I am going to revisit what got me into this whole blogging thing in the first place, and that was this response. I am also responding to my recent blog question because I have found that many people would draw the line somewhere in the realm of shock art because of its often confrontational nature.
Firstly, I am not generally averse to shock art or transgressive art that serves its purpose. Many pieces of such art are meant to get the viewer thinking about and responding to things that he/she may or may not be otherwise aware of. Sometimes a message has to be in-your-face before the viewer will allow him/herself to be confronted by it. There are some things that need to be conveyed boldly and loudly so that people cannot tune them out.
Admittedly some art is meant to just be shocking and to elicit some response from the viewer in a world in which we seem all too desensitized and apathetic to things. I do see merit in that as well, although I question whether or not an abundance of such things would actually contribute to overall desensitization as they become less shocking with more exposure. This idea of normalization seems to fuel a lot of arguments against all shock and transgressive art. Just because an act seems so heinous as to be "unthinkable" doesn't mean that someone hasn't already done it, though. But at the same time, it can said that raising cultural awareness can encourage people to act upon ideas which they otherwise may not.
In response, I find it fascinating how taboos can change over time and such topics can be more accepted subjects of conversation and even dinner table discussions because people become accustomed to them. Sometimes it just amazes me the things that cause controversy in the first place because I don't see all of them as being that controversial (some are in my opinion quite tame), but I guess we all have our own set of taboos and different moral standards that influence how we perceive of things. I guess we all inevitably "draw the line" in different places in response to our own experiences and ideas.
As for shock art and transgressive art, I try not to generalize it because the messages conveyed differ so much from piece to piece. I like some shocking artworks while I don't like others. I agree with some ideas conveyed in such art and disagree with others. I see some pieces as successful while I perceive others as failures. Overall, though, I do think it good when we leave the gallery thinking and, better yet, talking about things we may otherwise not address.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
That said, I do not condone any actions that would bring harm to anyone or any living thing without its consent. However, I must admit that I do feel a bit hypocritical in this because I am not a vegetarian and do use animal products. I have even made my own art using products of animal agriculture, such as store bought feathers or fur, for all that I prefer to strip such materials off of something purchased used or found. So I don't know just how much right I have to condemn art on the grounds of inhumane behavior when I have myself contributed to the exploitation of other living beings for my own benefit. It still bothers me, though.
Post a Comment