Controversial Art
There is no question that from the 1900s some artists have set out to shock the public, or to taunt hallowed institutions.
This was so commonplace by 1997 that the Saatchi brothers saw it as yet another investment opportunity and launched their exhibition Sensation on the world. One might want to question just how truly "radical, provocative and exciting" a piece can be when it is part of an exhibition which advertises it as such. There were also rumours that the Saatchis had offered to buy anything some of the YBA group produced which, if true, is hardly likely to produce cutting-edge stuff.
But more generally, if art re-presents the world to the viewer it will inevitably cause some controversy from time to time. Given also that artists have often challenged dominant ideas about what constitutes art, someone somewhere is going to find a particular piece unacceptable. And again, especially with improved methods of reproducing art, some artists have used their work to challenge the social or political status quo.
So hold tight; let's have a look at some.
Fountain
Marcel Duchamp
1917
Probably the first 'ready-made' artwork (plenty of others have followed) Fountain was entered for an exhibition in New York. It was accepted, but not exhibited since it was judged to be vulgar and plagiarism (it had been bought rather than created). And it certainly is just what it seems to be: a porcelain urinal bought from a sanitary supplies outlet. Countless reviews and opinion pieces were written about it. Reproductions were commissioned, which the artist provided.
It seems to me that Duchamp was engaging with the But is it art? / And who says so? debate. It's worth noting that the status of this piece has continued to rise ever since 1917: the most recent (physical) assault on it was in 2006.
My Bed
Tracey Emin
1999
Tracey Emin created this installation piece after a period of severe depression during which she never left her bed for four days. The Tate Gallery displayed My Bed when Emin was nominated for the Turner Prize. Reactions ranged from disgust (the installation shows clear evidence of bodily fluids) to mockery (Private Eye published an article My Turd).
When challenged that anyone could exhibit their bed and call it art, Emin responded: "Well they didn't, did they?". She makes an interesting point. Rather like Douglas Adams' catflap argument ("It's only obvious once it's been invented") Emin had done something new. And for those who knew the backstory, it carried meaning and signals.
Equivalent VIII
Carl Andre
1966
This is the alleged 'pile of bricks' detested by British tabloids after the Tate Gallery paid $6000 for it in 1974. Their ire was only inflamed when it was learned that these were not even the original firebricks, and that they had simply come with a set of instructions for their assembly. It was the last in a series of eight, each comprising 120 bricks though in different arrangements.
On their website, the Tate Gallery claim "[Andre's] sculptures are always placed on the floor rather than on plinths. Not simply objects to look at, they become part of the environment, altering the viewer’s relationship to the surrounding space". What do we think?
La Nona Ora (The Ninth Hour)
Maurizio Cattelan
1999
This piece was originally displayed beneath a shattered skylight, surrounded by broken glass. Lest there should be any doubt, the figure is a realistic effigy of Pope John Paul II. The rock represents a meteorite.
As others have pointed out, this artwork invites narratives.
Is it an ironic joke about the unlikeliness, and the specific-ness, of a meteorite striking the Pope? Could it be anything other than an act of God? And if so, why?
Or is it a statement about the various controversies which were beginning to emerge about the Roman Catholic Church?
It caused considerable comment and condemnation, not least when displayed in Poland, the home nation of Pope John Paul II. The artist's response was that it was simply a joke which was being taken too seriously.
Hylas and the Nymphs
John Waterhouse
1896
And finally, how can a painting become controversial and cause a national furore when it has sat peacefully in public view for the best part of 100 years?
In 2018 much of western media was aware of the #MeToo campaign. In the light of this, Manchester City Art Gallery decided to remove this painting from their walls over concerns about the objectification and exploitation of women. The response was immediate, involving petitions protests and letter-writing campaigns to national newspapers. The Gallery created a comment-board where the painting had hung, inviting the public to express their views about the removal. After a week the painting was returned to its former place.
What does this tell us?
Controversy is always in the eye of the beholder and can be contingent on many (passing) factors. Just because someone (even the artist on occasions) claims a piece is contentious, doesn't make it so for everyone.