After reading an article on how an artwork had been rejected from a display for being too "offensive", I came to wonder about just how expressive artists in today's society may be?
With all the xenophobia in South Africa at the moment, and taking our apartheid past into consideration, race is a touchy subject and freedom of expression is being more frequently conserved as artists are having to question just how much freedom they are allowed.
Ayanda Mabulu's somewhat controversial paintings depicting apartheid South Africa and the late AWB leader, Eugene Terre 'Blanche, as a pig were brushed off as being "offensive" and were not allowed to go on display. The artist argued that it was not his aim to disrespect the late AWB leader, but rather to depict and "show the filthiness of that era." The organisers of the display claimed that they did not wish to cause controversy amongst the people working in their building and "felt apprehensive about the situation."
Although we are living in a society more open to the unusual portrayal of thoughts and ideas, controversy over our apartheid past seems to be taking it one step too far. It seems as though artists are having to pay the price for an audience's comfort by giving up their expressive freedom.
It is interesting to note this fact about modern art and the article is very well written in order to maintain the reader's attention. It is not too factual nor does it lack information. I agree with the interpretation in that the artists are restricted to their freedom, but how explicit can one be?
ReplyDeleteartwork is a person impression of how they interpret every day situations. it is their way of expressing their feelings in art, if you find it offensive, dont look at it. not a hard concept to grab if you have common sense
ReplyDeleteGreat point, things would be so much easier if people didn't always go out of their way to cause a fuss about things. Also its important to appreciate that everyone is allowed to their own oppinion on a subject.
ReplyDeleteThe way that art had delveloped in society is amazing to see, and analyse from the sidelines, because isn't that what art is. Art is in fact what happens when an artist steps back and apreciates what is happeing around them. THIS SHOULD NOT BE SACRIFICED FOR PUBLIC APROVAL!
ReplyDeletealthough artist's should have the freedom to express their feelings there are certain boundries that must be put in place. if everyone was aloud to express themselves with no boundries people could run around murdering people and simply state they were expressing themselves. with everything in life today there are boundries and we have to learn to accept them. me being an artist i do find it fustrating having those boundries, but without them we would only be diving our country and it's people and races further apart.
ReplyDeleteI can definitely see how people would be offended by depicting Eugene Terre 'Blanche as a pig. While it may have been the artist's intention to show how filthy the era was, the image of a pig simply has too many negative connotations for people to accept a public figure being portrayed as one.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if Julius Malema was portrayed as a muzzled dog to reflect his being told to be quiet, people would be offended because of the other connotations which the image of a dog carries.
Intresting article , well thought through
ReplyDeletePeople have the choice 2 be offened and discriminate against others.This is a very good piece.
ReplyDeleteIt is very insightful and you need to be reccommended for this piece.
Well Done
Well done. People do indeed have the freedom to express themselves, but they need to consider the feelings of others as they do so. I think a wise thing would have been to consider Terre Blanche's family before he put up his work. Even though his aim was 'to depict and "show the filthiness of that era."' and rightly so, i think as much consideration for the feelings of others should be taken into account when producing art as when speaking to another person.
ReplyDeleteek dink dat die kuns werk kan enigiets wees wat die kunstenaar wil he dity moet wees.
ReplyDeleteIts rather simple.
Art is created to have an impact on a viewer...wether it be good or bad.
So i believe one has the freedom to paint whatever it is that they wish to paint.Despite of what the outcome will be.
If you actually have knowledge about Eugene Terblanche, then you would actually understand the meaning for the artist's reason for using him.
ReplyDeleteSure, Terblanche was a small-town kid living in his racist bubble then making that bubble a party for all the other racist towns to join, but isn't that exactly what apartheid was?? therefore it is natural to depict him as an Apartheid leader. as far as his family's emotional state is concerned, they would also be as equally racist as Terblanche, thus I do not think they would have disagreed with the vision. exept, maybe, that he was painted as a pig. Another concern is that his family was into politics; not art. I don't think they would even have known about the painting as far as I am concerned.
PS hello the media frequently publishes people smoking crack and sex scandals without blinking, so what makes this different??
I agree with Mia that offensive images are printed in our newspapers everyday in order to educate us and show us different views of society so shouldn't artists be able to do this too.
ReplyDeleteThis said though, the government seems set on taking away some of the medias freedom of speech as well...