Difficulty, Part 1: Deceptive Forms of Simplicity December 19th, 2008 by Jennifer Doyle http://www.art21.org/texts/the c!lt!re wars re"!x/essay "iffic!

lty part 1 "ecepti#e forms of simplicity 0$/0%/2012 &hat if, instea" of tal'ing abo!t what ma'es an artwor' contro#ersial, we foc!se" on what ma'es an artwor' "iffic!lt( Diffic!lty has long f!nctione" as a 'eywor" in poetics an" m!sic criticism. )enerally, when a literary critic i"entifies a poem as *"iffic!lt+ she ma'es no #al!e ,!"gment- the wor" is !se" to "escribe the poem.s accessibility /not only in terms of comprehension, b!t in terms of pleas!re as well0. 1 poem can be har" to rea"2 acti#ely so2an" still be #ery goo", an" #ery mo#ing. 1 poem can also be *easy,+ accessible, an" also be formally elegant an" "eeply compelling. *3asy+ poems are sometimes "iffic!lt, tho!gh, in that they can be so simple that they challenges o!r sense of what a poem is /&illiam 4arlos &illiams wrote poems li'e this0. 5imilarly, m!sic can be "iffic!lt to play, an" "iffic!lt to listen to2"iffic!lty is part of m!sic.s #ocab!lary. 1n", li'e poems, m!sic can be incre"ibly simple in its str!ct!re an" yet be #ery challenging for the a!"ience /thin': John 4age.s 6.$$70. &hat if, instea" of foc!sing on what ma'es something contro#ersial, we foc!se" instea" on this line between the simple an" the "iffic!lt( &hat if we start a con#ersation abo!t 8ony 5mith.s Die /19920, for example, with *&hat ma'es this har" to tal' abo!t(+ an" *&hat information "o yo! nee" in or"er to :get. this wor'(+ ;!estions li'e these help !s to !n"erstan" what lies behin" the contro#ersy that certain wor's lea#e in their wa'e.

8racey 3min, My Bed /19980 an" 8ony 5mith, Die /19920

<or instance: li'e 5mith.s Die, 8racey 3min.s My Bed /19980 is contro#ersial beca!se it loo's so simple23min.s #iewers ten" to as' *co!l"n.t = ,!st exhibit my be"(+ an" won"er why it *co!nts+ as *1rt.+ =t can be graspe" at a glance, b!t li'e Die, it also tells stories that can only be accesse" #ia familiarity with its art historical context. 3min.s installation comments on how wor' by women artists will always be rea" as personal no matter what they "o, so one might as well ,!st exhibit one.s be". =t also, to a certain extent, cites Die. 5mith.s six foot sc!lpt!re "eliberately recalls the "imensions of a coffin, an", li'e a coffin2or a be"2it seems to be waiting for a bo"y /this ma"e it famo!sly challenging for >ichael <rie", who fo!n" it more *theatrical+ than *sc!lpt!ral+ an", for this reason, contro#ersial0. ?o! can.t *get+ that si"e of art li'e this witho!t "oing a little wor' yo!rself. 3#en the simplest wor's, in other wor"s, often contain within them their own forms of "iffic!lty.

1n"y &arhol, Torso (Double) c. 1982

1n"y &arhol lo#e" contro#ersy an" ma"e wor' that was labele" *obscene.+ @is Torso series openly flirts with pornographic con#ention. =t isn.t formally "iffic!lt. =t.s easy to fig!re o!t what.s going on, an" it "oesn.t "eman" that m!ch from !s2 except in the way that it positions the #iewer in a homoerotic relation to the image, which is a challenging experience for some. =n that sense, its "iffic!lty, an" its contro#ersial "imension, is specific to how the #iewer feels abo!t loo'ing at the image. &e arri#e at the following A!estion: is simplicity itself what makes some work controversial?