing will keep happening. Because violence, as long as it inspires emotion in us, will lead to more violence. Your capacity to be moved by violence in art is directly linked to your capacity to commit violent acts. Your ability to construct noble, humanist meanings out of the completely superficial, flat and nul fact of death on a big scale is, itself, the problem.'

This is undoubtedly true. Look at the current death happening in Iraq in the name of noble, humanist values -- democracy, humanity, peace. Strip those 'humanist' values away and you just have the honest, idoitic fact 'We are killing them. For no particularly good reason'. The 'banality of evil'.

I think the proximity of our violent side to our noble side -- the secret link between superego and id -- is something every tabloid editor knows. Put the gory details of the rape in your paper, while condeming the act roundly. It's what Anthony Burgess meant when he showed Alex, in 'A Clockwork Orange', losing his capacity to enjoy Beethoven at the same time as his capacity to enjoy ultraviolence.

To break out of this vicious circle -- violence leads to 'humanist' condemnation, which in turn leads to 'just wars' and more violence -- we must reach a state where, instead of emotion and catharsis, violence simply leaves us indifferent and cold. If violence is meaningless, it should be shown as boring, banal, as completely flat and superficial as an Andy Warhol car crash painting.

I think in this sense, the Chapmans are trying to say about violence what I remember trying to say in arguments on ilxOr about race (for instance, Dan Perry's 'Are you racist?' thread): that we will only be free from racism when race becomes a non-signifying difference. And that as long as people have strong reactions to the topic, it can never be this.

So the Chapmans are trying, for progressive but not humanist reasons, to 'desensitise' us to violence. In order to defeat death, we must learn to be dead to death, rather than alive to it.

There's a whole other thing going on too, which is a questioning and mockery of the art world. For instance, it's fascinating that Norman Rosenthal built his Apocalypse show around 'Hell'. Is he (a jew) complicit, or is he buying the 'humanist' argument about 'Hell' being a condemnation of the holocaust? Are the Chapmans laughing at him, or are he and the Chapmans laughing at the thousands of people who saw 'Apocalypse', or are we all equally horrified / enthralled, or what? And the fact that we don't quite know the answer to this is one of the things that makes 'Hell' important art.

Imagine a world in which the Bush administration said 'We had some buildings in New York, now we don't have them any more. 3000 people died, but it means absolutely nothing and we're going to leave it there'. But no, they couldn't do that. Because the nation cried out for catharsis. In a storm of pathos, deeply moved, they 'reappropriated' Bin Laden's violence and replied with greater violence. And Bin Laden, being someone who's aware of how these things work, will in turn 'reappropriate' the massive violence the USA is now unleashing. It will all get worse and worse, and more and more people will die. Meaninglessly, without violins.

One problem I often have with appreciating art, confrontational art especially, is that I resent the artist second-guessing my reaction to it, or more generally I resent artists assuming that they have an insight to express that is news to the punters; that they are smarter than I am. I felt that particularly on reading what they had to say here, but on the other hand, I have a suspicion that with the Chapmans, they actually are smarter than me.

I feel like the present won't ever be able to seem as historic as our current history because everything is recorded, etc. history with less mystery. history is history. etc.

I was wondering about that too. Wouldn't that apply to Sept 10th?

Also Momus, wouldn't their "violence" against the Goya prints be more overtly provocative than 'Hell'? I doubt that most people who simply hear about the work, on a conceptual level, will have a passive response a la your GWBush dream response; and a good number of people who actually see it might even secretly desire some kind of retribution.

I think that's shorthand for 'we're still in the postmodern period'. So, ironically, it's an attempt to add history and depth!

a good number of people who actually see it might even secretly desire some kind of retribution.

To prove the point about us still being in the postmodern period, I think the Chapmans are recognisably playing some of the same games as Warhol. Like Warhol, their work has a provovative blankness that operates on any level you want it to. Gee, famous people are cool! Face value, irony, surface, depth? 'Hell', like an Andy Marilyn or execution painting, could be 'moving', or it could be 'banal'. It could make you more emotional, or less emotional. It could make you laugh, or scream.

But I do think the Chapmans are making some sort of claim, in their statements, to be immoral moralists of some kind. They both deface and restore 'The Disasters of War'. They 'kill' the Goya 'masterpiece' (whose humanism had become stiff, boring and pious with time, repetition and canonisation), by adding clowns and McDonald's logos. They both 'deface' and 'reface'. They both 'demoralise' and 'remoralise'.

I typed when momus did and I am off the topic, I bet. continue.

The correct title for 'Hell' is 'Fucking Hell'. Which adds a comedy element, surely?

I read Colin Newman (shortly to be staging a Wire show with the Chapmans at the Barbican) in The Wire today saying 'Why didn't people think Wire was funny? They took Wire very seriously. I thought the Sex Pistols were hilarious, the whole thing was a piece of comedy theatre.'

Similarly, Neal Brown argues in the current edition of Modern Painters that the Chapmans are 'heroes of the highest order', undervalued by the art world because 'the bile and insanity of [their work's] humour were filtered through the disquiet with which the art world viewed 'Apocalypse' at the time'.

Jake Chapman is quoted, talking about the Aztec art show at the Royal Academy:

'Where our death finds itself outlawed -- exiled from the metropolis and buried into segregated cemeteries only to reappear in horror movies -- any subsequent manifestation must mitigate its appearance with a higher purpose. Death, certainly in our culture, may only beg attention if it points to transcendence. The crime of Aztec art [and, by extension, Jake is saying, the crime -- read virtue -- of the Chapmans' own work] lies in allowing death to appear without negotiating surplus value: its heartless eviscerations, uninhibited allusions to pain, cruelty and suffering exceed the redemptive license that allows our violent images to serve higher aims.'

Now, those who have read too much Bataille may well say Jake has read too much Bataille. But since I've read too much Bataille too, I agree with him and won't say that.

Little Britain star Matt Lucas will be among the famous faces taking part in Big Brother: Celebrity Hijack next month.

8 Out of 10 Cats host Jimmy Carr, artists Jake and Dinos Chapman, Bo' Selecta! character Keith Lemon (played by Leigh Francis) and comedienne Joan Rivers will also be taking on the role of Big Brother for the show.

As previously reported, music mogul Malcolm McLaren has also signed up, along with art critic Brian Sewell and ex-footballer Ian Wright.

those chapman bros are some funny guys.

they're not shit, they're a commentary on "being shit".

like big brother amirite

When people talk about those dudes, I keep think they say "The Champ Man Brothers", and they're shouting out Paul and Oliver Collyer.

True story.

It's "Ov" Collyer, no? Always at the top of the high-score charts, and I never get within 2 billion points of them, even as Cambridge United or Kidderminster Harriers ascend towards the top flight. :(

peter saville has always said that he turns down offers to put on "fine" art exhibitions because while he's a good graphic designer, his work doesn't really have the depth to cut it in that context.

i can't help feeling that way about all the saatchi stuff, (gary hume would be a good example here) they should be making pop videos (well, hirst did) or magazine covers or whatever.

get that fuxxing book i told you about already, loads of stuff about these guys in there

the nuttall one?

i read "fine art lite" by stallabrass, and although he made some good points about the art market (points that had already been made 10 years earlier by guys as mainstream as robert hughes) he just came across as an old crank that wants all new art to be pictures of gw bush with devil horns painted on.

nuttall quotes robert hughes extensively, but adds his own spin and rhetoric to proceedings. he also quotes this guy called waldemar janusczak (sp?) as an agent of evil. it's rousing stuff. nuttall's far too humourous, hearty and creatively passionate a figure to suggest that art be a means to political expression.

yeah, every week waldemar januszczak writes two pages in the times about absolutely nothing at all.

that sentence didn't actually need the last five words

Stallabrass is a bit of a cretin.

Will be interesting to see J&D on this show.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/mar/31/pj-harvey-john-parish-chapman-brothers-chapman-brothers

what a pair of cunts these two are, i mean really.

http://i.imgur.com/P2BAS.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/7/14/1310652656683/Chapman-Brothers-014.jpg

o_O