More U-T San Diego
Nonsense. The editorial board reminds me of football coaches in high schools
that teach courses like American History or English 101, though they’ve never
taken a college course in either subject. Here’s the article/editorial:
The bane of
Encinitas officialdom, the Surfing Madonna mosaic, is now at peace in a
commercial courtyard next to a coffeehouse and a surf shop.
This
piece of guerrilla art was too hot for City Hall and too religious for state
bureaucrats to find and keep a home on public property.
But
artist Mark Patterson’s work captured the public’s fancy. Its new home invites
sipping coffee and pondering the message of the brightly colored glass squares.
Does the gold leaf around Madonna’s head suggest that surfing is a religious
experience? Or do the words “Save The Ocean” implore what should be our next
crusade?
Patterson,
in a roundabout way, taught us that public art need not be created under public
rules or sponsorship. The final resolution taught us that public art need not
be on public property.
Encinitas
Mayor Jerome Stocks is tired of the whole affair. Still, even he concedes it is
now “an iconic piece of Encinitas lore, as much a piece of civic pride as the
boathouses, La Paloma Theatre, the Encinitas Street Sign or Self-Realization
Fellowship Temple.”
We
could use more of this private variation of public art, with the marketplace
helping decide what is worthwhile.
This piece is mostly talking-head gargle, the kind of thing
that the media does to keep milking some meaningless topic, like the Tom Cruise-Katie
Holmes melodrama. The issue with Surfing
Madonna is mostly about being bad art than being religiously controversial.
Art can be controversial but first it must be art. Here’s my take on the monstrosity.
The Surfing Madonna
and the Miraculous Birth of an Artist
I hate being the spoilsport (not really) but I have a lot of
issues with the Surfing Madonna. The
first issue is the idea that the artist can display his work in a public space
just because he wants to, meaning that he shares the philosophy of in your face
graffiti artists. Legitimate (because they obey the law) artist apply and
qualify to have their work publically displayed. I believe the public has a
right to agree on what is going to be displayed on the walls of their living
environment.
Ignorance is no
Excuse for Stupidity
The “artist” Mark Patterson said he chose the original spot to
display the mosaic because he thought
nobody would care about it. Maybe he should have inquired to determine whether or
not anybody cared about what kind of art should be placed in that spot or any
other public area.
The Art of Non-Art
The Surfing Madonna is referred to as a work of art. In the
broadest sense of the word I suppose we must consider it a work of art—an
object produced for human entertainment. I do not consider it a work of beauty nor
a work appealing for its aesthetic values:
It falls into the category of graffiti art, but to my mind
hardly comes close to the best graffiti art, such as:
The Surfing Madonna
lacks the polish, sophistication and edginess the best graffiti art.
SDU-T writers have
tried to give Patterson some credibility by pointing out that he attended a
prestigious art school in Italy that offers expert training in mosaics. Oh
please, he was there a month! AND, then after spending thousand dollars the
piece has become UNINTENTIONALLY famous.
Are reporters that fucking gullible today? The guy did it to
attract attention. That he has attracted as much attention as he has is due to
the media hype and what’s in the image. If I did a mosaic Mohammed in drag I’d
get a lot of attention too.
Desecration as
Postmodern Playfulness
I suppose Patterson considers his “Suffering Madonna” as
playful, postmodern expression. But a serious Catholic would consider it a
desecration of the Virgin Mary. But Patterson knows that exactly what you do if
you want to attract attention. It’s been a strategy of artists since the beginning
of the 20th century. If you want people to pay attention, be
offensive. Of course the master of insulting (insluting, is perhaps a better word) the Madonna is the pop artist
Madonna.
Here’s the Madonna Paterson slanders:
It Ain’t about Religion...
One bystander
said, "I think it is an
iconic image for 'Save the Ocean' and I think it bypasses all religion and everything."
Obviously Ms. Clueless hasn’t taken a class in logic. What in the fuck does a
Madonna on a surfboard have to do with saving the ocean? Nothing! But if the
artist says it’s so then it must be so. Furthermore, how in the fuck does an
image of Our Lady of Guadalupe bypass religion? The Virgin Mary isn’t a cartoon
character like Minnie Mouse. The image of her on a surfboard doesn’t bypass
religion. It mock it, degrades it. Makes it fucking meaningless, but everything
has become meaningless in America. And what in the fuck does “bypasses
everything” mean? It doesn’t mean anything because it’s just word without
thought.
The Modest Hypocrite
Patterson said, “I’m
not a public figure, I don’t feel like a public figure and suddenly becoming
one is a little spooky.” Bullshit! He did what he did to attract attention.
He’s certainly not like the artists of the Middle Ages who worked anonymously
for the glory of God.
Lawyer Spin
From Patterson’s lawyer: “Gerschler [the lawyer] refutes
both of those claims. He said the Madonna is a cultural icon that is part of
our society. He also said classifying a stained-glass mosaic as ‘graffiti’ is
inappropriate given Patterson’s craftsmanship.”
Claim one: The
surfing Madonna is not a religious symbol but a cultural icon. I don’t see how
“cultural icon” excludes religious icon. Furthermore Our Lady of Guadalupe,
who’s on the surfboard, is not an icon of American society. It’s an (religious)
icon of Mexican culture. Patterson said he’s not a Catholic—so he’s just
fucking with the Catholics’ religion. You would think
priests would morally condemn the insult to the mother of God. But given the
Church has been a sanctuary for pedophiles, it has lost its moral authority. Personally I’m amazed that Mexicans
aren’t outraged, but I assume they consider it’s just another iconic anchor to
American society so they’ll let it pass.
Patterson must have known that the Our Lady of Guadalupe
would make gringo politicians nervous about taking down the work. Heaven forbid
that they offend the Hispanic Nation. I mean it took twenty years before the
gringo politicians did anything in Azusa, California, to stop the Latino
gangbangers from doing the ethnic cleansing thing to Black Americans. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/azusa-13-bust-latino-gang_n_872623.html
)
Why not Mohammed riding a surfboard? We all know the answer
to that question. ;-)
Claim two: The
mosaic is not just graffiti but a work art given Patterson’s craftsmanship,
like he’s another Michelangelo. The lawyer needs a seeing-eye dog. Give me a
break. Here’s what a beautiful mosaic looks like:
But lawyers will say all kinds of outrageous things to
defend their clients. We know that from the O.J. Simpson and the Caylee Anthony trials.
However, why did Mr. Modest feel the need to get a lawyer?
Why didn’t he just keep his mouth shut or step forward and say tear it down if
you want? We all know why: he playing the $fame game$.
Saint Patterson’s
Inspiration
He said his inspiration was to save the ocean. Give me a
fucking break. How in fuck is picture of a surfing Madonna supposed to save the
ocean? No, the purpose of the stated inspiration was to give the appearance of
good intention. It’s a cover, in other words. The people who will save the
oceans are not some mosaic doodler but scientists and surfers. What about
politicians? They’re only interested in saving their jobs, not saving the country much less the oceans. Now if people
who visit the mosaic are healed from cancer and have missing limb grow back,
then maybe it will help save the ocean.
Poor Patterson Needs
a Job or maybe a Talk-Show Gig
At the time Patterson was unemployed.
An unemployed guy who doesn’t want to go back to his
well-paying, humdrum job. That wouldn’t be an incentive to pull a publicity
stunt with a mediocre work of art that get’s a lot of attention because it desecrates
a sacred (to treat with irreverence) icon and is put on public property, would
it? :-)))
This is what Patterson has desecrated:
That’s a real work of art!
A Random Guy with a
Vision
“‘I’m just a random guy that happens to be an artist,’
Patterson said, ‘that had a vision and hoped it would be a blessing to the
community.’”
Jesus complex! Wasn’t Jesus a random guy carpenter who had a
vision that he believed would be a blessing to the community? First of all, it
hasn’t been a blessing to the community. At most it has provided for a little
diversion and entertainment—but neither are to be confused with what is a
blessing. I’m okay with the entertainment aspect of Patterson pseudo-blessing.
But he and his SCARY LAWYER ( 8- () ) think it’s more than entertainment. It
something profound in the way the Dead Sea Scrolls are profound, not like the
appearance of Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich. Why is it profound and
capable of being a blessing to the community? Because it’s the mother of Jesus on
the surfboard, not Lady Gaga? This is some serious shit. Will the oceans be
healed if a tear from the eye of the Surfing Madonna is carried to the sea and
released?
Was this vision like Saint Paul’s or Saint Teresa’s visions
of Jesus? Or was it a postmodern vision that can occur if you light a few
candles and incense and smoke a little Buddha weed? I’m sorry, I don’t buy it.
I think he is a random guy who pulled a publicity stunt that would make an
undeserved name for himself as an artist—underserved because I don’t find the Surfing Madonna to be a remarkable work
of art. Its power of attraction comes from its combining the conflicting images
of the holy Madonna riding upon a object of play. He could have just as well
put her on a skateboard or motorcycle. The other gimmick was to illegally place
this postmodern image, which many people would find offensive, on a public
space. That’s all it is—a quasi-artistic gimmick.
What should have been done with it? It should have been torn
down because it was put up illegally—at the artist’s expense. It can be
accepted as an artistic stunt, like most graffiti, that can be allowed to exist
temporarily, but that’s all. Otherwise, I might put up a mosaic showing the
Virgin Mary after having a sex change operation.
What’s most interesting about this story is the paralysis of
the local government. It reminds me of the “problem” with the seals in La
Jolla. If politicians can’t stand up to a mosaic graffitist, then there’s no
chance they’ll stand up against the army of illegal immigrants that have
invaded the country (that hard to do for local officials when the Feds are
welcoming them with open arms). It’s weird how overseas, like Afghanistan and
Iraq, the U.S. Government simply crushes any opposition. But over there
politics, public opinion, morality or even the law can be ignored.
Just more American idiocy here and over there.
Patterson on the
Cross!
Patterson says, "The people who have expressed love for
that mosaic – it's just unbelievably touching to me. It makes me cry, frankly.
You know I get choked up thinking about it because it's just so
overwhelming," he said. Forgive them they for they know not what they do
not Patterson nor editorialists. Patterson, however, knew exactly what he was
doing: pulling a big stunt that everyone fell for and gave him a lot of underserved
recognition.
Some info was taken from:
