SHOCK

I was interested in a point that was brought up in class today about shock. One thing that has become clear from punk and hardcore, is it's overt love affair with all that is shocking. Torn clothing, dyed hair, tattoos, piercings, and then of course the loud sound and violent behavior are all seemingly intent on throwing order into disarray. What I'm a little more skeptical of, is that this shock culture is born out of adolescents. This past week the New York Times ran an article about "The Rite of Spring" a now celebrated ballet, that at it's time was considered absurd, and even shocking. I would like to use this article to make the case that punk isn't shocking because adolescents did it, it's shocking because it's art.

Lets consider the seminole salon des refuses of 1863. It was here that Manet first unveiled his painting "Le Dejeuner Sur L'Herbe", and despite it's current recognition as one of the most important works of art in the world, the piece was received as an offensive mockery of art, truly shocking. I should also point out that manet was 31 years old at the time of the Salon, hardly a brooding adolescent.  More recently, as the NYT article points out, artists from Karen Finley to Thomas Hirschhorn have used the power of shock to call attention to the atrocities of both war and sexism. Certainly, Punk was shocking, and to much of this country it still is. I just don't believe the shock is born simply from youth, but rather from newness or calculated artistic choices.

Here's the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/arts/shock-me-if-you-can.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1348164178-z0zvi3/9juhgc2M3t+776g