Questions from the Gallery

While at the gallery opening viewing all the pieces of art, which the artists had gone to great lengths to create, I had a nagging thought come to mind as I approached certain pieces by Robert Heineken.  Some of his work on display seemed quite distasteful to me, in that he had a few pieces involving images that were pornographic.  I will not pretend to have any speculation as to his motivation in creating "art" with these images, but I believe that it was distasteful.  However, not wanting to shut out any provoked thoughts from these pieces, I considered possible conclusions I could draw from it.  Perhaps Heineken was exposing a problem in society through art, in no implied distaste whatsoever.  Perhaps he was drawing attention to the human form.  While either of those could be true, my conclusion rested on my first reaction.  All I see from my lens of perspective are layered images of pornography, some including text.  I realize that nudity in art is a very common thing, and that many artists admire the human form in their work.  Many classic sculptures and many classic paintings feature humanity in the buff.  However, the images Heineken used crossed the line into obscene territory.  Other viewers may argue that I'm being too conservative or that I am too close-minded to see the artistic value in such imagery.  I believe that certain things are sacred, and the images Robert Heineken chose to use defile something sacred.  I respected and appreciated many of his other works, especially "Security Officer" and "Lessons in Posing Subjects/Fantasy Narrative #1," and he certainly deserves credit for creating what is known as Residual Reality.  All art is subject to criticism, for criticism helps shape what we call "art."