Outrageous Modern And Contemporary Art: A Primer (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

With so much argument over Marni Kotak the woman who gave birth in an art gallery last week, it seemed only right to put things in perspective with some of the most controversial art of the last century.

Today, many of us are desensitized to graphic imagery. But a few choice artists since the 1900s—call them visionaries, geniuses, perverts or psychos—managed to create something so intensely riveting that they still make cheeks red and stomachs queasy.

The following works contain their fair share of extremes. The holy trinity of sex, evildoers and excrement runs rampant throughout. But to truly make a controversial work of art, the grotesque has to be shown in a new light, in a way that can't be shaken off after you leave the museum. If the image leaves your stomach reeling, it should do the same thing to your mind.

Take a look at some of our favorite controversial artworks of the last century. What do you think: are they works of genius or pieces of crap? (Aside from the one that is, quite literally, pieces of crap.) Do you wish we'd included 'A Fire in My Belly' or one of Robert Mapplethorpe's photos? Should we have substituted Emin's 'My Bed' for 'Everyone I've Ever Slept With?' Leave a comment and let us know!

Comments

[edwardls]

02:29 PM on 12/02/2011

Amazing, isn't it, how many of these works have a direct connection to Mr Saatchi, who is not only a wealthy collector, but also a gifted advertising man?

[MisaoAkiolivier]

09:15 PM on 11/15/2011

I wish people would remember that making art could be shocking without having to pee on religious figures =(

[Killian Skarr]

03:11 PM on 11/12/2011

Dear Art world,
I think that it is entirely possible to make art that evokes emotions particular to culturally transmitted archetypes (shocks) while being simultaneously compelling on an aesthetic level. Cynicism, and the appeal to it, are an obvious enough response to the world (and to the art world specifically) but why an artist would choose to spend themselves upon something that merely relies on "shock value" while forsaking aesthetic considerations, I can't agree with. The whole point for myself is the process of actually making the art, making it my focus, allowing myself to become absorbed in it, blurring the psychological distinctions between the object being created and my self. The process is sacred even as the artifacts produced are profane.
I think cynicism is a rational and inevitable outlook for any person with sufficient critical thinking skills. But isn't Art the only place that one can specifically form the world into that which the artist desires? I’ll let you work out the implications there in the case of urophiliacs like Duchamp and Serrano or in considering megalomaniacal sado-masochists like myself.
Love,
-Killian

[Dogma]

03:25 AM on 11/07/2011

Truth be told, ALL conceptual artists for the last 100 years have just been riffing on The Fountain.
I really dig Nauman and Hirst, but what they're doing is not all that new when you consider the ground Duchamp broke (for them).

[rtiposters]

02:04 AM on 11/06/2011

Look at the lyrics to the band Frozen ghost... "If I put my hands in your dirty water will your religion make me clean" Just another thought... but maybe the artist is portraying that religion can be dirty as well hence the dung in the painting... religion or the religious figure in this case cannot make man clean, but only God Himself can. My two cents worth...

[rtiposters]

02:01 AM on 11/06/2011

Ofili's use of elephant dung in the depiction of a religious figure may be "sick" but I find it interesting for example in Genesis 6:5 it says; "The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." Maybe the artist was using the dung to portray the "dirtiness" or the wickedness of mankind or in this case a religious figure.

[NER2]

04:28 PM on 11/05/2011

It requires great endurance to look at these failures but doing so makes me feel pretty good about my own work.

[Alirox]

05:50 PM on 11/04/2011

I'd hardly consider Christo & Jean-Claude's work to be considered 'shock art' by any stretch of the imagination.

[JScott]

11:18 AM on 11/03/2011

I got to see 'The Umbrellas' in Tejon Pass several years ago......nice piece.............sadly I think one person died tho when one of the large yellow umbrellas fell on them.

[NunuDudu]

09:32 AM on 11/01/2011

Oh the hours wasted studying Piss Christ in art school.

[GraphicMatt]

01:28 PM on 11/01/2011

What makes you think "hours" were put into studying it?

[NunuDudu]

05:16 PM on 11/02/2011

Because I was in art school and we racked up hours talking about this nonsense.

[JScott]

11:16 AM on 11/03/2011

How do we know it was urine other that the artist said it was, it could have easily been saffron tinted water.............and we would have all been punk'd. And the bloviating crowd would have been pwn'd.

[dwes09]

06:31 PM on 11/03/2011

Actually what makes the picture so interesting is that is both is and isn't sacrilegious at the same time. It is after all just a cheap (and often derided) mass produced image of Jesus immersed in bodily fluids (symbolically representing the way Jesus was scorned and degraded at the crucifixion). And yet when you se the image in a gallery, it kind of glows with a holy saffron light. That tension was specifically what the artist wanted. It was during a period where he was also photographing semen and blood in ways that played their associations against the elegant composition of the images. Difficult for some people to understand, but nonetheless interesting.

[Munsford]

08:21 AM on 11/01/2011

I've never seen the value in "shock" as art; something new may indeed be shocking, but that isn't the intent of the piece. Monet shocked the art world with a new way of seeing. Most of these are just silly, the kind of shock usually reserved for small parties where everyone is drunk or high and laughing. The erased drawing - silly. Islands wrapped in fabric --silly. Piss Christ is a beautiful image, and the shock is one of perception. The elephant dung Madonna is just a crummy painting that needed the dung aspect to gain any attention. Tilted Arc shows the bankruptcy of modern sculpture; the Viet Nam memorial has more power and scopel. The bedroom with the names of people the artist slept with? You are kidding me, aren't you? It's not interesting visually, and who cares who she slept with. Most of all, these shock pieces lack the essential humor that underlies the Dadaist's work. You might have included some films by Bunuel. Like L'Age D'Or, where the most debauched man on history is described on a title card, and when the door opens, Christ comes out. Powerful, but tempered by a man in a fit throwing stuffed giraffes and a bishop out the window. What about the "artist" who canned his own feces and sold a limited number for umpty-thousand dollars? I wonder if any of the buyers have ever opened the can/

[Alirox]

05:38 PM on 11/04/2011

I agree with your likes (and dislikes) of the artwork you mentioned, Munsford, though I am a fan of modern sculpture.

Just pointing out to people who haven't noticed - but Ofili's Madonna piece has explicit photos of wimmen's private parts cut-out in the shape of butterflies affixed to the work too.

[Patrick Wm Connally]

01:46 AM on 11/01/2011

One can only hope that a educated writer has read "Naked Lunch" and got shock value out of their system, but I guess not. Presentation like with great food is part of the package, but after Duchamp, urinals have been done. After Pollack, throwing paint has been done, both hero/artists of their time. The rehash of shocking as art is because it is non conventionally safe and a social set approves of the shocking style because it is unnerving not that it has anything to say.

[Laughert9]

12:11 AM on 11/01/2011

What kind of right wing conservative crap article is this? HP joining FOX?

[invisbl]

11:26 PM on 10/31/2011

I approve that they included Picasso in that list, since everyone forgets that so many of the artists of the past which are now part of the "canon," were the Andres Serrano of their time.

[eehd]

11:18 PM on 10/31/2011

People were outraged over elephant dung being used in a painting? Do people know how much more toxic oil paint can be?

[GraphicMatt]

04:15 PM on 11/01/2011

Only if you eat it....which I wouldn't suggest doing.

[eehd]

07:05 PM on 11/01/2011

Some colors are extremely toxic when wet and even when they are dry they can give off a toxic smell. It is recommended that you don't sleep in a room until the paint stops giving off the smell.