At the end of an afternoon of Nordic skiing Tuesday, I sat down for dinner at the Hopkins Center with a friend. As with others who have dined there this term, I could not help but notice the somewhat unusual paintings hung throughout the main corridor of the Hop. Grotesquely mutilated cattle carcasses. A nude lovingly embracing a decomposing skeleton. Severed infant heads thrown into a pile. I thought of our beloved institution's decay into flippant irrelevancy, scouring the earth to enshrine the latest fad for the sake of riling the establishment.
And has any consideration been given to those who dine at the Courtyard Caf?
The Hop earns reproach for the exhibit, and if its directors have any courage, they will immediately move the paintings to a more appropriate location. "The paintings are intended to be thought-provoking," some might say. The only meaningful discussion the paintings will generate is a thorough review of the Hop's budget. Clearly, I refuse to believe that the Hop (and perhaps some students) does not enjoy at least some of the controversy that the paintings have spawned. Only a nave director would fail to anticipate heated discussion of the exhibit. Quite unfortunately, the majority of this discussion has focused not on the possibly valid message of the paintings but on how the art forcibly thrusts its ghastly images.
The fact that the paintings were created and displayed is intellectual freedom, and I fully uphold such expressions. Indeed, kudos is in order to the artist for the technical skill, despite having wasted it on rubbish. Artistic individuality and expression notwithstanding, a prominent public display along the Upper Jewett Corridor, the primary hall of the Hop -- adjacent to a dining hall -- is preposterous. Dartmouth should be ashamed that an area that represents our College to the world houses such abhorrent work. Why has our administration desecrated the talent and beauty so capably produced by our students by publicly glorifying this filth? Surely any student with a passion for art could produce a more appropriate and sightly exhibit. Perhaps the Hop will accept this challenge: Allow our own students' work of beauty be displayed prominently to the student body, faculty, administrators, and visitors.
The irony and tragedy of this entire episode lies in that those who wage a battle to keep this "art" at the Hop also fight to keep covered other displays throughout the College. Moses with a shepherd's crook? Offensive! Homoerotic necrophilia? Beautiful! Yes, displays of gory infanticide, blatant necrophilia and homoeroticism are idealized at an institution where beautifully crafted stained glass in the apse of Rollins Chapel is permanently covered for fear that it might offend a non-Judeo-Christian sensibility. Let us commend the Student Assembly for their courageous unanimous vote on restoring this historic artwork. Students are making their voice heard -- but will the administration heed their demand?
Where is the artistic freedom so aesthetically embraced by the architects of Rollins? Why have they fallen victims to the fundamentally skewed rationalization of the administration? A small group of students sadly have fallen into this trap as well.
Vassilia Binensztok '06 has encouraged the removal of the stained glass art in Rollins Chapel on the basis that "you will not find paintings of Jesus in airports, near national monuments, libraries or other public places that are not religiously affiliated." (The Dartmouth, Jan. 19). This is because we all know that art can be very controversial." Really? Binensztok's is an ignorant assessment at best, because nearly all the pre-20th century art displayed in quite public places like the Smithsonian Institution is very much religious in nature -- a rich tapestry of medieval Christian, Jewish and Islamic work. Perhaps Binensztok has not yet traipsed down the Baker Library reserves to find communist Jos Orozco's recently renovated mural -- virulently offensive to Catholics -- enveloping unsuspecting students like a menacing vice.
I do hope that the majority of Dartmouth students can use just a bit of common sense and reason in examining the role of art on campus. I appeal not to obscure theoretical notions of controversy and offensiveness in art, but simply to a sense of common decency that is present within us all.
This, and a bit of courage on the part of certain administrators, could lead to a reversal of roles that years of sullied, politically-correct academic thought has fostered.
So shall we continue occulting renowned historic art while exalting a nauseating work of vulgarity? Let's rest on our foundation of common decency and reverse this, and support the Student Assembly in their efforts. Perhaps then, we might all enjoy a peaceful meal at the Hop.
