3) Artists have a social responsibility to uphold.
Ok, so let me get this straight. There are two types of art, public art and there’s the kind of art that is merely created to express one self’s inner emotions.
Public art, there is definitely social responsibility to uphold. From its name, its obvious to us that this piece of art will be viewed by the general public including the conservative elderly and naïve children as well as people of different races and so on. Thus, sensitive issues that involve any sort discrimination, be it religion or gender, should be avoided for the greater good of the public. Those involved in public art must also avoid controversial political issues or explicit content to not cause ‘public disturbances’.
Public art is interpreted by the people. Because apparently it is meant for THEM to view. Thus, not to create any sort of public outrage, artists have to uphold such social responsibilities
Public art is usually commissioned by a certain organization which gives the artist either a theme or limitations about the content. So the artwork chosen is probably selected according to stringent criteria by whatever organization that is putting it up for display and is deemed safe for public view. NO PROB.
On the other hand, personal art, or artworks created not for any commissionaires but a reflection or distillation of the artist’s personal life, does not have to uphold social responsibility. Art, from the Middle Ages was merely a tool for factual depiction of history. But it has evolved throughout the years, and it is now something where people can freely express their deepest thoughts and emotions. Art is personal, free, something where you have no restriction about what you want to do.
I mean like, if every piece of art has to uphold the social responsibility and has to be politically correct, each piece of work will basically be the same, and art will not progress. At all. WE CAN’T BE TOO CONSERVATIVE OR ELSE ART WILL BE BORING.
If artists have to abide strictly by what apparently is the “right” values and morals, we are basically limiting the artist’s freedom of expression, and we go backwards to when art had not emotional bondages.
Art has matured, evolved over the years to become a platform for artists to express their discontent towards whatever in their surrounding and serves to challenge social norms. Controversial topics has been really popular in the art scenes nowadays, and they seem to attract a lot of attention. Since its such an efficient medium, why not use it?
Artist are trying to convey their personal thoughts/intentions and its up to the viewers to decide if they approve of it or not, and not the artist’s job to make everything pleasant to the viewers.
If a certain museum curator can appreciate the controversial work of a certain artist, the works might be on display. But there definitely be information about such an exhibition and if anyone disapproves of whatever content, they can just shrug it off and not enter the gallery. It’s just a matter of choice, you don’t want to get offended, avoid. I don’t think there is one piece of art that everyone in the whole world accepts wholeheartedly. There’s definitely going to be dissatisfied people…
You can see everything within one artist. Ng Eng Teng (using him ‘cause we just learnt about him)
In conclusion, artists involve in public art, yes, they need to uphold whatever social responsibilities society bears upon them. But plain ol’artists? I believe not. I strongly believe that art is free. As long as the work does not go to the extend of insulting or slandering (no physical or mental pain inflicted), its acceptable to me. It’s the same as writing and talking. Write what you want to write, do what you want to do, paint what you want to paint.
No comments:
Post a Comment