 |
| Thugs in Suits |
That’s
a famous line by the playwright George S. Kaufman. He was talking about
theatergoers’ notorious dislike of satire. But he could just as well have been
talking about the art world; the only difference is that ‘satire’ (the kind of
work I do) never gets a shot at closing on Saturday night; it never opens at
all. On a recent trip to the art
galleries in New York City, I didn’t see a single piece that could be considered
“satirical.” One of the reasons for this is that satire is not decorative
wallpaper like most abstract art and it’s not safe, pseudo radical protest
stuff with slogans all over it, and, worst of all - it doesn’t sell. It
requires the artist to be a perpetual “outsider,” not a marketable commodity.
 |
| Local Politics |
So,
having properly “vented,” what’s the point of this blog? I’m just saying that
satire pokes fun at the establishment and the “establishment” is what pays the
bills. The last great satirists were “angry young men” in post World War I
Germany where the pillars of society: the church, the government and the
financial system had collapsed and pretty pictures were pointless. When Hitler
took power, he declared war on modern art in general, and satire in particular.
It’s interesting to note that there’s a nascent satire movement in Russia. Last
August, officials closed down the “provocative” Museum of Authority in St.
Petersburg after confiscating four satirical paintings, including a portrait of
Putin in a woman’s nightgown.
When
I started to paint full time, I had no idea of what I wanted to do. I knew I
wasn’t an abstractionist (I like content too much), and I hate pretty
landscapes, so I fell into social commentary. As a newcomer to Stamford - a
small, conservative New England city, I found a lot to work with: corrupt
politicians, narrow-minded clubwomen, self-satisfied business leaders. An
outsider always sees things from a different, more critical perspective.
Satire, to my way of thinking, is one of the best weapons a social critic has.
Politicians, for example, hate being laughed at more than anything (except
maybe being indicted for fraud). Rather than call someone corrupt, venal or
stupid (even if they are), I can always
poke fun at them to make my point and, hopefully, there won’t be any reprisals.
“Just kidding,” I can always say.
 |
| A "virtual" exhibit of Kahn's satirical paintings created by Robert Callahan |
Over
the years, I have completed several series of satirical paintings and drawings,
including one I never show in public. The first was “Local Clubwomen,” based on
those silly, staged group photos you see in the newspaper “Society Pages.” Then
there was a series of imaginary Mayors, “Thirty Years of Good Government: a
Portfolio Suitable for Framing” that poked fun at local politics. After that came a larger-than-life cast of
cardboard “Thugs in Suits” (developers?) and my “Real-Live Women” paper dolls.
My “Seven Deadly Sins ” are ongoing, (as in real life) but I also have an
x-rated (never to be shown outside my studio) series: “Men’s’ Locker Room,” 24”
high cut-outs of “true-to-life” men with removable towels over their middles.
Not a pretty sight.
There
are practically no satirists around today, at least not in the art world. First
of all, everyone is terrified of being politically incorrect; I recently got
one of my paper dolls pulled from an exhibit because someone thought she looked
“Hispanic.” This means you can only satirize rich white men and women and since
they are the likely buyers of art, don't expect to sell a lot.
I’d like to revisit this topic in the near
future, so let me know your thoughts. Perhaps by analyzing the great satirists
from the past, from Hieronymus Bosch to George Grosz, I can get more insight
into the nature of satire, including who they made fun of and why. Anyhow, it’s
a pretty meaty subject and I have barely touched the surface.