I believe that art is a way of speaking without words. It is the way of communicating for some people, as perhaps, words are not their thing. So I was thinking, since people should be responsible of what they say, so how different is it from speaking through art?
Regarding whether or not artists have a social responsibility to uphold, I feel that it sometimes depends on what type of art they create: private or public.
For public art, the artists definitely need to have social responsibility as the art is placed in the public where anyone and everyone can see and comment. The impact is great as it is readily available to all to experience at anytime and no one can control the audience of the artwork. The artist, when creating the artwork, would have to realize that people of all ages, races, culture would view the work, and hence, the artwork must not be offensive to anyone. The artist has to ensure that the artwork is pleasing to the eye and no one feels uncomfortable viewing it. The fact that the art is placed in the public, the public is indirectly “forced” to view the works. Hence the artwork should not touch on sensitive issues such as religion, gender, race, etc. If these artworks do touch on these issues, they are often abstract, so abstract that the public have no idea what it is about, so as to prevent any public outrage.
Many artists create art as they have things to say about life and yet there are unable to voice it out. An example would be Lucia Hartini works, like “spying eyes”. Due to the society she was in, she was unable to express her thoughts and feeling too directly and hence had to use symbols in her art.
However, I feel that for private art, the artists should be allowed to express their emotions or what they think is right via their artworks. There should not be any restriction to what one wants to create and feel like creating. If the artist created an artwork which touches on sensitive issues, but he or she just keeps it at home, what social responsibility does he or she have to uphold? If not kept at home, private art are placed in galleries or museums, usually seen by people who willingly and voluntarily go and see the art purposefully. These artworks may not always be pretty, some are offensive and provocative. In a way, these people are “prepared to be offended”. I think that a “good” art may not be a “pretty” art; instead, it should be able to express the artist ideas and feelings to the viewer clearly and I believe that people who steps into an art museum should be mentally prepared to be “provoked by the art”.
For example, Marcel Duchamp shocked the public with his work fountain (1917), which is basically just a urinal. He challenged the definition of art and some viewed his work as absolutely absurd. However, in his eyes, that urinal is a piece of art as he himself chose it. He expressed his own definition of art via that urinal and it resulted in a huge uproar. People now have gradually gotten used to this work, or have they?
As I looked through the numerous artworks which people named as “offensive”, I was thinking, who are they to decide whether or not the art is offensive? Perhaps, it is the society itself which has a responsibility to uphold. Everyone feels differently towards what is hateful, unethical or not morally upright, so the “offensive art” actually shows a society’s thinking and perspective. Perhaps, it is not the wrong of the art, but how the person actually views the work?
I feel that some artists are just looking for trouble in a way that they touched on very sensitive issues like religion, mutating the forms of the gods, depicting them in provocative ways. Some examples found here: http://www.thesharkguys.com/lists/top-10-offensive-religious-art-pieces-part-one/
Perhaps the artists did them on purpose, but I do think they are slightly overboard. But then again, that is my own point of view.
No comments:
Post a Comment