More concerns about Mexotica

Dear Editor,

Like many in the Georgia College & State University community, I am deeply concerned by a recent “artistic” performance that recently took place on our campus.
We are told that events like “Mexotica” are meant to shock and to provoke discussion. That may be, but there is a hidden, and unsupported, assumption here, viz. that “provoking discussion” is a universal desideratum, and accordingly, any alleged work of “art” that provokes discussion must have artistic merit.
This is an impoverished aesthetic standard. “Shock” is a medical condition; it is not art. Just as shock is not always beneficial, neither can it be said that discomfort is a universal good. Strenuous physical exercise involves a significant level of physical discomfort, as does getting punched in the face, but only the former yields any benefit.
Similarly, the fact that “Mexotica” provoked reactions and made people uncomfortable does not make it a valuable work of art. At the edges, it can indeed be difficult to distinguish art from vulgarity, but “Mexotica” is far from a borderline case. Like an irresponsible journalist hiding behind the First Amendment to conceal the identities of non-existent sources, Mr. Gomez-Pena shields the aesthetic bankruptcy of “Mexotica” under the misapplied rubric of “art.”
Society needs art (whether the rest of us realize it or not), and we need artists of vision to help us to expand and broaden our aesthetic sense and horizons. The trouble is that “Mexotica” is to art what Howard Stern is to social discourse. Like “Mexotica,” Stern’s performances regularly cause discomfort and provoke very powerful reactions (most recently from the FCC). If “Mexotica” is art, then so is Howard Stern. Art deserves better, and so do we.

Posted by Colonnade Archives on Apr 16 2004. Filed under Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry