When is art immoral?

[Ed Sukach]

I know not what course others may take, but as for me....

I still do not consider the field we call art as the proper venue for effecting moralistic change.

Some time ago, PBS had a whole series dealing with the "Holocaust". In it, they aired uncut, unexpurgated anti-semetic - violently - films that we shown as part of Hitler's political scheme. Rather than "turning" any of my attitudes, I could easily recognize them as some of the most bizarre LIES one could - or - possibly more appropriately, could not - imagine. One can only think about - and wonder - how on earth a society - any society - could accept them. Offensive - absolutely. Effective, in their purpose in this day, age, and society? Not in the least.
The net result of these was to show something of "what might happen - worst case scenario" - and should alert us to the possibility of history repeating itself.

I have other ways to influence others in their moral judgement ... Political "protests"; I participated in a community play called "In Harms Way" dealing with domestic abuse problems, I WRITE my representatives in the legislature - fortunately, I can talk easily with my State Congressmen - they purposely make themselves available.

There are many ways to use one's energy in discharging the duties of every citizen to "make things as good as possible", but I really do not believe art is one of them.

What are we to say of "Art Therapy", where troubled people are using art as a means of catharsis - recognizing the "dark" factors in their own lives, bringing them to consciousness, so they can be dealt with? Why would it be so wrong to recognize some of this universal "darkness" in ourselves and deal with it?

Not all art is therapy ... or is it? Surely there is something of "healing" value in all of art - where we can release repressed thoughts and energies.

So some of us a troubled- shocked - by what we perceive as Witkin's DISrespect for the dead. Doesn't that really reinforce our own decisions to be MORE respectful?

- Anyway - thoughts from the back of an envelope ...

 

[Robert Kennedy]

True, but should WItkin profit from a crime? His early work sells for a lot of money and is desired by galleries.

Should this be allowed? If someone molests a child and takes pictures of it, it is a crime and they can't profit from the act. Why make an exception here?

 

[Ed Sukach]

True, but should WItkin profit from a crime? His early work sells for a lot of money and is desired by galleries.

Should this be allowed? If someone molests a child and takes pictures of it, it is a crime and they can't profit from the act. Why make an exception here?

This question is *far* too complex to try for anything like a simple answer.

Witkin's work certainly can be considered immoral, by some. I don't know if it was 'criminal' under Mexican law. Was he convicted of anything ... or is there such a great state of outrage that the general idea is "Well - He is guilty, because he *should* be guilty."... ?

I've been thinking - Under the laws and morals of the time, much of Edward Weston's nude work was "immoral" and would be considered to be "pornographic" under the old definition of, "Any photograph that shows pubic hair, or the area where there should be pubic hair is pornography" - and that definition was that of Federal law. Many were tried and convicted and served time in Federal prisons for breaking that law. Should Weston or anyone else have "profited" from these photographs?

I am a firm believer in two ideas (at least two): that the punishment should FIT the crime, and that man is redeemable, and can change.
The idea of "Branding" minor criminals with hot irons is especially bad in my book - yet that is exactly what we do with our "Arrest Records".

Let's expand the idea of "profit from crimes" one step further -- I don't have ANY statistics on this - but it would seem to me that *few* crimes are committed so that the perpetrator could be convicted, serve a good portion of his or her life behind bars, and then look forward to making *big* money from the book. Maybe - but to me, that is a stretch.
The criminals a certainly NOT "acting alone" if they "profit". There are many more - publishing companies, motion picture studios - so many others - and we can all wonder at the morality questions. And, of course there are the news media...

What should be done is to try to PREVENT crime. View the crime as the act that it is ... and not try to seek revenge in every way possible after the fact.

Otherwise - a far more difficult question... Should ANY art be a vehicle for making profit? What if an abstract painting of a mentally disturbed person is considered by a group that is arguably just as whacko - art dealers -, see this as "Great Art" and sell it for a couple of million? Doesn't that encourage and "foster" others to be as "insane"?

Now ... I don't think one should expect more "rants" on the subject from me (I can hear the sighs of relief from all those reading). I've had a extraordinary photo session with an *unbelievably * **WONDERFUL** model outdoors in brilliant backlit fall foliage. I have fifteen rolls of black and white, color, and infrared to develop and print.

That is going to be *much* more enjoyable than wrestling with the idea of morality / immorality in art - and struggling NOT to be misinterpreted.

 

[Robert Kennedy]

Well, I do think it is somewhat simple.

First off, comparing nduity and corpse desicration is a bit unfair. Different cultures have different takes on what is obscene when it comes to nudity.

But EVERY culture has STRICT rules about hwo you treat a corpse. They differ WIDELY, but EVERYONE has rules. Everyone.

Which is the point. Witkin DID violate the law in Mexico. Yes, Mexico does have laws against this. Every nation pretty much does. He violated them. I mean this is basic stuff.

We know he did. He has proof. He brags about it. Has he been prosecuted? Sadly, no. That doesn't mean though that WE should accept that. Or that we should encourage it.

Let me put it this, if Witkin never sold a thing, if NOBODY made a fuss over him, if he was just ignored because of the nature of his work, would he do it?

Nope.

As to buying his work - Why is buying child pornography wrong? Because someone was victimized to make it.

Witkin's work is no different. There was no consent by the subjects. There is no respect. They are objects he uses so HE can get his rocks off and make some cash. Buying his work just encourages more of it and makes the buyer complicit.

 

[blansky]

Don't have a viewpoint on this one really, except to ponder if a corpse can be a victim?

Are we victimizing KIng Tut, frozen iceman, etc.doing these autopsies. NAtional Geographic seems to be making money off these programs.

To add fuel to the fire. Sally Mann's work is, I presume part of many pedophile collections. Since her children never felt victimized by the photographs, does that fact contribute to the fact that they are not illegal to own.

How do we know which child pornography pictures, victimized the child.

Does there have to be a victim to make a crime.

Don't have an answer, just asking.

MIchael MCBlane

 

[Robert Kennedy]

Can a corpse be a victim?

Yep. This is why it is illegal to steal organs from the dead. But even if we ignore that, there is the issue of family. Tut and Otzi have no family around who remember them. Witkin's victims do.

Imagine seeing your aunt who died 20 years go on the wall of some gallery being posed for the pleasure of some weirdo. There was no consent.

And kiddie porn is pretty recognizable. My point here was that kids can't consent, and neither can the dead, so hands off. To me what Witkin does is no different from rape really. He violated the dead. He used their bodies for his pleasure with NO regard for their wishes.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[Robert Kennedy]

Just an update....

Tomorrow is "Witkin Day" in my class. We get to learn all about the ghoul.

I made a decision which, though it might cost me academically, will pay handsomely ethically.

I read some articles on Witkin, and he again and again goes into detail about how he wants people to react to his work. The more extreme the better.

So I informed the prof. I would not participate. I will not give Witkin his due. He is worthless and hence worthy only of being ignored.

Or course this got the standard "you should attend" thing... "Art this...Art that..."...

Well, I decided to go with ethics instead of art on this one.

The prof. seemed pissed and thought I was "not participating" in the dialogue.

Which was my point.

There will of course be "points deducted" and I am "mistaken" if I think this will make Witkin "go away" (which shows she missed the point)....

But you know what....

I'll be able to sleep that night.....

 

[dr bob]

Robert: You must do as your conscience directs. I, for what it is worth, would go loaded for bear. I know absolutely nothing of Witkin and from what has been discussed here, I do not believe I wish to know anything. However, in your situation, I would learn as much about the man (?), his art (?), and his bio. Then I would try to counter every point brought out in the seminar. I can be a real B……. when desired and sometimes it is fun.

As mentioned, I have no idea of what this person is all about, but it sounds like so many “modern” artists who paint (et c.) their selfish ideas, not really the “noble” concepts they purport. These people try in outlandish ways to be “different” and in doing so become compliant – just what they attempt to avoid. The only means of their being original is the disparity of morality and conventionality, and shock. Their interests are only in themselves – not in the “noble cause” they attempt to portray. Too bad, some are truly blessed with craft.

Good luck – create, adapt, overcome….

 

[SteveGangi]

"Or course this got the standard "you should attend" thing... "Art this...Art that..."...
Well, I decided to go with ethics instead of art on this one.
The prof. seemed pissed and thought I was "not participating" in the dialogue. "

Seems like a major case of political correctness. Witkin and other "artists" can do whatever they please, no matter how offensive, sick or disgusting it may be, but YOU are not allowed to dislike it or disapprove. You are expected to like it and praise it, because you were told to. If it were me and I had to attend, the dialogue would be:

"Looks like crap!".
"What moron would buy this?"
"Where were the cops when this happened?"
"If I take a chainsaw to my neighbors and film it, is that art too?"
You get the general idea, I would be tossed out.

 

[Robert Kennedy]

Basically. And of course the 8 black-clad goth kids in the class love that crap....

 

[lee]

So, Robert, has this Witkin talk and discussion taken place yet? IF so, how did it go? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Robert Kennedy]

Lee - I talked to the prof about it. Reading some of what Witkin says, I came to the conclusion that he is 100% going for shock and disgust. That he WANTS people to talk about his work and get pissed off, and have huge debates about it. Kind of like how a kid throwing a tantrum wants his parents to pay attention. I figured the best way was to NOT attend. To basically ignore the little ghoul. Witkin wants us to participate in his work. By not participating, I would not be doing what he wanted. So I skipped that part of the class.

I was of course told that I "didn't get" art.....

 

[bjorke]

When I went to Art School there was an opportunity in such classes for students to ask questions and discuss. By refusing to attend you have abdicated the presentation of your own views. Your abscence could as easily be explained as, say, a dental appointment, rather than a poltical/aesthetic stance.

One does not need to agree with the goals of the National Socialist Party to study 20th-century history. But to skip those classes would give a history student a deserved "D."

 

[Emile de Leon]

Morality is an interesting word to say the least. It has been used by people in all times to separate others in reaction to their personal views of right and wrong. Unfortunately it is mostly used to condemn those with differing perspectives other than whoever is speaking that much loved word. I prefer to use and substitute the word ethical for morality for two reasons. The word ethical does not contain the religious and fanatical/emotional connotations of the word morality and it also seems to encourage more thought and philosophical understanding rather than the inflexible dogma of right and wrong. That said...there is an idiot born everyday, and it is a sure bet that if it can be done, it will be done by some fool, no matter how unrespectful or heinous the act.

 

[Robert Kennedy]

Bjorke - Well, yes and no. First off, I told the prof. WHY I was not attending. And some conversations with other students have firmly convinced me that there isn't much room for debate with them. I mean the fact is that a 19 year-old kid with no skin color, a completely black wardrobe, and a Marliyn Manson T-shirt is NOT going to be open to a discussion of why Witkin's work is unethical. Neither are the kids whose work ALL seems like the latest Nine Inch Nails CD cover (seriously, some art historian in 50 years could write a thesis called "Gothic Music Cover Art and it's Influence on 18-21 Year-old Art Students and their Work." )

Plus the prof thinks he is just the greatest too....

Knowing that I would be able to sway nobody here, regardless of any debating skills I may or may not posess (I doubt Ghandi could persuade these kids...), I went for the option of making sure I didn't do anything to encourage Witkin. Witkin WANTS people to see his work an be disgusted. If people refuse to engage him, then he is neutralized bit by bit.

Or as they say....

"What if they held a Witkin show and nobody turned up?"

In the end I know what I did was ethical. I feel that to engage Witkin is to support his blatantly criminal acts. I refuse to do this. I know that I did what I felt was right.

And in the end that is all that matters.

 

[steve]

As far as I know, Joel has never "stolen" a corpse. In fact, he used to be a medical photographer and is quite sensitive about how he obtains and treats his subjects. I've known Joel since 1981, I'd like to know where you''ve gotten the information that he robbed graves.

As far as I know, the work he did in Mexico was in conjunction with the participation of local coroners who provided the bodies for him to photograph - which is quite different than robbing graves.

Also, much of what you read about Joel is totally fabricated. He's sort of transcended into legend in some cases - and the real truth is not nearly as exciting. Joel does nothing to dissuade people from believing certain stories as he knows it's a futile effort and he doesn't really care about the stories.

Lastly, there is the "real Joel" and "Joel the Artist." The two are quite different. The real Joel is quite funny, personable, and interesting to talk with - and makes a wicked Caesar's Salad. The "Artist Joel"? Let's just say he likes to promote and amplify "the legend."

 

[Robert Kennedy]

Where do I get my facts?

From Joel himself....well...interviews he did....

Like this one -http://archive.salon.com/people/bc/2000/05/09/witkin/

Some quotes -

Witkin described one of the dead men brought in on the last day as "a real punk, nothing good visually." But he used him anyway: "For some people, the evidence of their spirit is either there or not there in death. Nonetheless, when I saw this last guy, I said, 'I want him.' I'm in this room with a dead guy. I'm propping him up, and I put a fish in his hand as a kind of prop, and I'm checking the lighting. I take a few photographs. And as soon as he's being autopsied, he starts changing!

Wow! That sure sounds like he is "quite sensitive about how he obtains and treats his subjects" doesn't it!

And the Mexico City work was WHOLLY illegal. And it does count as grave robbing (sorry, TECHNICALLY abuse of a corpse...which grave robbing is also). Made worse by the fact that the Mexican people have deeply held beliefs about death, dying, and how you treat the dead. (Jorge - chime in here if you want being a guy in the know)

Witkin cares nothing for that.

You say he is hyping himself, but you know, if I walk into an interview and say "I raped women so I could take photos.", you can't go back later and say "Sorry, I lied!" without some SERIOUS questions being asked (usually by nice people in blue uniforms with big guns).

Either way he is worthless. He is either a ghoul with no compassion for anyone but himself, or an attention groupie who wants celebrity over all else and who is bringing down photography.

PS: Ted Bundy was reported to be a real charmer too.

 

[Jorge]

As far as I know, the work he did in Mexico was in conjunction with the participation of local coroners who provided the bodies for him to photograph - which is quite different than robbing graves.

No, he bribed people at the morgue to do this. His actions were not officially sanctioned or allowed. Please, if you are going to defend this guy at least have the courtesy to allow us some intelligence. As the saying goes, dont piss on my back and tell me it is raining. No official agency would be crazy enough to allow this, specially here in Mexico. As I said before, if there is nothing wrong with doing what he did, then why he did not do it in the US? Under the first amendment he has every right to go into a city Morgue (a public facility) and ask to take pictures. Dont you think there must be a reason for this? As the saying goes, a dog does not shit where he sleeps.

Perhaps I am being rude in my response, but it really pisses me off that now people are saying his actions were done with the cooperation of the Mexican government. Yes, you can say the local coroners participated, but it was not a legal or moral participation.

 

[steve]

Yes, Jorge - you're way out of bounds on your reply to me - and rude. You know for a fact that Joel "bribed people"? Really? How do you know? I've talked with Joel about this work, and, in person, the story I get is a bit different than what you're stating. I don't know who's right or wrong - you or Joel - let's just say my perception of how and why he took the photos is different than what your representing.

I've never been to Mexico. I have no idea what is allowed or not allowed in Mexico. I can tell you that Joel has photographed many things in the United States with the cooperation of certain medical institutions and entities. All you have to do is look at some of his photos for the proof. So your statement that it wouldn't be allowed in the US or, he went to Mexico to exploit the situation is projection and conjecture on your part.

Joel was made aware of the situation in Mexico by people IN MEXICO - how do YOU explain that? It was suggested to him by certain Mexican "patrons of the arts" that he should photograph the dead that were collected overnight - and THEY put him in touch with the coroners in Mexico. I'm sure you won't believe that either - that's okay too.

If the coroners did, in fact, take bribes, one might ask why the citizens of that country weren't more responsible and sensitive to THEIR fellow countrymen - and refuse the bribe? Or, refuse to participate? But, then that would imply that somehow other people might bear some responsibility for this proclaimed attrocity outside of Joel himself. That, of course would be way out of line...and wouldn't fit into your self-defined neat little world of victimhood.

You may not like Joel, you may not like his work - that's okay by me. I was only stating a different point of view on Joel since I do know him and MAY have some personal knowledge that you don't. Apparently, that's not welcome in your world. Too bad - I thought you MIGHT be open enough to learn something - apparently not.

Please, be as offended as you can possibly be by this post also. You apparently ONLY want one point of view to be sanctioned and represented - yours. I certainly hope you can work up another suitable, self-righteous, huff....

 

[Jorge]

Hmm, so far I have not seen Witkin taking pictures of dead people in the US, and you very convienitly skirted this question. Wonder why that is?

If as you say these photographs were suggested by people in Mexico, then tell me why nobody has heard of him here, nor are there any exhibitons of his work past or present? I assure you, he comes down here and it is found out how he got these pictures, and he wont make it back to the US. At least not in one piece.

If by suggestion you mean someone told him, "hey Joel wouldnt it be cool to go take pics of dead people in Mexico, dont worry we just pass them some bucks and there wont be a problem..."

Sensitivity does not feed people, and I am sure then that in your opinion is ok to sell drugs to kids inthe US, after all they are free not to buy them or to refuse them...no? You will alawys find an idiot who will go along with doing something wrong, that does not make it right, otherwise all drug dealers had to say was "hey I am only supplying what they want".

As to the personal knowledge you might have of Witkin, all you know is what he has told you, I am sure he wont admit to breaking the laws here or in the US. So perhaps the one that needs to learn something is yourself.

Bottom line Steve, since you seem to be ok with all this, and you know Witkin so well, why dont you tell him next time he wants to use dead corpses for his pictures that he is free to use your mother, father or brother/sister corpse to do so?.....and of course this can be done without your knowledge or consent and he can do whatever he wants with them...Put your money where your mouth is buddy...

 

[steve]

Well Jorge, you and your little circle of cogneseti may not know of Joel, but -somebody in Mexico certainly does. Basically, Joel is cheap. Joel never goes anywhere unless someone else is paying for it. Joel went to Mexico to do a lecture on his work, I don't remember who for or where - but, I ran into him about 3-4 days before he went down there & he was talking about his latest lecture/trip, and how a photo opportunity had been presented to him as part of the trip.

If I remember correctly, he was to give a slide presentation and talk on his show that had opened in Spain and had been funded by the Spanish Arts Council (equal to the National Endowment for the Arts in the U.S.). But, since you don't know about that - it probably didn't happen either. Funny though, I have a program (actually a book) published as part of the show - so somebody in Spain spent a lot of money for a non-existant show.


It's been so long since that conversation that I can't really relate more than that. I don't remember whether Spain was going to send the show to Mexico or not - I do know that his work is well regarded in Spain and the Spanish government has sponsored two shows, one of which traveled around Europe and to Japan - whether it made to Mexico, as I said - I don't know.

Joel has taken photos of dead bodies in the U.S. Okay? Are you satisfied with that? Because YOU personally aren't aware of the fact doesn't make it any less true.

But, he takes lots of photos of many things - often discarded as they didn't work out for what he wanted. For example, he photographed a friend who had lost her arm above the elbow in a car accident. You've never seen that photo either because it didn't "work." However, he did give the subject of the photo the "sketch" that he did of the concept done in oil pastels, ink, and paint - and several photos. I've seen all of those, so despite the fact YOU"VE never seen a photo of Fern nude, missing an arm, doesn't mean somewhere in Joel's archives there aren't many negatives of that idea.

Look, there are probably 3 photos that Joel has done that I really like - the rest I really don't care about because it's just not a something I want hanging on my wall. Another friend builds things for Joel - special easels, the aluminum plates for the series of photos he mounted on the plates, etc. Joel gives him prints in exchange for the work.

As my friend has said, I don't want them on my wall, but they're not bad for an investment. In fact, he sold two of them to a gallery in San Francisco to put a big down payment on his first house.

Joel is also a conundrum in photography. Kind of like Frank Zappa with a guitar. When someone asked Frank if he thought he was a "great guitarist," Frank said, "no, I can only play my own music."

So it is with Joel. His photographic technique (especially darkroom work) is astounding. But, if he had to shoot a commercial job, or even make a print from someone elses negative - I doubt he could do it.

Once again Jorge, you are projecting whatever you want in order to make some point. I've never said in anything I've written that I like what Joel did, condone what Joel did, only that YOU and others don't quite have the whole story - you're making up information to support your viewpoint in order to be sanctimoniously pissed off.

Now we'll go to Jorge's world (the Garden of Eden) - Flash..."snake at fault, Adam and Eve exhonerated....."

Nice how YOU didn't address the complicity of your fellow Mexican citizens - to quote someone else... "I wonder why?"

No, actually Jorge, according to Joel, the person who suggested he take photos of the dead after collection, explained the entire situation in quite graphic detail to him. He couldn't believe what this person told him and was taking his cameras to photograph it the situation was really as described.

AND, if you would carefully read his description of what he found, you will get that sense from his words in describing the way the bodies were handled and treated. Piled three and four high.... broken noses and limbs from being tossed onto the carts, etc.

It was that handling and ill-treatment that he wanted to capture in the photograph. When I talked with him after he came back, he basically couldn't believe what he saw. Tough yes, but maybe YOU should put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is and start doing something about that instead of blaming Joel for photographing what he found?

Do you and the others also object to the work of Arthur Fellig - or is his work okay because it was done as part of newspaper photography? Dead bodies all the same. No permission from the subject, etc. Is it the entire genre you object to - or just Joel's work? My guess, you haven't thought about it that far - you just like being pissed off at Joel. Probably because he's famous, is already included in most recent history of photography texts (including the last edition of Newhall's work), and he's doing it with work that you don't like or "approve of." Sounds like jealously to me.

Thanks for the kind thoughts about my parents. My mother died in March of 2000 and my father in July of 2000. I however, did photograph both of them myself after they had died. I really wanted to remember that moment. Oh, and I didn't have anyone's permission - I just did it because I wanted to.

 

[Jorge]

Thanks for the kind thoughts about my parents. My mother died in March of 2000 and my father in July of 2000. I however, did photograph both of them myself after they had died. I really wanted to remember that moment. Oh, and I didn't have anyone's permission - I just did it because I wanted to.

Well, after that long diatribe seems that Witkin is your hero, good for you.

I did not address the complicty of the mexicans involved the same way you did not address the complicity of american people and drug peddlers.

You photograph your parents, that is within your right, but it is not to go to the next aisle and start photographing other peoples dead parents without their knowledge and prop them as you wish. Tell me then, how would you have liked to have Witkin prop your dead father naked on a chair so that he could make a better picture?...

Let me clarify something, I dont mind Witkin's pictures. I come from a long line of medical doctors and have seen things that would make most people puke on the spot. I object to the way he went about it, and your insinuations that it was all "arranged" and with the approval of people in Mexico. Seems to me a lot of your "knowledge" are vague memories of what Witkin told you, as I said, not a very reliable source as I am sure he will not admit to breaking the law.

OTOH I agree with Robert, discussing this bufoon only serves to give him and his hero worshipers more credibility. So in that vein this will be the last from me as I have little interest in what he said to you or your so called "information", silly and faulty as it is.

 

[steve]

I didn't address most of what you said as it is so off topic and obtuse as to be worthless to address.

BTW - Joel is not "my hero." I've just know him since he was a graduate student & worked as the head waiter at a restuarant to make it through school. I do appreciate how hard he works at what he does, and some of his darkroom skills. Hero, no - not hardly - you're MY hero Jorge....you're the only person in the entire world who knows ALL the facts and the truth about everything. That's hard to beat.

 

[Robert Kennedy]

I've talked with Joel about this work, and, in person, the story I get is a bit different than what you're stating.

Which is apparently a trait of his. According to that same article I quoted, his own FAMILY points out his ummmmm........"looseness with the facts".

But why bother with that, or his lack of respect for the dead (you skirted the "punk" comment someone in $300.00 Italian loafers skirts a pile of dog shit), or anything else when you can start with ad hominem attacks on a very higly respected member of the APUG community?

Once again what is wrong with the art world is shown right here.

Self-righteousness with no serious thought to well....anything but some sort of self-agrandizing, mental masterbation.

But I digress, so I will take that particular thought to another thread.

And anymore outbursts like that, and someone will be forced to scream Hitler in this thread to give it a merciful death....