After reading Ethics of Engagement by Anthony Downey, the paper brought up many points and questions on when and how an artist should think and prioritize the ethical mission of the piece and the aesthetics. In the paper when talking about, (Artur Zmijewski’s Repetition, 2005) when he re-tattoos a holocast survivors tattoo for the reason that, “... social, economic and political conditions exist whereby such events can take place” (Downey 595). The questions brought up with tis pieces shouldn't be, “do we live in a climate that allows this?” but, “Should I take advantage of a flawed world and exploit one’s suffering for one's own political, economic or societal gain?” And that all really falls down onto one's hands and where they draw their own ethical line when engaging with collaborative art work. Another idea of the paper that brought up some thought was when most are critiquing this form of art, it is, “... judged on the basis of the ethical efficacy underwriting the artist’s relationship to his or her collaborators rather than what makes these works interesting as art” (Downey 595). I find that judging the ethics of one's piece before looking at the aesthetics of the piece is the way to tackle critiquing community engaged, collaborative art. And finally when talking about (Renzo Martens, Episode III, 2008) when Downey is asking, “... weather or not it showed significant respect, in the form of consent, for the persons involved and weather or not he respected the decisions of the subjects being filmed. We might also ask who actually benefits from Martens’s film…” (Downey 601). The question of where is the line of representation and exploitation seems like it would be an easy line to distinguish in ones head, but it seems to be a bit more blurry than one might think. With Episode III its quite obvious that this work is exploitation on the ethical way Martens went about interacting and engaging with the Congolese, but other works are a bit more blurry. This all goes back to where one draws their ethical line. In Martens’s head this might have seemed ethical in the way he was engaging, but to an outside perspective it looked as a white western man was coming into an impoverished community and exploiting their lives and misfortune for his own societal and economic gain. There are many works, Episode III where everyone sees the writing on the wall and one can only question what the artist was thinking, but for many collaborative and community engaged pieces, the line of ethical and unethical engagement is a bit more unclear, leaving it up to the artist to decide where they set their morals. Simply being able to step back and question how one is engaging with a community and is the piece benefiting them, who is it benefiting, as well as those being engaged with respected, are they seen as equals and not just some pity party that the artist is coming in with a savior complex. Looking back on Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, The ethics involved with this group wasn't for one's social growth but for the frustration due to the lack of support and representation the community was getting in the LA area. The group formed to provide affordable housing, give space for people to thrive in and be the soapbox for people to stand on to actually be heard. Their ethics and approach felt quite inline, but it was also those of the community that formed and were part of the organization, so it was those affected by the issues that and said enough was enough.
Comments
Post a Comment