12th September 2007
Is it right to use art as a way to distribute images of suffering and pain against humanity?
Artists will argue that the reason why they feel the need to display horrific images is to educate the public about issues that are serious and current.
In the 1960’s car safety was almost non existent. The rate of serious and fatal car accidents was on the rise and the newspapers were failing to see the concerns behind the statistics. Warhol produced a series of car crash silk screens to portray exactly the message that the rising rates of car crashes was a problem and that the public should be concerned.
Warhol made a fortune out of the car crash series which leads to the important question, “Should artists be using images of suffering and pain against humanity for profitable means?”
It seems to be common knowledge amongst contemporary artists that if you want to get a name for yourself you should produce some shocking and controversial art. Sometimes, so called ‘Shock art’ conveys no harm to living beings, however usually the ‘Shock art’ does. Many artists don’t care about the human or animal suffering behind the images they use in their art. What they care about is knowing that they are going to make a quick Buck and more importantly a name for themselves.
“Maybe” we will see a breed of new ‘Shock artists’ who are ethically minded and donate the money raised from their ‘Shock art’ to aid charities that relate to the artist’s subject.
I said, “Maybe”.
