south african pop culture community
When have you gone to far in the name of art...
Not to sound like one of those extremist but i have to say that in the last one small seed the photograph of the bull dead on the ground with the guy holding its guts was rather disturbing! I never thought I would hear myself say this as I love to push boundaries and have no problem making people squirm with art. But as i saw this photograph I found myself asking, have we just gone to far in the name of art? Are we not promoting animal cruelty? Should that not be sent to PETA instead of an art magazine such as one small seed? I would love to hear everyone's opinion on the matter...
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Keri on -
hhhmmm....
You should have seen the exhibition in new york where they tied a dog in the corner of gallery and watched it starve to death. Absolutely revolting and pretty pathetic attempt at 'art' more like just plain lazy and twisted.
-
Permalink Reply by sarah jayne fell on -
Just a note that the whole series by Hugo is on the contents of Nigerian cinema; we're by no means promoting animal cruelty, simply depicting the content of Nigerian film. Would you look at a similar scene taken from American film and say the same? The series isn't a real-life scenario, it's an allusion to the subject matter of a particular film industry. It is a little gruesome, admittedly, so point taken.
-
Permalink Reply by Stiaan Schoeman on -
Nigerian cinema with a surreal twist, they said. I think it is art. I don't think anyone is promoting any animal cruelty. The bull was probably slaughtered humanely, just like the thousands that end up on hour plates every day. Some of the images in the series, that was not published in OSS, are even more disturbing. Just showing things as they are... sorta... Remember never to watch any violent Nigerian films Melissa.
Also... He has been approached by animal-rights groups before. This is what he said on his website about the hyena men series:
"Many animal-rights groups also contacted me, wanting to intervene (however, the keepers have permits from the Nigerian government). When I asked Nigerians, “How do you feel about the way they treat animals”, the question confused people. Their responses always involved issues of economic survival. Seldom did anyone express strong concern for the well-being of the creatures. Europeans invariably only ask about the welfare of the animals but this question misses the point. Instead, perhaps, we could ask why these performers need to catch wild animals to make a living. Or why they are economically marginalised. Or why Nigeria, the world’s sixth largest exporter of oil, is in such a state of disarray." - Pieter Hugo
-
Permalink Reply by Melissa Delport on
-
Hey guys thanks for the replies and the info (Stiaan) interesting to know, but i feel that humanly slaughtered? -mmmm (in my opinion)
But to be honest, its a poor quality in humans that is so often seen that they seldom consider the well being of the animal, art or no art. An economic crisis or art is no excuse for cruelty-Nigerian or European... Thanks for the opinions x
-
Permalink Reply by sarah jayne fell on
-
Stiaan also raises an interesting point that was one of the core issues underlying my article and which Hugo himself deals with quite a lot in discussions about his work, and that is the kind of conceptual framework we have that influences our perceptions. Hugo offers an insight into facets of a culture which we are not usually exposed to, but he is not necessarily making any kind of judgment (moral or otherwise) on that culture. He is often criticised for exoticising his subjects, but if one approaches the work from a non-western viewpoint it would be impossible to make this kind of judgment because it is a western way of understanding things - just as the issue regarding animal cruelty is a judgment fundamentally indicative of this mindset. And while it may seem a valid criticism to us from our western mindset, it absolutely misses the point of the artwork itself by restricting one's understanding to this mindset. To gain anything from his photographs we need to think outside of this box we put ourselves in, and try find other more intelligent and less obviously Western/colonial questions to ask about them. And even if we cannot answer them, half of the challenge is reaching this realisation in the first place and not asking the obvious questions or criticising according to such a limited understanding.
Does this make any sense?
I think I'll do a follow up article online here sometime showing the rest of the work, so watch this space :)
And thanks for the comments, guys!
-
Permalink Reply by Stiaan Schoeman on
-
It definitely makes sense. I have not read the article yet, as I don't have the magazine yet. Will buy it this weekend.
Also... I meant our, not hour in my previous comment :)
-
Permalink Reply by James Van Fleteren on -
It's art on the extreme scale bordering on documentation.
-
Permalink Reply by Janet Botes | ecojunki on -
I think that regardless of whether it is art, documentation or expression, it is ultimately a reflection on our society and our values. We have been so desensitized to cruelty and violence, and the market saturated with all kinds of images that the only thing some artists haven't done yet is to depict the really disturbing parts of being human and the things we are capable of, to stand out and really make a statement. So it's not so much about going too far in art, or documenting events, but rather we should ask ourselves: when will we stop to be tantalized by gore, sex, violence and disrespect that appallingly does excite us, and start fixing the things in our world that needs fixing by spreading love, peace, assistance, compassion, respect and happiness?
-
Permalink Reply by sarah jayne fell on
-
exactly. part of art's importance is to enlighten and to create awareness, to draw attention to facets of our society that we might otherwise ignore or turn a blind eye to. I dont think Hugo is necessarily making a judgment on society per se through his work, but, if it is effectively making people take off their blinkers and stop and look critically at the society we live in, then the artwork and the artist has definitely accomplished something incredibly important - intentionally or not. To say someone's gone too far 'in the name of art' is too simplistic. Firstly the art and the artist are necessarily a product of their society to some extent, and so the importance of authorship and its weight in judging an artwork is questionable. I would say that because of this the artwork itself and people's reactions to it, the way it affects an audience, are more important questions to consider. So if art 'goes too far' it should make us look more at why we react in this way, why we think its gone too far, why an artwork that holds this potential to affect viewers in this way has been created. What does it say about society? What does it say about art? What does it say about us? The least important question, I feel, is what it says about the artist and his morality or the publication or gallery that showcases it.
-
Permalink Reply by Sarah Danielle Mitchell on -
When you live in a place like Nigeria, i don't think animal rights are a topic of concern to you . . .
Humans have been killing animals since they invaded the planet, in far more inhumane ways.
Atleast nowadays we're able to sedate them before we decaptitate and skin them . . .
humans are terrible creatures, i think Hugo's photo epitimises that
-
Permalink Reply by Lillith Leda on -
"The bull was probably slaughtered humanely"....
I'm sorry but that's an oxymoron. When is the slaying of any being humane? I cannot comment on the actual piece, I unfortunately have not seen that, but this is a very interesting topic.
Art has never had boundaries and that perhaps is both its salvation and its downfall. It comes down to personal responsibility of choice in what we expose ourselves to, what we accept and what we reject.
Art has also been used to bring focus on issues the majority of society wish to ignore, and ultimately it's about a reaction, any reaction.
-
Permalink Reply by Lillith Leda on
-
Ah you have said precisely what I mean as well.
sarah jayne fell said:exactly. part of art's importance is to enlighten and to create awareness, to draw attention to facets of our society that we might otherwise ignore or turn a blind eye to. .
© 2010 Created by giuseppe.
