I heard this on the radio this morning - seriously, I really respect artists and the work they do but when does it stop being art and start being straight up inappropriate*? Do you really have to be this controversial to get coverage for your work? ----- Artists have left the family of Madeline McCann devastated after mocking up pornographic pictures of the missing girl for an exhibition. They pasted photographs of the missing four-year-old on to porn magazines in a bid to satirise her treatment at the hands of the media. A furious spokesman for Maddie's distraught parents, Gerry and Kate, said the vile act only hampered the hunt for their daughter. Read more here: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article...ks_outrage&in_article_id=495670&in_page_id=34 Also: Another example of it from last year http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7580261.stm What do you think?
A natural gut reaction is to say it's sick or in poor taste and perhaps it is, but it may also be considered art. All artistic mediums reach a point at which they "scorch the Earth" and lose much of their initial thrust. Sensing this, perhaps the artists are attempting to employ their works as a form of social criticism (see Marx) and views stark portrayals as the best way to achieve this.
I haven't even clicked on the link, from what you described Sarah i don't want to see it, some people who think they are helping just don't see the wood for the trees. Id be furious if my child was despicted in the manner mentioned, how heartless of the artist to not take them into account.
I guess maybe I'm too simple to see it as art but to me it's like glamourising child molesters and killers (the Myra Hindley case) and thoughtless concerning Madeline, also as there is a high chance that she may have been abducted for the child sex/porn trade. Maybe I'm thinking of it on too much of a personal level. Anytime I read articles like this or involving children I automatically imagine how I'd feel. God forbid Jacob was abducted I know I'd be horrified if some stuck up artist who did not know him stuck his face over naked bodies engaged in sexual acts in the name of "art". Similarly I don't think I'd be chuffed if my child's molester and killer was painted with child's handprints and then that image used to promote Britain - seriously, who was the brains behind THAT one?! Infact one of the victim's mothers was talking on the radio about how it brought back many feelings and emotions. Did the artists think about that at all? I just think sometimes these artists need to use a little more tact. To me the Madeline porn just screams dirty, thoughtless PR stunt for their little art gallery. However, I do see the "symbolism" they're trying to portray in both cases I just don't think it's right. The British media made Madeline and her family into celerities. They were used as a marketing tool to obtain media sales and that and in a sense was voyurism (sp) through mass media and I guess that could be seen as porn (still with me? lol not sure I'm making sense). We became obsessed with case and it did and still does consume us as this story proves. Do we really believe the newspapers cared about Madeline? No. They cared about the sales they got from us by plastering her face on their front cover everyday. They, like the artists did, glamourised Madeline's disappearance. It's not right though - bad timing, bad taste, bad publicity stunt. [messy post]
The problem with art is that it's subjective. I've had this debate with some of my friends before. "What constitutes art?". The answer? "Anything". Anything you think of could be classified as art. You can't put rules on something that is generally about breaking rules in the first place. To me art is about saying something, and this certainly says something. I think the concept is actually kind of interesting...if the subject hadn't been a 4 year old girl. Missing or not, children's pictures shouldn't have anything to do with pornography. Ever. Add in the fact that the little girl is missing and it makes it even worse in my opinion. I respect the message, but I do not respect the content. It just feels wrong. But this is probably the exact type of emotionally fueled response the artists were trying to get out of people. As a statement the work is obviously effective, but there are very few people who could view it without a really bad taste in their mouth.
I was waiting for your response on this and it's spot on :smt038. You're totally right about it being subjective - one person's art is another person's trash I guess. I much prefer your art though, lol.
A lot of people's art is trash, period. *L* The things people try to pass off as "vanguard modern art" is ridiculous at times. It gets a bit silly trying to push buttons when all the good buttons have already been pushed. People expect art to make a strong statement, so when they can draw vague lines between the imagery and said statement they consider it wonderful, even if it's literally a pile of trash sitting in a gallery (I actually saw an exhibit like this). Not to mention some artists just like pissing people off. Shock art has it's place, and I'm a fan of it sometimes, but how on Earth people think it's ok to make fake child pornography is beyond me. It's just not cool. I guess sometimes you just gotta focus more on the statement than the actual piece. I'd not like to see that. I commend the artists for their statement, and I respect any artist unafraid to just put it out there like that, but if I saw the actual pictures I would cry, because it's just not ok in my book. But again, this response is probably what they intended in the first place. I can see -why- they would've done it...but that doesn't make it ok. I can give you plenty of reasons why I could do a performance art piece where I slash myself to ribbons with a razor, but why the hell would I actually do it, ya know? It's just a bit silly. hehe. And yes, my art is awesome But it's ok! Give me time, Sarah, and I will make sure to make something horrible like that so I get famous, so I can be like all the other "cool" artists!
Agreed 100% The "whole make people react" aspect of it can cross the line to using your "art" as a substitute for your fist or a weapon. Abuse is abuse. If a "performance artist" would slap me in the face and say, "But, it's art." they will get an equally forceful "critique". Just because the harmful things are being hidden in plain site in a gallery doesn't make them any less wrong. Sometimes, no, it isn't art...creative rationalization, but not art.
Sara,in the UK people are always finding things to wind people up. Take Ann Coulter in the States she winds up a lot of people of her tory minded ideas like a Enoch Powell with blond hair.
if an artist in the usa had portrayed a child...any child...not just a missing child in a pornographic manner...i believe they could be arrested? charged? am i wrong here? or is that only for holding pornographic material...magazines? photos? in fact they now have a new type of spyware that police can use from the street to indicate if someone is viewing child pornography on their home computer... i love art and i do believe that it is subjective...i don't know that i would consider the subject matter art but i may be able to appreciate the piece for the talent of the artist
