The agony of choice

The argument over what should go on the vacant (or, to be more precise, not permanently occupied) fourth-plinth at Trafalgar Square continues. Horrifying as it is to believe, one of the following proposals will be commissioned to desecrate the square (albeit not permanently, thank Heavens!):

It was Antony Gormley who came up with the most fun proposal. He wants the plinth to be empty except for volunteers who will stand on it for an hour at a time, 24 hours a day. Over the year he estimates 8,760 people would take part.

He said Trafalgar Square was an "outdated, valedictory, monumental kind of military space and it should be a civilian space. How responsible we are on the plinth is up to us. People can get drunk up there if they want, it's entirely up to them. The rule is you can take up whatever you want, whatever you can carry."

The most overtly political statement comes from Jeremy Deller, who is proposing a burnt-out car that has been destroyed in an attack on civilians in Iraq - the idea being that from the Romans onwards the spoils of war have been presented to a curious public.

He said: "I've gone for something which is deliberately ugly and jarring."

The most bullish of the artists present was Bob & Roberta Smith (a pseudonym for Patrick Brill), behind what would be the most eye-catching piece. He is proposing a 100ft tall illuminated peace sign (Faites L'Art, pas La Guerre or Make Art, Not War) which would be powered by the sun and wind. "Mine is the best proposal, it's as simple as that. All the advice I've had is that it will work."

Anish Kapoor's Sky Plinth would have five large concave mirrors attached to the plinth facing upwards reflecting the clouds as they pass. Kapoor said: "For some time I've been preoccupied with the idea of bringing the sky down to the ground, turning the world upside down. The mirrors all catch the sky. It should be really beautiful."

Yinka Shonibare is proposing a piece called Nelson's Ship in a Bottle, which would be a scale replica of HMS Victory, in a bottle, and address issues of multiculturalism. "It's a celebration of London's immense ethnic wealth, giving expression to and honouring the many cultures and ethnicities that are still breathing precious wind into the sails of the UK."

Tracey Emin's proposal is titled Something for the Future, and consists of a sculpture of four meerkats "as a symbol of unity and safety". Emin was the only artist not present at the launch yesterday but her publicity material said she had noticed that "whenever Britain is in crisis or, as a nation, is experiencing sadness and loss (for example, after Princess Diana's funeral), the next programme on television is Meerkats United".

So, a nice mix of leftist propaganda, vacuous pretension, and utter lunacy, with a complete absence of anything requiring the slightest modicum of originality or artistic ability. In other words, just what one would expect from the world of the modern "arts".

You can see representations of what these "artworks" will look like at the Fourth Plinth website, here. Difficult as it may be to believe, these pieces actually look even worse than they sound. They'd be better off leaving the plinth vacant.

Mind you, a member of the public interviewed on London Tonight yesterday seemed to be on to something. Stick a pillory up there (there always used to be a pillory at Charing Cross), and put a politician in it. Or, indeed, Anthony Gormley, or any of the other talentless charlatans listed above.

Not dying for their art

A gallery has offended the church by exhibiting a statue of Jesus with an erection.

The graphic figure is on display at Gateshead's Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art.

The exhibit is a traditional form of Jesus which has been doctored by controversial Chinese artist Terence Koh.

Gone, Yet Still, features 74 plaster models ranging from Mickey Mouse to ET, with the 1ft high depiction of Christ with an erection a central figure in the artwork.

Outraged visitors and church leaders have criticised the artist and Baltic bosses for disrespecting the Christian faith.

Personally, I don't think it's worth kicking up a fuss about this kind of thing. "Artists" like Koh are essentially no different from small children who misbehave in the hope of getting attention. React to their provocation, and they'll only derive satisfaction, and a delicious sense of moral self-righteousness, from playing the martyr, from the belief that they have made a heroic stand for free speech against those wicked Christian fundamentalists. Ignore them, and there is a very slight chance that they'll grow up.

But one remark from John Monaghan, a visitor to the gallery, does make a good, albeit obvious, point:

If other religious characters were portrayed in this way, Mohammed for example, there would be riots.

Of course, there's very little chance that any art gallery would dare to feature any depiction of Mohammed whatsoever, and certainly not one like this. As the Turner Prize-winner Grayson Perry (whose works include the depiction of "a teddy bear being born from a penis as the Virgin Mary" - the mind boggles) said in November:

I’ve censored myself. The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.

And then last month in the Netherlands, a museum opted not to show a work of "art" portraying Mohammed and his son-in-law as homosexuals, for fear that "certain people in our society might perceive it as offensive". Of course, it's not actually the offence they worry about, it's the potential reaction of those who are offended. Christians respond mildly and proportionately, Muslims don't. As such, Christians can be attacked without fear, but one must act towards Muslims as though one were treading on eggshells.

But perhaps if Terence Koh (and the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art), or the "artist" behind last year's "Christ Killa" (in which the audience at a Los Angeles art gallery were invited to play a video game involving shooting legions of "homicidal Jesus Christs"), or Andres Serrano (the man responsible for the notorious "Piss Christ"), want to be really brave and really controversial, they could always try depicting Mohammed in the same way that they have depicted Jesus. Maybe then they'll really get to die for their art.

The Apogee of British Culture

Sir Edward Elgar is one of Britain's most popular composers - and certainly one of my favourites. Next Saturday it will be the 150th anniversary of his birth, and the Elgar Society has organised a series of concerts to celebrate this event. Obviously, this does not come cheap, so they asked for a grant of £174,000 from the Arts Council to help fund the event. Given that the Arts Council is supposed to promote English culture, one might have supposed that a celebration of the work of the man who was arguably England's greatest ever composer might have been the kind of thing they would wish to support.

But, as you've probably guessed by now, it was not. The Arts Council refused to provide one single penny towards this celebration of Elgar's work, as a result of which the proposed concerts have now had to be scaled back considerably. According to The Sunday Telegraph:

The decision to refuse the grant has reignited concern that Elgar's music is being blacklisted by the arts establishment because its inherent patriotism is regarded as a throwback to Britain's imperial past.

So, once again, we are expected, not to celebrate our heritage, but to be ashamed of it, and to suppress any mention of it. The very body entrusted with the promotion of our culture seeks to destroy our culture. The British Council - the body that is supposed to promote British culture abroad - has also refused to fund the Elgar celebration.

So, if the music of Elgar is not to the taste of the new arbiters of cultural value, what is?

In 2003, Arts Council England paid a lecturer in the East Midlands £12,000 to kick an empty curry carton down a street. In 2005, The Sunday Telegraph revealed that the organisation had provided £65,000 to a homosexual club which was promoting drug use on its website.

And in 2002, the Arts Council provided funding to Franko B, an exhibitionist who strips naked in public, paints his body white, and cuts his stomach open in the name of "art". This, apparently, is the apogee of British culture today.

Anyway, here is a video of the great man (and I don't mean Franko B) in action, conducting his most famous piece, back in 1931:

Liberals and the Arts

The nominees for the ridiculous charade that is the Turner Prize have been announced, and the favourite is Mark Wallinger, whose great contribution to the world of art has been the recreation of the vast anti-war demonstration/eyesore established in Parliament Square by the deranged far-leftist Brian Haw.

There is much that one might wish to say about modern "art". I certainly cannot see how such rubbish can be considered art, under any meaningful definition of the word.

However, Wallinger's pathetic piece is in this respect no more awful than most other Turner nominees, so I would have avoided commenting on it, but for one thing: am I the only one who finds incredibly annoying the manner in which leftists in the art world will stop at nothing to promote their views? One cannot go to the theatre nowadays without being subjected to some liberal, anti-war/anti-capitalist/anti-Christian rant, masquerading as "challenging, thought-provoking theatre". Now, it seems, you cannot set foot in an art gallery without being confronted with similar leftist rubbish. Another good reason for withdrawing all public funding from the arts, I think.

(Cross-posted at ATW)