Robert Kennedy
Member
This is sort of a preemptive thread here....see, in one of my classs we will be viewing a presentation on Witkin. Now, the prof. is all about "postmodernism" (which is word you pretty much only hear in colleges....) and "feminist critiques", etc. etc.
Fine and dandy. But we have to have a class discussion on Witkin. And I KNOW....I just KNOW....that somebody will defend his work. Specifically his early work in Mexico.
You know, the work where he literally robbed graves and exploited the bodies of poor Mexicans.
Any defense of his early work (his later work, while it may be gross, icky, and at this point showing a complete lack of imagination on his part, apparently uses "volunteers" so the ethics become less of an issue) will most likely go something like this -
"Well, Michelangelo and many other artists robbed graves. This is the same. Don't impose your values on him. Blah blah blah."
Now, I have I think a decent counter arguement. Which I won't go into here, but suffice it to say it revolves around the fact that Witkin is essentially act like an imperialist and is disrespecting the Mexican culture by not respecting their ancient and deeply rooted views of death and dying (which I know not that much about, but any culture with two days devoted to celebrating the deceased and honoring them is probably not keen on some gringo coming down from New York and rummaging through their morgues for his own purposes....).
This leads me to consider this question though -
When is art immoral and unworthy of being called art? To me any of Witkin's work which exploits a corpse sans the decedant's permission purely so he can make "art" (a VERY loose term here) is immoral, criminal, and shouldn't be sold, bought, displayed, etc. Just like kiddie porn shouldn't be treated as "art" and thus legalized in that context.
What are your thoughts?
Oh, and if you are following my art school rant, this is discussion will occur in a class taught by the same teacher who told me to give up ever trying for my MFA at the school I attend.
It should be fun....
Fine and dandy. But we have to have a class discussion on Witkin. And I KNOW....I just KNOW....that somebody will defend his work. Specifically his early work in Mexico.
You know, the work where he literally robbed graves and exploited the bodies of poor Mexicans.
Any defense of his early work (his later work, while it may be gross, icky, and at this point showing a complete lack of imagination on his part, apparently uses "volunteers" so the ethics become less of an issue) will most likely go something like this -
"Well, Michelangelo and many other artists robbed graves. This is the same. Don't impose your values on him. Blah blah blah."
Now, I have I think a decent counter arguement. Which I won't go into here, but suffice it to say it revolves around the fact that Witkin is essentially act like an imperialist and is disrespecting the Mexican culture by not respecting their ancient and deeply rooted views of death and dying (which I know not that much about, but any culture with two days devoted to celebrating the deceased and honoring them is probably not keen on some gringo coming down from New York and rummaging through their morgues for his own purposes....).
This leads me to consider this question though -
When is art immoral and unworthy of being called art? To me any of Witkin's work which exploits a corpse sans the decedant's permission purely so he can make "art" (a VERY loose term here) is immoral, criminal, and shouldn't be sold, bought, displayed, etc. Just like kiddie porn shouldn't be treated as "art" and thus legalized in that context.
What are your thoughts?
Oh, and if you are following my art school rant, this is discussion will occur in a class taught by the same teacher who told me to give up ever trying for my MFA at the school I attend.
It should be fun....
