Henry Rousseau who was in the French Army and worked as a toll collector before he painted

And Paul Gauguin who was a Stock broker before he painted Tahitian women

and similarly famous people that are “secretly” artists, creating art on the side while doing what they are famous for, which is not all that strange because creativity in a person usually overlaps into different disciplines. Among famous actors such as the late Peter Faulk, and James Franco who [were, and] are painters and Leonard Nimoy who is a photographer, some famous musicians are also artists like:

Bob Dylan – Train Tracks – Drawn Blank Series – 2006

Paul Stanley – Self Portrait – 2006

So what exactly makes one an artist? Is it years and years of formal training and practice? Can anyone be an artist? My answer to that question is Yes, anyone can be an artist.  But even saying that is being very general, If Glenn Beck is an artist, what the hell kind of art is Obama in Pee Pee and how is it classified? Well, if you delve deeper into the world of art you will find it has two main facets:
Aesthetic Arts and Practice Arts. Aesthetic arts is the branch of art in which art is created for the sake of beauty, art made under this branch is surface deep and will not necessarily have a message beyond itself. Practice arts, on the other hand, will more likely express a concept or idea which is intended to inform the viewer or challenge the viewer to think and perhaps question an existing ideology. Obama in Pee Pee falls under Practice Arts as it was created to elicit a reaction from the viewer and since it is the manifestation of a concept that Beck had, it can be labeled as Conceptual Art. I was intrigued by the offensive nature of the piece, not because I agree with it but because Beck was copying the work from an artist in the 1980’s… Andres Serrano

Sister Wendy remarked that she did not see it as blasphemous but on the contrary, saw it as what we as a society had done to Christ in practice and that it was a reminder of the importance to reverence the death of Christ. In the case of Obama in Pee Pee, it seems to be a reactionary work of art, a reaction in particular to a painting by New York artist Michael D’Antuono “The Truth” which in it’s own right is a painting that according to him, is a commentary on how varying political views skew how a single message is interpreted.

New York Photographer Robert Mapplethorpe is arguably one of the most controversial artist of our modern time. In the early 90’s he unwittingly caused national uproar over his travelling photography exhibit “The Perfect Moment” which features among flower still lifes, overtly sexually charged homoerotic and sadomasochistic photographs as well as nude photographs of children. The controversy centered around issues of public funding for the arts, who decides what art is obscene and what are the parameters of censorship.       

Robert Mapplethorpe – Self Portrait – 1980

One of the most important questions that was brought up during all this was: if art can be considered a form of free speech, is it a violation of the first amendmant to take away federal money that was already given for funding based on obscenity issues? In other words, no matter how much a person may dislike another’s opinion of something, the right to have that opinion is protected under the first amendment. Now, if an artist manifests his or her opinion into a piece of art, and others diagree with it or hate it, the artist still has a right to show it but if the art is seen as obscene to a certain percentage of viewers, do they have the right to force censorship on that art? Throughout history, artists have continually pushed the envelope of what is acceptable in a society and as an artist, I feel that this is one of the most important issues in the art world.  Not because it creates controversy but because it is something that is uniquely American, our constitution states that a citizen’s opinion in the form of speech and action is protected under the appropriate conditions, this means an american flag can be burned as a statement about or commentary on society, such as the opening sequence to Spike lee’s 1992 film  “Malcom X” which features the intercutting of the Rodney King beating video with that of an American flag burning synched to a Malcom X speech  

Similarly, The Constitution allows for and protects a Crucifix being drowned in human urine as a commentary on the sate of religion in modern times and surely it protects an effigy of the president of the US drowned in a jar of Human urine as a commentary on the right for controversial art to exist. 

The debate over who decides what is and is not obscene will go on forever but the important thing is that we have that right to speak our minds and manifest those opinions freely without the fear or retaliation or punishment from the government, private institutions, celebrities or private citizens. With beck’s first attempt at controversial art, he isalready following in the shadows of giants but is it possible that he may some day eventually be on par with Serrano or Mapplethorpe in terms of creating art that challenges the status quo? Being the eternal optimist, what I can say is only time can tell. But I will refer to something that Sister Wendy Beckett said in the video posted above. 

Much of the art that is out there is “Comforting” art. Meaning the viewer can look at it and have an immediate reaction to it. this immediate reaction is comforting because by the very fact of having a reaction for or against the art piece reinforces that idea that the viewer’s opinion is a correct one. By contrast, she states: “Real art makes demands”. 

of course, different people will have different opinions as to what is Comforting and real art. If Glenn Beck is to start creating art beyond this impulsive first attempt, I for one welcome him with open arms into the world of art but f he is just creating “Obama in Pee Pee” as a markteing stunt, then it might be better suited for Regretsy.

Thanks for reading