Does the artist have a responsi bility when represen ting conflict?
a digital artists book by Hannah Kemp-Welch for Arts Award Gold 2015
This text invites
artists, curators and researchers to respond to the question
- presenting an argument or view.
Contributors Hannah Kemp-Welch Andrew Dundas Paul Stewart Samantha Mcguire Amanda Millis Mark PeterWright Dan Mitchell
The artist (in their role/capacity however this is defined by their practice and in addition to the responsibility held by all people) has (time frame is fluid) a responsibility (complex and plural, to be defined by the subject, relative to the issue and artists relationship with the conflict) when representing (both implicitly or explicitly) conflict (to mean all scenes of human suffering).
DOES
this implies a right or wrong, black and white, definite answer. Surely this is more fluid?
THE
segregation of artist from 'non-artist'. We apply grand titles to artists as though they are on a different plane. This distinction is problematic as the artist is human and should therefore have the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else? Or perhaps not, as visible in public realm? Similar debate as to should celebrities behave or be seen as role models. Do they have more influence than others and who does this effect? As moral responsibilities are not written into pay contracts, and perceptions are skewed by media coverage, so people are molded to appear one way or another. Surely own responsibility to not put people on pedestals and be influenced by media?
Most people have a ’cause’ they particularly care about. These ’causes’ are often issues we are in close proximity too – an injustice by authorities in the local area, instances of inequality experienced by a friend, the illness or struggle of a loved one. These issues surround us, and we tend to take on board one or two as our personal battle – we may give money to charity, run a marathon, write a letter of complaint, frequently debate the issue with others, protest, sign petitions, etc etc. This is our duty, and we fulfill it automatically if we are engaged with the issue. Some may be more of the spray paint it onto a wall than sign a petition character, but the desire to push change forwards is the same. Though we know that war, starvation, mass illnesses and atrocities are happening in the world, we tend to fight the battles that we have personally experienced. The pay off for us, even if our battle is unsuccessful, is that some of our emotional needs are met: connection to the wider community, autonomy and control, a sense of achievement, meaning and purpose. So it is in our human nature to care and respond to issues, and we receive a payoff of emotional security for our engagement. When travelling, we come into contact with social issues which are outside of our usual sphere. We experience new conflicts, struggles and dilemmas, and most often our response is not to engage or take up these battles. We assume that as we are active in our community, the problems of this other community are the responsibility of our counterparts. We feel we are not involved, informed or able to engage or contribute to these battles of the other. Many communities, both at home and abroad, have so many problems piled up, that they become impossible to solve. When a community is faced with multiple challenges and threats to their security, they are placed in a position of personal powerlessness. They are unable to function effectively as all areas of self are threatened, or become apathetic as instincts of self preservation settle in. Unless we have personally experienced this powerlessness it may be misunderstood or difficult to comprehend.
Problems of powerless people or communities must be solved by a power greater than themselves – a government body, support from a charitable organisation, a neighboring community or family. But how do the powerless appeal for power? What other powers exist when the government or neighboring community does not arrive with support? Is there a power that exists that can affect change, or order help and support for the powerless? Art has considerable power. It’s essence is to transcend barriers, alter perceptions, instigate new chains of inquiry. Historically, art is always a part of revolution. Whether it’s in protest banners, propaganda images or photography, it is used to help the other understand our needs. Artists (both official and unofficial) who make such works (whether or not they view it as an artwork or present it in an art context) wield a powerful tool for communicating an experience or view. ‘A picture says a thousand words’ we repeat. Those with the ability to create images in our minds, communicating issues in an effective way hold considerable power. In this way, the power of the artist is evident. And is it not the responsibility of the powerful to help the powerless? If artists do not use this power to instigate change, the alternative is to use their power for personal gain – whether this is to fulfill ambitions, for financial benefits or self-propulsion, this use of power is centered in the self. I argue that art has power and those gifted with the ability to create art are powerful, and this power must be used for the benefit of the powerless rather than to secure the advancement of self. The artist has a responsibility to a conflict, when representing it in a work.
ARTIST why just the artist? How about the arts institution, the viewer, journalists, everyone? Can an artwork have a responsibility, or does this fall on the maker?
I believe art is a social experience so personally I’d say yes; it’s impossible to deny that actions have consequences. When I let a work go there’s a loosening of identity or authorship and it becomes part of a more shared sense of ownership which I like, but even then, I’m the one who set the thing off, so I have to be sensitive to the possible ramifications of what it is I’m doing. It’s kind of like a personal ethics I think and definitely not a moral code of conduct. I can’t and don’t want to control things beyond the work but I’m mindful to go about that process in empathetic and inclusive ways. That said, I do think there’s a lot of responsibility put onto artists generally and I’d say art does a pretty good job at being responsible/political/social. What I’d like to see more of, and what I think is vital right now, would be politics becoming more responsible towards art, for me that’s where the emphasis needs to be.
HAVE
when is this responsibility? At time of being at the scene, during the making of the work, later on? Does this responsibility expire with time or does the artist hold it and keep it?
A
implies the responsibility is single, rather than plural and multifaceted.
In 2007 American Magnum Photographer, Susan Meiselas, contributed to an article addressing the appropriation of her infamous image of Nicaraguan Sandinista, Pablo Arauz, throwing a molotov cocktail during the 1978-9 insurrection. Her work, ‘Molotov Man’ has inspired murals, political flyers, matchboxes and graffiti, becoming an icon of revolution. Meiselas was questioned for trying to “control” this use of her photograph with commentators asking, "Who owns the rights to this man's struggle?" Meiselas’ response, however, reveals an interest in her subject over an interest in her image, “In 1990 I returned to Nicaragua … to document what had happened to the people in my earlier photographs. I learned that ‘molotov man’ was Pablo Arauz.” Meiselas claims her concern around the reproduction of her photographs was born out of a respect for the individuality of her subjects rather than an interest in the ownership of her work. “There is no denying in this digital age that images are increasingly dislocated and far more easily decontextualised….If history is working against context, then we must, as artists, work all the harder to reclaim that context…We owe this debt of specificity not just to one another but to our subjects, with whom we have an implicit contract.” Meiselas argues that only Pablo Arauz owns the right to his struggle but that, as an artist who documented this struggle, she bears the responsibility of ensuring it is recognised. [Excerpts from “On the Rights of Molotov Man Appropriation and the art of Context” from Harper’s Magazine February 2007, p.53-8]
RESPONSIBILITY are we talking about morals and ethics? What are the kinds of responsibility we are discussing?
My main draw was to thinking about this question in terms of war reporters, as they probably have the most direct and powerful link to a subject. I appreciate that many would not describe their work as art, but that probably veers off into territory totally off topic. At first I was thinking about Tim Hetherington, he became well known as a war reporter in West Africa, when civil war broke out there. He made a successful report following the conflict there, but instead of leaving as soon as the fighting was over he stayed in West Africa for 8 years and documented the way everything panned out after the conflict had died down. I think he is an ideal example of someone who felt a great deal of compassion towards his subjects, and who was moved to continuously draw attention to their plight. He was a really inspiring person, who obviously cared a lot. On the other side of this are the war reporters who jump from conflict to conflict, arguably they make a document about a specific event or moment, and by publishing this (journals/magazines/exhibitions) they alert the world to the plight of a people/place, and you could argue that their responsibility is continued through this. However, you could also say that by running from conflict to conflict they are feeding into our massive system of consumption, i.e. going from tragedy to tragedy to feed our gluttony for the trauma of the other. No responsibility is taken for the subject after their work is done and they have moved onto the next subject.
Instead I thought about it from my own perspective as an artist. In my own practice, I feel that my responsibility to the subject effectively ends once the work is complete. This stems from the nature of my practice, in that, accuracy in the portrayal of my subject is the crucial element of my work. Although this makes it sound like my work is purely aesthetic (maybe it is?), the important part for me is the physical process of making, of looking, thinking and doing. As I almost exclusively make portraits of family members (living and deceased), and friends, it is crucial that each work feels for me like a step closer to knowing an aspect of a person. If I don't feel that I have achieved a sense of better understanding, then I wouldn't really allow people to see the work as, for me, it has failed. In saying that, maybe that is the responsibility once the work is completed! By deciding what would or would not be viewed by others, I am in a way affecting a responsibility for the subject. In essence, I don't really know! I create because the process is a challenge and is a release, the stuff that comes after has always baffled me and been something that I struggle with, this has made me try and figure it out a bit better, but potentially I am more confused than when I started!
WHEN
this sub clause makes the question specific however does the artist have a responsibility, do we all as humans have a responsibility is the wider debate.
The artist has only freedom to her/himself. The idea of freedom is about responsibility to the artwork alone, and this is sacred. No compromise is possible. The artist is subjugated by the artwork, in essence must allow the artwork to tell her/him what to do.
The artists plays many roles in sociopolitical projects as a creative process, but is in no way obligated to commit to a particular position. I want to briefly discuss is how the artist’s political or ideological position holds a different bearing on the action to the political or ideological position of the art work. These are separate emotions. First I want to re-define what I mean by emotion, this is not in turn used to be ‘emotive’ but more emo-active. To be aroused to produce a strong feeling or reaction to something but not specifically connected to emotion but to what emotion can activate. It is also not connected to an individual it is a collective emotion that is active in this scenario. This is not to say the artwork holds a collective emotion but in turn can produce an emo-active response based on its formation, context and site. The collective emo-active position created in a group consensus towards a political position that refers to an infringement of people produces a collective agency. Furthermore the individual is able to have an autonomous experience away from the oppression of the hegemonic state through a collective agency of consensus in relation to a social inequality.
[1] Mountain is defined as to cross the ocean and to not speak a word of English and start up an art school in the mountains.
I want to use the term ‘mountain’[1] that is defined in my text search for alternatives‌alternatives in search (2014) as the word to represent the position of the artist. The artists does not speak the language, the artist complicates, disfigures a scenario or situation but explicitly and importantly says something differently. In Derridian terms the failure of communication is the reason for our continuous talking if we said what we mean directly we would soon stop talking and shut up forever. Therefore what the artists says is implicitly important to the overall conversation as rather than producing a vertical top down or horizontal left to right it allows the interpretation to have curves and right angles allowing a more indebted debate to re-defining the political or social issue. And this position is only available as the artist is only committed in presence thus the art work is only committed when the artist is present.
REPRESENTING although conflict may be present in a work, the artists intention may not be to represent this - the work may have an entirely different meaning. who decides this meaning - the artist, the viewer or the institution?
Kant was a German philosopher who came up with this concept of Universalisability. A very basic explanation is: if a rule of conduct could be applied to all in a given situation, then it is an ethical rule to prompt: and this where there is an opportunity for equality to come in: to prompt a moral action. So, the artist has a responsibility when representing conflict. What I mean by this is that there is an equal universalisability that exists in: --The artist responds to the people in the piece or the lives of the people that the piece depicts. -The artist responds to their story. -The artist responds with aesthetics (so there’s also a responsibility both visually and in contemporary culture/ exitents). -In participating, participating is important here, in the above network, the artist responds to and with the vehicle of the self. I want to talk about this in terms of demonstrating ethical responsibility to the person, their story, the aesthetics and the participatory self, Molotov Man by Susan Meisalas. This work is of particular interest because this image was re-appropriated, without permission by Meisalas, the original artist, from 1980-2004 by many different parties involved in the Nicaraguan Revolution. Meisalas’s decision to protest the de-contextualisation of her image in the name of art was precisely due to the fact that the use of the image so far out of context completely stripped away anything having to do with the history of the specific rebellion and the story of Pablo Arauz’s struggle. It is because Meisalas uses her work to redistribute the equality of responsibility to people who are marginalised, does so in an aesthetically successful manner, follows the story to contemporary happenings and protects the image without holding too much control (both in her “welcoming” various uses of the image sometimes on different sides of the Nicaraguan Revolution and in her protests without demanding outcome of Garnett) that Molotov is an example of responsibility when representing conflict.
CONFLICT? does this apply to situations of conflict which are not explicit or shown in the work? Must conflict be evident in the scene to qualify?