Protest Reactions to Contemporary Art Exhibitions: Origins and Symbols of Public Ressentiment
This article examines the peculiarities of protests against the offensive content of artworks in the context of one of the most significant discoveries of modern society, the public sphere and its historical transformations. Art is one of the most sensitive indicators of the state of values and symbols, which makes it vulnerable, forming a space for various protests. A distinction is made between conflicts around art that have an etiology within the enlightenment paradigm and modern types of conflicts, in which the accusation that art offends the public and social groups dominates. The initiative for protests in modern culture comes from a public that perceives art in contrast to the previous dominant powers. The discourse of offence lies at the centre of art-related conflict, since the content of protest is heavily loaded with symbolic connotations (ethical, religious, political, ethnic, etc.). The authors analyse offense and its genesis in the modern. It is argued that the source of ressentiment is not within art, but outside it, in the public sphere, while the work is perceived as a medium or symbol of this source. In order to provide a systematic description of protests against art, the authors propose the concept of ressentiment as a mental and value attitude (M. Scheler), in which emphasis is placed on the significance of the long-term attitude that results from the repression of affects. Due to the inhibition of the response impulse, the reaction is transferred to another object. This explains the displacement of the negative reaction from the real cause of suffering to objects of a symbolic nature, in this case to the world of art. Based on the phases of development of ressentiment and its structural elements (themes, social environment, actors) identified by Ch. Pak and using discourse analysis of materials from the public sphere (media, social networks), a case study was examined: an exhibition by the photographer Jock Sturges, Absence of Shame (Moscow) in 2016–2017. It is proved that the motivator of the protest was not the exhibition itself, but the content of the blogger’s posts, the discourse around it, and other ways of representing the biography and oeuvre of the photographer in the public sphere. It is shown that ressentiment as an attitude is formed from the outside and seeks material for its establishment in the outside world. For the formation of a conflict, a preliminary formulation of the discourse of offence is necessary: further dissemination by public groups can consolidate affects and turn them into actions. Provocative art, which violates the boundaries of aesthetic conventions of the art field, risks becoming an object of substituted protest when entering the public sphere.
Artists Rights. NCAC + CDT [website]. (2020). URL: http://www.artistrights.info/listof-cases (accessed: 27.12.2020).
Bez smushcheniya 2.0, 18+ [Absence of Shame 2.0, 18+]. (2017). In Tsentr fotografii imeni brat‘ev Lyum‘er [website]. URL: http://www.lumiere.ru/exhibitions/archive/id-225/ (accessed: 27.12.2020).
DiMaggio, P. et al. (2000). The Role of Religion in Public Conflicts over the Arts in the Philadelphia Area, 1965–1997. In Working Papers. P. 1–40.
Donchenko, D. (2017). Analysis of Comments of Users of Social Networks to Assess the Level of Social Tension. In Procedia Computer Science. Vol. 119, pp. 359–367. DOI 10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.195.
Ehrenstein, D. (2012). The Last Temptation of Christ: Passion Project. In The Criterion Collection [website]. March 13. URL: https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/2191-thelast-temptation-of-christ-passion-project (accessed: 27.12.2020).
Elkin, L. (2017). Showing Balthus at the Met Isn’t about Voyeurism, It’s about the Right to Unsettle. In Frieze [website]. December 17. URL: https://www.frieze.com/article/showingbalthus-met-isnt-about-voyeurism-its-about-right-unsettle (accessed: 25.02.2020).
Goldstein, R. J. (1989). Censorship of Political Caricature in Nineteenth-Century France. Kent, Ohio, L., Kent State Univ. Press. XII, 300 p.
Golla, R. (2017). Conversations with Vladimir Nabokov. S. l., Univ. Press of Mississippi. 256 p.
Gomes, K.-Dzh. (2020). Diskurs oskorbitel’nosti v publichnykh konfliktakh vokrug iskusstva: kul’turfilosofskii analiz [Discourse of Offensiveness in Public Conflicts around Art: A Cultural-Philosophical Analysis]. Avtoref. dis. … kand. filos. nauk. Yekaterinburg, S. n. 34 p.
Gomes, K.-Dzh., Kruglova, T. A. (2020). Kontsept “resentiment” kak perspektivnyi teoreticheskii resurs analiza protestov protiv oskorbitel’nogo iskusstva [The Concept of ‘Ressentiment’ as a Promising Theoretical Resource for the Analysis of Protests against Offensive Art]. In Koinon. Vol. 1. No. 1–2, pp. 104–124. DOI 10.15826/koinon.2020.01.1–2.005.
Miro, L. (2016). Vystavka dlya pedofilov v Moskve [Exhibition for Pedophiles in Moscow]. In Lena Miro: “Menya chitayut krasivye lyudi!” [internet-blog]. URL: https://lena-miro.ru/1093813.html (accessed: 27.12.2020).
Mironova, А. (2016). “Rebenok imeet pravo na zashchitu ot sal’nykh vzglyadov” [“A child has a right to protection from greasy looks”]. In Gazeta.Ru [website]. Oct. 10. URL: https://www.gazeta.ru/comments/column/mironova/10222121.shtml (accessed: 27.12.2020).
Mitchell, W. J. T. (2005). What Do Pictures Want? The Lives and Loves of Images. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press. 408 p.
Nietzsche, F. (2007). Po tu storonu dobra i zla. Prelyudiya k filosofii budushchego. K genealogii morali. Polemicheskoe sochinenie [Beyond Good and Evil. Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future Genealogy of Morality. A Polemical Essay]. Moscow, Akademicheskii proekt. 396 p.
Pak, Ch.-U. (1997). Resentiment, otsenka, znanie i sotsial’noe deistvie v uchenii Maksa Shelera: opyt issledovaniya sotsiologii chuvstv [Ressentiment, Appraisal, Knowledge and Social Action in the Teachings of Max Scheler: Research Experience in the Sociology of Feelings]. In Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal. No. 4. pp. 151–164.
Khudozhestvennaya fotografiya v stile “nyu” pod zapretom u Roskomnadzora [‘Nude’ Art Photography Banned by Roskomnadzor]. (2015). In Roskomsvoboda [website]. July 27. URL: https://roskomsvoboda.org/12087/ (accessed: 27.12.2020).
Ryklin, M. (2006). Svastika, krest, zvezda. Proizvedenie iskusstva v epokhu Upravlyaemoi demokratii [Swastika, Cross, and Star. Works of Art in the Era of Managed Democracy]. Moscow, Logos. 208 p.
Scheler, M. (1999). Resentiment v strukture moralei [Ressentiment in the Structure of Morals]. St Petersburg, Nauka, Universitetskaya kniga. 232 p.
Tema dnya. Oskorbitel’na li obnazhennaya natura v iskusstve? [Topic of the Day. Is Nudity Offensive in Art?]. (2017). In Radio “Kul’tura” [website]. November 27. URL: www.cultradio.ru/brand/episode/id/62322/episode_id/1569221/ (accessed: 27.12.2020).
Tepper, S. J. (2011). Not Here, Not Now, Not That! Protest over Art and Culture in America. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press. 384 p.
The Arts Under Attack: Jock Sturges Photos Vandalized in Bookstores. (1997). In NCAC Censorship News [website]. No. 67. URL: https://ncac.org/censorship-news-articles/thearts-under-attack-jock-sturges-photos-vandalized (accessed: 25.02.2021).
Razrabotchikam/Newsfeed.search [Developers/Newsfeed.search]. (2020). In VKontakte [website]. URL: https://vk.com/dev/newsfeed.search (accessed: 27.12.2020).
Voina Miro [Miro’s War]. (2016). In The New Times [website]. No. 32 (420). URL: https://newtimes.ru/articles/detail/116293 (accessed: 27.12.2020).
Zayavlenie OP RF po povodu vystavki Dzhoka Sterdzhesa [Statement of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation on the Jock Sturges Exhibition]. (2016). In Obshchestvennaya palata Rossiiskoi Federatsii [website]. URL: https://www.oprf.ru/documents/495/2447/newsitem/36144 (accessed: 27.12.2020).