COULROPHOBIA - The Fear of Clowns @
the Art of Framing
COULROPHOBIA
derived from the Greek words koulon(limb) and kolobathris(one who goes on stilts) or in English – the Fear of Clowns – is one of those phenomenon that has probably existed since time immemorial when the court jester had to make the King laugh and has evolved throughout the centuries into carnival freak shows, the circus and later through film.
However, coulrophobia is one of those bizarre obscure maladies that no one has heard of but everyone has, once it was identified and let out of the phobia closet, thanks in large part to the internet and Rodney Blackwell – web designer and coulrophobe. The term was likely coined by Blackwell in the late 90’s and his “No Clown Zone” ihateclowns.com website. It has among others who have created their own coulrophobia websites, become a safe haven for thousands of sufferers with helpful resources, discussion boards and information about this disease. Most coulrophobes would agree that the “fear” of clowns arises from their heavy makeup, bulbous nose and demonic colored hair that conceals the wearer’s identity and a potential darker/evil personality. Blackwell chalks his coulrophobia up to the musical comedy “The Wiz” starring Michael Jackson as the Scarecrow (which in itself is frightful even without the makeup) and Diana Ross as Dorothy (ditto.) But specifically to a scene in the movie where they encounter a vendor in the New York subway selling creepy clown dolls, which suddenly take on exorbitant proportions and chase them through the tunnels.
Kelly Hutchison is the curator for the latest exhibit at the Art of Framing entitled Coulrophobia – The Fear of Clowns, but he is NOT a coulrophobe. You could say that he is a wee bit uxorious though of clowns and you would be right. But we can forgive him for this as he has managed to bring an amazing array of over 40 local and national clowns, er.. artists together for this show in San Diego. Some of these artists include the likes of Skip Williamson, Extremo the Clown, Pistol Pete, Mr. Screens, Delphia Art, Christina Gusek, Tracy Duncan, KMC plus many more, and John Wayne Gacy. I’ll get to Gacy’s work later.
Some of you might remember Hutchison’s previous solo show a few months back that was just as provocative as this one. If you recall, it was the excitement of seeing so much vibrant and diverse works hung one on top of another, screaming off the walls in neon colors, with babbling idiots and eyeball pie, cannibalistic grandmothers and others making up the majority of Hutchison’s strange and macabre world. So it was with a certain anticipation that I patiently awaited Coulrophobia. First, kudos should be given to Hutchison for pulling off such a large undertaking, collecting works from forty very different artists spread out across this golden land, getting them to agree on the same theme and then having their works arrive on time at the gallery – no easy feat. Unfortunately, as in most theme oriented group shows there are typically those artists who adapt their style and technique to a similar décor but substitute the lead actor for their own – a lot like moving characters around in the same doll house. I wasn’t disappointed by what I saw but I wasn’t exactly surprised either. Not like I had been previously by Hutchison’s solo effort.
There were exceptions of course, such as Extremo the Clown’s moulded rubber bas-reliefs of carnival-esque clown heads and emaciated Priestess of Clowning complete with pointy breasts, demonic scraggly hair and the number 13 above her head. There was enough work in the show to bring out the coulrophobe in all of us but a majority of it would have probably put you to bed. As you might expect there were several Bush administration and current political affairs work in the show, in particular a nice piece by Paul Vauchelet showing Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld dressed up as clowns lighting the Constitution on fire. There was also the piece by Mr. Screens, showing Bush wearing a suicide belt peeking out from under his clown suit with a dunce cap on his head. But overall, the majority of the works being shown were the usual suspects of clown convicts, clown axe murderers, clowns clowning around, clown skulls, sexy clowns, devil clowns, monkey clowns, evil joker clowns etc. In the end, the show was a solid and interesting display of works albeit somewhat predictable in its final act.
What was not predictable were two pieces that received little or no attention. Suffice to say, they went beyond a stereotypic treatment of the subject hitting the clown squarely on the head so to speak, but for two very different reasons and intentions. The two works were made by Ryan Campbell and John Wayne Gacy. The former is very much alive and living in San Diego, the latter has been dead since 1994, after having been tried and executed for his crimes. Now it is not my intention to cast any dispersion or guilt upon Campbell, nor to associate him with the horrors Gacy committed, it is to simply point out that the collective memory of a society (I’ve heard some say it’s 5 years max) is very limited and selective – and I believe increasingly so – from one generation to the next. This can also be seen in the artwork being produced today by an influx of younger and younger artists and the crossover of “street” art such as graffiti, into the folds of graphic and fashion design. What was once considered underground now and has been for awhile, been sucked dry, vampire-ized by a society’s lust for fresh blood and talent.
Campbell’s work is entitled “The Greatest Show on Earth” comprised of a crucifix of Jesus painted as a clown on a candy-stripped cross. The original plaque over Jesus’ head INRI (Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdaeorvm – Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews) has been replaced by a plaque reading BOZO. Campbell much like Pontius Pilate has condemned Jesus not to a lesser fate but perhaps to a more pleasant one. But Campbell is only the third to do so; it was in 1989 that his predecessor struck a nerve in the American psyche.
1989 was a rough year for the arts in America as the social and political climate changed; as we witnessed George Herbert Walker Bush succeed Ronald Regan as the 41st President. Serial killer Ted Bundy was executed in Florida. The Soviets leave Kabul ending nine years of military occupation. The Ayatollah Kohmeini encourages Muslims to kill author Salman Rushdie for writing the Satanic Verses. Students begin protesting in Tiananmen Square. Gorbachev and Bush announce that the Cold War between their two countries may be coming to an end. And last but not least, the invention of the World Wide Web by Tim Berners-Lee. 1989 also gave us two senators, Mr. Jesse Helms and Mr. Alfonse M. D’Amato, who headed up a witch hunt against funding for the NEA – National Endowment for the Arts. It was also a very heady time in the arts with a lot of money being made on the Wall Street floor and being spent in the gallery backroom with very young and very rich “Yuppies” with no taste meeting up with very hungry art dealers. It was a match made in Heaven. But no paradise is complete without a few poisoned apples and these came in the form of two major exhibitions by Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe, both photographers. Serrano exhibited a photograph of a crucifix in urine from a series of photographs dealing with blood, urine, milk and sperm; Mapplethorpe in another part of the country exhibited a series of photos (nudes) covering S & M, gay black leather culture and homoeroticism. Both received and /or the institutions they were showing in funding from the NEA – a government branch.
A lot has been written and argued over these past 17 years about Serrano’s “Piss Christ,” the title of the photo in question, but I won’t go into the pros and cons here about such an important work of art in my mind, as the reader should decide for himself. I will say though, like all good genuine art, it will cause the viewer to reflect and will challenge his/her beliefs, culture, intellect and vision. Needless to say, the controversy from these two exhibits apparently disturbing the moral fabric of the American culture and religious beliefs, had a negative impact on further government funding of the arts but at the same time, opened up the pearly gates of a pluralistic art and its artists – anything was possible now, anything could be said, anything could be made regardless of its alleged “offensiveness.”
While this is not a problem in itself, I believe this was the beginning of a trend in art for good or bad, that started to disassociate the artist from any responsibility and drove the artwork’s form and content into a much more expressive, non-historical, political and social one-liners and decorative knock-offs. Knowledge was no longer power but a hindrance to the artist. Perhaps these days it’s a generational thing if you will – call me an old fart – but with the speed in which information is disseminated there is less time to reflect and to contemplate and an increased urgency to communicate which often times than not falls into the category of the visual. Check out YouTube if you don’t believe me. This is pure acting without seeing, believing without hearing, listening without reading – it just doesn’t work.
Ryan Campbell’s “The Greatest Show on Earth” is good art, even great art that pauses one to reflect and question those very same beliefs Serrano was asking us to do. Campbell’s work is so right-on the mark from the title to its content and form, is searing in its red hot perceptibility and clear in its intent, that it is shocking in its clarity and openness to be read by any viewer willing to understand its multiple readings and to realize the inevitable truth that it WAS the Greatest Show on Earth. The second unnoticed work in the Coulrophobia exhibit is by John Wayne Gacy.
John Wayne Gacy was a serial killer. This from the Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia:
Gacy was convicted and later executed for the rape and murder of 33 boys and young men, 29 of whom he buried in the crawl space under his house. The youngest victim was nine years old; the oldest was around 20. He became notorious as the “Killer Clown” because of the many block parties he attended, entertaining children in a clown suit and makeup. During his time on Death Row, Gacy took up oil painting, and his favourite subject was painting portraits of clowns. He claimed to have used his clown act as an alter ego, once sardonically saying that “a clown can get away with murder.”
Gacy’s painting in Coulrophobia is not of a clown but of the Seven Dwarfs frolicking in a snowy winter landscape. It is for all intensive purposes, a very bad painting on any formal or aesthetic level. It appears in fact, to be one of those classic “New England” style thrift store paintings complete with covered wood bridge, babbling brook and large oak tree off to the left. Gacy simply painted over the original in white, turning the summer landscape into a winter paradise. He then painted the Seven Dwarfs into the painting joyously playing in the snow. It is pretty obvious the only interest in this questionable work of art comes from the fact that it was painted by a serial killer. Are we celebrating the artwork or the serial killer? It would seem the latter as Gacy has fascinated thousands and inspired many more from the television network Fox who used Gacy’s prison cell during the filming of their hit TV show “Prison Break” to Madonna Wayne Gacy, band member of Marilyn Manson’s rock group. Gacy’s painting is owned by a private collector. I wonder why he/she purchased it. Was it for its artistic merit or for its very perverse and macabre creator? A little bit of second hand fame and glory perhaps, something one could be proud of – who knows. Am I morally outraged?, no, but I fail to see the point in showcasing this work as if it were an Icon to be worshipped, as if something could truly be learned from it, as if it could all make us better people or at the very least, better painters.
Listen, people kill people and people let other people die without batting an eye – it’s a fact. Glenn Beck tells us every night that terrorists want to kill him, you and me, innocents die everyday in Iraq, Afghanistan and Darfur, gunmen kill children in schools, journalists are murdered for their investigative reporting and on and on and on. My point is this: have we become such media whores watching some spectacle like gladiators in the Coliseum, waiting for the blood to spill, the thumbs up or down on life, that we have become jaded by the violence and carnage that it washes over us without leaving a stain? A bit of remorse? A bit of sadness? Is it nothing more than trivia?, nostalgia?, memorabilia? thirty seconds after its been broadcast? Don’t be mistaken, this painting by Gacy is not evil, Gacy himself was evil, but the painting itself remains all the more violent in its apparent innocence and context – resting peacefully within the sanctity of the gallery walls, immune.
I have to wonder if it is truly life enhancing, mind altering, relevant, to see a painting by Gacy. Is it truly necessary, as we scan the surface looking for some hidden clue, some hidden insight to the warped mind of Gacy, as we try to discover the mystique of this very sick and deranged individual, as if Gacy himself was trying to tell us something through his artistic vision, as if there was some truth, some validity, some credibility to who he was, looking for some upstanding character trait in his personality that led him to lead such an exemplary role model in the community and to kill children at night and finally become the terrific artist he was. Horseshit. Was it a mistake to put this painting in the show? I believe so. We’re not looking at Gacy’s work as Gacy the painter, but Gacy the serial killer and that’s just plain wrong to glorify murder and put it in a store front window and call it art.
So where does this leave us in the company of two very distinct and morally opposed works of art? Bewildered. Though Coulrophobia generally speaking was overall a good show, I’m a bit amazed and troubled by the lack of response gallery goers gave to Campbell’s and Gacy’s work. Did they feign ignorance? Did they not care? Did they truly not recognize, not know what was before them? Yes, the show was entitled “Fear of Clowns” and yes you would expect a certain amount of Tom foolery and Hollywood-ish Halloween-esque works of art on display, but that these two works fell through the collective cracks of the viewer’s interest disturbs me. Has the visual playing field been levelled to the point where one image is no longer stronger than another? Have we in the art world let the proverbial “table raze” clutter up with the incertitude and hodgepodge of visual imagery that no longer discerns between life, death, murder, politics, history, the wellness of its people and the machinations of its government? Between CNN and reality? Between truth and propaganda? I wonder and pray this is not the case.
Kevin Freitas
The Art of Framing
3333 Adams Avenue
San Diego, Calif. 92116
619.563.9770
Through Halloween, 2006
Comments
I couldn't even disagree with you more on your review and the attack of the display of the original John Wayne Gacy painting.
The only thing you had right in this review was the overlooked piece "The Greatest Show on Earth"
--but good or bad.
Thanks for the review... Kevin.
--------------------------------------
"Good Taste is the Enemy of Creativity" --Pablo Picasso.
Posted by: Kelly Hutchison | octobre 11, 2006 07:07 AM
I assure you that Bishop Beeter and I were blown away by Ryan's "The Greatest Show on Earth." It was the only piece from the show that we discussed in our hotel room Friday night, and we made a point of expressing our admiration of the work and the artist to Ryan when we returned on Saturday evening. Some of my friends commented that my painting of Bush was risky in the current evangefascist climate, but I was completely blown out of the water in that regard by the enormous stainless steel cajones of Mr. Campbell.
From the review:
>and to realize the inevitable truth that it WAS the Greatest Show on Earth.
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, but I'm annoyed by the phrase "inevitable truth." I contend that 10 people writing a response to this work would come to 10 VERY different conclusions.
Should Gacy's piece have been in the show? I can't see why not. I agree that the painting on its own merits, without attribution and the backstory, is a lame, amateurish effort. But it prompted more discussion at the two receptions I attended than any other piece.
From the review:
>I fail to see the point in showcasing this work as if it were an Icon to be worshipped, as if something could truly be learned from it, as if it could all make us better people or at the very least, better painters.
This is not the point of art as I understand it. And exhibiting a work of art does not imply an endorsement of its point of view or the morals of the artist. An exhibit of "Uncle Tom and Aunt Jemimah" populist art should spark debate and stir controversy, but to say that the exhibitors are obviously racist is naive and misses the point.
The theme of the show, after all, was "Fear of Clowns," and this piece, with its sinister history, brought such fears out of the realm of an irrational phobia into an experience of horror that everyone can understand.
-- Mr Screens
Posted by: Mr Screens | octobre 11, 2006 11:22 AM
i usually keep my opinion to myself if its anything art related but this has left me wondering if im more clueless than i thought i was. i thought the reason for the gacy painting was that he was a clown and the show was the fear of clowns and gacy is scary as shit.maybe im looking too much into it.i thought the whole thing was fantastic and im glad i was there. there were pieces i loved and pieces that didnt really strike me either way. in whole it was wonderful,im very glad that i was able to make it!
Posted by: leeanne | octobre 11, 2006 01:43 PM
I've included this comment by Kelly Hutchison that I received indirectly in my email box - I feel it's important to share with the rest. KF
I don't agree with it.
Naturally... any review that does not say that the very god of gods should not have been graced with the mere presence of the artshow and it's very existence with the greatness of artists that were involved with...
...I'm not gonna agree with.
Kudo's for Kevin in the very sense that he picked up on what I thought was lost. --and for what-so-far the traditional media got lazy with us on.
My point...
The show had a piece called the "Greatest Show on Earth" with Jesus Christ crucified as a clown.
...in a fear of clowns show. Nobody at the art show... with the exception of one person I saw...
Seemed to look twice at it.
---besides the original Gacy painting...
... this was my personal favorite piece of the show.
I can't think of anything more blasphemous...
----(With "Bozo" replacing "INRI" --I think it beats Jesus Christ in a urine sample bottle any day of the week)but the point that I got from the piece... wasn't offensive... or even meant to offend. but rather the obvious...
--- that the artist got me to stop and think and to look at something from a different view... in a different light.
--------when it comes to my own art...
This is what I live for.
As far as the original Gacy painting and it's display and Kevin's thoughts...
I don't even agree with them.
---and as 2 friends I hope we can agree to disagree.
Posted by: Kevin Freitas | octobre 11, 2006 03:16 PM
Mr. Screens, I think you illustrate the point I was making about how society's collective memory is fiable due to the speed in which we receive information, assimilate it rapidly without much reflection and are on to the next "important" bit of breaking news. It washes over us without really concerning us because we are not personally affected - death, murder, the World Series, will the Chargers win next sunday, North Korea has a nuclear bomb etc. - I'm exaggerating - but shocking or news worthy or spectacular or offensive or scandalous or perverted... ad nauseum registers I believe, on the same banal flat line of media hype and information. Many artists can be guilty of the same practice. You said it yourself, your friends had thought the painting you did of Bush was risky and might upset the "evangefacist" climate you refer to - but it didn't and most likely won't simply because Bush has become an easy target, irrelevant and a real actual clown. You're simply re-stating the obvious, the actual reality of current politics, life has turned the tables and is imitating art, any real shock value has been diffused. Campbell's piece on the other hand, has multiple meanings and readings beyond its apparent blasphemy or shock value. I'm afraid Campbell's piece could be mis-read for what it is not.
When I spoke of the inevitable truth, I meant that the actual crucifixion of Jesus, was inevitably the Greatest Show on Earth - not Campbell's piece in itself.
This is not the point of art as I understand it. And exhibiting a work of art does not imply an endorsement of its point of view or the morals of the artist. An exhibit of "Uncle Tom and Aunt Jemimah" populist art should spark debate and stir controversy, but to say that the exhibitors are obviously racist is naive and misses the point.
I think we would all have to agree that the artwork presented is art and is not simply art because someone, anyone painted it and that the individual who painted it was first and foremost an artist. Gacy was not an artist. He was a serial killer. I agree with you that today an exhibition of Uncle Tom and Aunt Jemimah should stir up controversy and disdain - and rightfully so - if the organizers did it out of ignorance and did not understand nor respect nor utilise the lessons learned from years of slavery and civil and human rights. The point is thankfully, we did learn something from it and have conducted ourselves differently and equally toward all men and would not organize such an exhibition. I ask you, what have we learned from Gacy? And what have we learned from his paintings?
The theme of the show, after all, was "Fear of Clowns," and this piece, with its sinister history, brought such fears out of the realm of an irrational phobia into an experience of horror that everyone can understand.
The painting itself is not sinister, it is just very bad painting. Gacy is sinister and his history is sinister. Who and what are we exactly judging here? There is nothing horrorific about this painting. Knowing about Gacy and his life is horrorific - but aren't all serial killers horrorific? Why is Gacy different? The painting does not provoke in any way an underlying phobia in anyone, Gacy does though. But what exactly are we talking about here, a painting or Gacy? And if we're talking about Gacy, what's the point?
Kevin Freitas
Posted by: Kevin Freitas | octobre 11, 2006 09:02 PM
I'm going to disagree with you as well. Ryan Campbells piece "The Greatest Show on Earth" captured my attention a few times on both nights. You must have been at the show for only a short while. I saw a alot of people taking more than one look at it. You are crazy as well to say the same of the Gacy piece. Yes the art work was "New England" style thrift store looking , so what! Gacy was a scary ass clown, nobody was celebrating anything other than that idea alone. Both Cambell & Gacy got just as much attention as every other artist and I think in my opinion your dumb for for not noticing ..........
Pirate Pat
Posted by: Pirate Pat | octobre 12, 2006 04:05 AM
I look at the Gacy painting like it was cursed or an evil artifact. It is a bad painting. I think it would of got more attention if it was facing backwards. On the back of the painting it is signed by Gacy , "I hope you get as much enjoyment out of this painting as I did making it." there are also some brown marks that look like feces on the back. It makes me think of Gacy in his cell making this thing. One of the last things he did before he was executed.
I don't know who would want this painting. I don't like looking at it or even being near it. I watch the reactions of people walking by. I have had only one complant from a man who was in his mid 50s. He stood outside the gallery, looking at the painting then me behind the front counter after a few minutes he came in and said, " As a gay man I am offended by the Gacy painting, to show art like that is in bad taste." He quickly left not giving me time to answer him.
The painting had an effect on him. He was reminded what had happened when Gacy was caught and the media told his story to the world. I couldn't help but think he was much younger back then in his mid 20s. He was the same age of some of Gacys' victims. The painting brought back some bad memories for him.
Most people pass by without a second look. There is some information and a picture of Gacy dressed like a clown, but people don't take the time to read and therefore, do not even know the painting is by a murderer.
Is it art? I am going to say yes. It evokes emotion good and bad. Children seem to like it, because of the subject matter. Adults are reminded of the evil man behind the painting. It does make you think about Gacy, it was a part of him like all artists' work is. Gacy knew the painting would outlive him.
Kudos to Gacy. He is remembered years after he was executed. The goal of every artist...
Ryan Campbell
Art of Framing
Posted by: Ryan Campbell | octobre 12, 2006 10:02 AM
When I spoke of the inevitable truth, I meant that the actual crucifixion of Jesus, was inevitably the Greatest Show on Earth - not Campbell's piece in itself.
That's what I thought you meant. I saw the piece as a comment on the absurd circus that organized religion has shown itself to be through the centuries.
Speaking of which, Bishop Beeter has posted some video clips of the Coulrophobia opening on his MySpace page: www.myspace.com/bishopbeeter
Enjoy!
-- Mr. Screens
Posted by: Mr Screens | octobre 12, 2006 05:45 PM
Pirate Pat, I chose the angle of writing about Ryan Campbell's and John Wayne Gacy's work because I found it interesting that there were two artworks that couldn't be more diametrically opposed together in one place, but they could also be considered equally blasphemous, offensive, outrageous, funny, clownish whatever... I chose to write about these two pieces not out of ignorance of the other works in the show - I had already said in the review that there were some good works in the show but no real surprises (unlike Gacy and Campbell). I felt more attention should be given to these works because they were historically parlant and in the case of Gacy, tragic.
Leeanne, Gacy wasn't a scary ass clown, he was a scary ass serial killer. Again, what are we trying to remember about Gacy and what are we selectively forgetting because it suits or taste?
Posted by: Kevin Freitas | octobre 12, 2006 06:36 PM
I think the Gacy painting was certainly the most appropriate piece to have in a show with such a title. The Jesus Clown was cool. Make the image 3 ft. tall and mount it on top of your car, now that would get some reactions. Thanks for mentioning my pieces, I appreciate the attention. Thanks to Kelly for revitalizing my purpose in being a fine artist and re-launching my art career. Watch for my new art car creation on Leno! ha ha ha!
Posted by: Extremo the Clown | octobre 15, 2006 10:39 PM
i have some john gacy clown paintings and pictures of him and letters from him but how do i find out how i can sell tell paintings one is patches clown one is pogo the clown or how do i find out what they are worth
Posted by: donna | octobre 22, 2006 11:13 AM
Hey Donna,
I am interested in your works...
Please email me at Kelly@darkvomit.com if you are serious on selling them.
Thanks for the response.
Posted by: Kelly | octobre 23, 2006 07:08 AM
I own a oil painting from John wayne Gacy.I want to see if someone may want to purchase it. It's entitled (My Christ), A oil yellow canvas with a black outlined Jesus Christ face With the crown of thorns.It has his signature & date on the back of the painting.If interested please return E-mail.Thank you.
Posted by: Joe G | octobre 26, 2006 09:58 AM
It sure would help if that person would leave their email address...
--and a "real" price for their Gacy painting.
blah.
Posted by: Kelly | octobre 27, 2006 09:05 AM
My mother studied Gacy while he was on death row at Menard, Illinois. He became a "friend," you could say. He painted a picture for me for my 13th birthday. I still have it. It is extremely personalized, with my name actually part of the painting. It has the seven dwarfs playing musical instruments and singing and dancing. He wrote a very long message on the back and signed it. He also sent a personal note with it, which I still have, along with hundreds of other letters. What is a painting like this worth? Just interested. I don't know that I would ever sell it.
As far as Gacy, the person, I knew him and kept in contact with him until his death. His father was an extreme homophobe who beat him at a young age. He later turned to drugs which brought out a completely other person in his already cracked psyche. In prison, he was a weathered, gentle man with a controlled temper and so interesting.
My mother used to deliver some of his paintings for him. At different times, we would have as many as 20-30 sitting in our house. I do believe that Gacy protrays his "picture perfect," happy childhood in these paintings, with a dark side just under the surface. They say hindsight is 20/20.
(Just as a side note, I do believe he was guilty of all of the crimes.)
Posted by: Karin | avril 4, 2007 07:12 AM
I HATE CLOWNS THEY ARE GROSSSSSSSSSS
Posted by: Katie | novembre 14, 2007 06:33 PM
This was tough page for me to view. I have always had a horrible fear of clowns. I must admit the art form is intriging. Fantastic background page!
~gina
Posted by: Gina McNally-Malanga | janvier 3, 2008 12:31 PM