The artist I want to talk about however, is David Cordero and another artist, “Dread” Scott Tyler whose work some 18 years earlier around this time in April in the same city, Chicago and in the same school, the School of the Art Institute of Chicago raised hackles and questioned First Amendment rights of free speech. As for Cavallaro, there’s a myriad of articles you can Google by entering chocolate jesus, here is one of several I randomly picked to learn more about his cast 6ft. anatomically correct Jesus i.e. no loin cloth - made out of chocolate. While I personally feel there is no smoke helas no fire, in the work nor its content nor the context it would have been exhibited – quite clever, it’s worth checking out the interview between Anderson Cooper, Donahue and Cavallaro. Donahue in and of himself is quite a performance piece. Loser artist is one of many euphuisms Donahue used to characterize Cavallaro that is still ringing in my ears. Other works by Cavallaro can be seen on his website here www.cosimocavallaro.com

(image:AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

David Cordero is a 24 year old senior at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and has recently exhibited a sculpture of a Barack Obama look alike for his thesis show, equipped with a blue neon halo and draped in Jesus like robes, Barack is constructed out of papier mâché complete with a salutary Papal wave. Entitled Blessing the work went on view this past Saturday in the school’s gallery. Cordero is quoted as saying, “All of this is a response to what I've been witnessing and hearing, this idea that Barack is sort of a potential savior that might come and absolve the country of all its sins. In a lot of ways it's about caution in assigning all these inflated expectations on one individual, and expecting them to change something that many hands have shaped.” A lot of the same “inflated expectations” we put on art these days I would say and since we don’t really know how to look at and judge a work of art or at least lost the courage and the sensibility to do so, we rely on newsmakers in the media such as CNN to bolster our confidence and approve our choices by pointing out what is good or bad, but in reality pointing out what is hot – i.e. assigning a dollar amount and artificial value to something that would otherwise go unnoticed. Both Cavallaro and Cordero were propositioned to sell their works and/or expose them in other venues according to the article. I’m certainly not knocking Cordero’s sculpture, I like it as much as Cavallaro’s for the very same reasons – it is smart and very contemporary as in the very political and actual. It is refreshing, which is in itself is a good thing. Shocking? hardly. Controversial? not likely. We do know from experience that art can scare people even intimidate them, through ignorance or naiveté or pure emotion and is probably not good for potential presidential candidates – O ye, of little faith, Jen Pskai Obama’s spokeswoman had this to say, “While we respect First Amendment rights and don't think the artist was trying to be offensive, Senator Obama, as a rule, isn't a fan of art that offends religious sensibilities.” Isn’t that sweet, wasn’t trying to be offensive? I guess the artist didn’t do his job well enough. I wonder what sort of art Obama is a fan of? You can learn more about Cordero’s sculpture here.

Bill Donahue as a chocolate Jesus - artist rendering

“Dread” Scott Tyler who now goes by Dread Scott – a poignant reference to a well publicized 19th century federal court case involving a slave by the name of Dred Scott “who sued unsuccessfully for his freedom in the famous Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1856,” (source and further info here and here) made his case and a name for himself by using an American flag in a controversial manner during an art exhibit at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago in 1989. It is interesting to note that just a year earlier to Scott’s intervention, another student by the name of David Nelson painted a portrait of the late Mayor Harold Washington in woman’s lingerie. Does the School of the Art Institute of Chicago have a penchant for controversial works of art? It would seem so.

Dread Scott from his artist statement on his website says, “I make revolutionary art to propel history forward. This is a world where a tiny handful controls the great wealth and knowledge humanity as a whole has created. It is a world of profound polarization, exploitation and suffering and billions are condemned to work with their hands and not their heads. It does not have to be this way and my art is part of forging a radically different world. The work illuminates the misery that this society creates for so many people and it addresses what it takes—the heart, resilience and ideals—to withstand and challenge this.” Entitled, What is the Proper Way to Display a U.S. Flag? Dread Scott took his first steps toward forging that radically different world. I’m not sure if Dread Scott has succeeded in his ambitions and has brought that change about through his art – most Americans have a difficult time with the X-treme sport of contemporary art and its “radical” doctrine and practices, I do believe though that the world in general and America in particular, have done a pretty good job themselves of bringing about that change for all the wrong reasons that has nothing to do with art and never will. After having spent a good majority of those past 18 years since Scott’s installation living in Europe (I had just arrived in Chicago when Nelson then Scott had exhibited their pieces) I have come home to an America that I no longer recognize or understand. What I do understand is Scott’s need to address the growing misery in society, to address it and challenge it via everyday actions that reflect the individual beliefs in all of us. Meaning a little bit more compassion, a helping hand to those in need, coherent and practicable education for kids instead of statistics, health care, a little bit more ecologically friendly manners, electing smarter politicians etc. etc. – which doesn’t necessarily reflect my passion for the arts but enables me to support and promote those artists who have a broader cultural global understanding of life, politics and their art. It’s more about being pro-active than inactive and self-serving. Pro-active to the point where I would consider stepping on an American flag purposely laid down in front of me so I may leave my comments in a book to explain how I thought a US flag should be displayed? I’m not so sure, probably not.

(image: AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)

I believe I would not for the simple reason that Scott should not be questioning those who already believe in the so called “American Way of Life” – and its American citizens, not for any particular patriotic feelings obliged or otherwise they might have, and not for any particular National pride and honor they might hold dear, nor their belief in God and Country, but because the “fight” is not with those who already believe, the faithless have already been converted so to speak, Americans already believe in the system and are not questioning their loyalty to their country nor the symbolism of the flag. THAT they question what that flag represents to other nations, that they question how their government represents them here and abroad, and for all the other reasons I mentioned earlier above are in my mind, the real questions Scott should have been asking as well as to our outer Atlantic neighbors. The real fight is not being fought here in this “golden land of opportunity” but is being fought on a daily basis in the streets of Baghdad, Kabul and in the dusty plains of Darfur not by its soldiers but buy its people in order to survive. The flag is as every bit a symbol as the art on the wall, everyone understands their meaning and usage, where it counts is how both the flag and the art are being used to foster change. Somehow seeing the portrayal of an American flag burning by South Korean students in the case of Scott’s work, in the sanctity of an art institute while standing on the flag, doesn’t quite have the same effect, not quite the same expressive need nor fervent anger as the actual flag burner some thousands of miles away. Notwithstanding the rather lackluster appeal of its aesthetic form and display.

Steve Marlin from the National Review, a biweekly magazine that reports on national, international and cultural affairs from a conservative point of view, offered an interesting perspective on Scott’s installation, one month after the controversy died down because he felt “although the media reported some of the ensuing furor, they did not provide a full description of Mr. “Dread” Scott Tyler's exhibit.” Marlin’s complete article can be found here. For further insight into Dred Scott’s work and to view other works by him, you can visit his website here.

A lot has been written on Dread Scott, once again Google comes to the rescue, and hopefully I am not naïve enough to think I’ve lifted yet another corner of this epic drama shedding light and titilating perspectives upon it, but I am intrigued by the interest and debate that Dread Scott’s work provoked at the time – coiencedently similar debates were being carried on in other parts of the country as the NEA was embroiled in a funding survival fight for its life amisdt Serrano’s Piss Christ and Mapplethorpe’s exhibition at the Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center – to wonder where the brouhaha wasn’t for similar “offensive” pieces by Cavallaro and Cordero. Donahue is not exactly what you would call the voice of the American people, nor would you except a presidential candidate to swat away so easily like some annoying gnat, a charming and inoffensive albeit protected under the 1st Ammendment work of art. What I find disconcerting is the facility in which we can dismiss a work of art or champion it via the media as judge and jury and the inability of the artwork to rest in the everyday psyche of the people. Has art lost the power and prestige it once had in the strength of its convictions and persuasive language visual or otherwise? Has it become weak and ineffective? Purely decorative and nombrilistic? Can art still make a difference and to who? These are some of the questions I have or to put it another way, has art lost its faith?

Kevin Freitas