11 Art and Ethics
\nPeggy Blood and Pamela J. Sachant
\n11.1 LEARNING OUTCOMES
\nAfter completing this chapter, you should be able to:
\n\u2022 Understand why art and ethics are associated
\n\u2022 Identify works of art that were censored due to their failure to meet societal ethics
\n\u2022 Indicate why ethical values change over time by society
\n\u2022 Articulate why some societal groups may consider some works of art controversial
\n\u2022 Identify ethical considerations in the artist\u2019s use of others\u2019 art work in their own, the
\nmaterials used in making art, manipulation of an image to alter its meaning or intent,
\nand the artist\u2019s moral obligations as an observer
\n\u2022 Identify roles that museums play in the preservation, interpretation, and display of
\nculturally significant objects
\n11.2 INTRODUCTION
\nThis chapter is concerned with the perception, susceptibility, and ethics of art. It will explore
\nand analyze the moral responsibility of artists and their rights to represent and create without
\ncensorship.
\nMorality and art are connected usually in art that provokes and disturbs. Such art stirs up the
\nartist\u2019s or viewer\u2019s personal beliefs, values, and morals due to what is depicted. Works that seem
\nto purposely pursue or strongly communicate a message may cause controversies to flair up: controversies over the rights of artistic freedom or over how society evaluates art. That judgment of
\nworks created by artists has to do with society\u2019s value judgment in a given time in history.
\nThe relationship between the artist and society is intertwined and sometimes at odds as it
\nrelates to art and ethics. Neither has to be sacrificed for the other, however, and neither needs to
\nbend to the other in order to create or convey the work\u2019s message.
\nPage | 279
\nCHAPTER TEN: ART AND RITUAL LIFE
\nPage | 280
\nINTRODUCTION TO ART
\nArt is subjective: it will be received or interpreted by different people in various ways. What may
\nbe unethical to one may be ethical to another. Because art is subjective, it is vulnerable to ethical
\njudgment. It is most vulnerable when society does not have a historical context or understanding
\nof art in order to appreciate a work\u2019s content or aesthetics. This lack does not make ethical judgment wrong or irrational; it shows that appreciation of art or styles changes over time and that
\nnew or different art or styles can come to be appreciated. The general negative taste of society
\nusually changes with more exposure. Still, taste remains subjective.
\nEthics has been a major consideration of the public and those in religious or political power
\nthroughout history. For many artists today, the first and major consideration is not ethics, but the
\nplatform from which to create and deliver the message through formal qualities and the medium.
\nConsideration of ethics may be established by the artist but without hindrance of free expression.
\nIt is expected that in a work of art an artist\u2019s own beliefs, values, and ideology may contrast with
\nsocietal values. It is the art that speaks and adds quality value to what is communicated. This is
\nwhat makes the power of free artistic expression so important. The art is judged not by who created the work or the artist\u2019s character, but based on the merits of the work itself.
\nHowever, through this visual dialogue existing between artist and society, there must be some
\nmutual understanding. Society needs to understand that freedom of expression in the arts encourages greatness while artists need to be mindful of and open to society\u2019s disposition. When the
\npublic values art as being a positive spiritual and physical addition to society, and the artist creates
\nwith ethical intentions, there is a connection between viewer and creator. An artist\u2019s depiction of
\na subject does not mean that the creator approves or disapproves of the subject being presented.
\nThe artist\u2019s purpose is to express, regardless of how the subject matter may be interpreted. Nevertheless, this freedom in interpretation does not mean that neither the artist nor society holds
\nresponsibility for their actions.
\nArt and ethics, in this respect, demands that artists use their intellectual faculties to create
\na true expressive representation or convey psychological meaning. This type of art demands a
\ncapability on the viewer\u2019s part to be moved by many sentiments from the artist. It demands the
\npower of art to penetrate outward appearances, and seize and capture hidden thoughts and interpretations of the momentary or permanent emotions of a situation. While artists are creating,
\ncapturing visual images, and interpreting for their viewers, they are also giving them an unerring
\nmeasure of the artists\u2019 own moral or ethical sensibilities.
\nEthical dilemmas are not uncommon in the art world and often arise from the perception or
\ninterpretation of the artwork\u2019s content or message. Provocative themes of spirituality, sexuality,
\nand politics can and may be interpreted in many ways and provoke debates as to their being
\nunethical or without morality. For example, when Dada artist Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968,
\nFrance) created Fountain in 1917, it was censored and rejected by contemporary connoisseurs of
\nthe arts and the public. (Fountain, Marcel Duchamp: http:\/\/www.sfmoma.org\/explore\/collection\/
\nartwork\/25853#ixzz3mwCWDOxZ) A men\u2019s urinal turned on its side, Duchamp considered this work
\nto be one of his Readymade, manufactured objects that were turned into or designated by him as
\nart. Today, Fountain is one of Duchamp\u2019s most famous works and is widely considered an icon of
\ntwentieth-century art.
\nPage | 281
\nINTRODUCTION TO ART CHAPTER ELEVEN: ART AND ETHICS<\/p>\n
More recently, The Holy Virgin Mary by Chris Ofili (b. 1968, England) shocked viewers when
\nit was included in the 1997-2000 Sensation exhibition in London, Berlin, and New York. (The Holy
\nVirgin Mary, Chris Ofili: https:\/\/www.khanacademy.org\/humanities\/global-culture\/identity-body\/
\nidentity-body-europe\/a\/chris-ofili-the-holy-virgin-mary) The image caused considerable outrage
\nfrom some members of the public across the country, including then-mayor of New York City
\nRudolph Giuliani. With its collaged images of women\u2019s buttocks, glitter-mixed paint, and applied
\nballs of elephant dung, many considered the painting blasphemous. Ofili stated that was not his
\nintention; he wanted to acknowledge both the sacred and secular, even sensual, beauty of the Virgin
\nMary, and that the dung, in his parents\u2019 native country of Nigeria, symbolized fertility and the power
\nof the elephant. Nevertheless, and probably unaware of the artist\u2019s meaning, people were outraged.
\nTraditionally, aesthetics in art has been associated with beauty, enjoyment, and the viewer\u2019s
\nvisual, intellectual, and emotional captivation. Scandalous art may not be beautiful, but it very
\nwell could be enjoyable and hold one captive. The viewer is taken in and is attracted to something
\nthat is neither routine nor ordinary. All are considered to be meaningful experiences that are
\ndistinctive to Fine Arts. Aesthetic judgment goes hand in hand with ethics. It is part of the decision-making process people use when they view a work of art and decide if it is \u201cgood\u201d or \u201cbad.\u201d
\nThe process of aesthetic judgment is a conceptual model that describes how people decide on the
\nquality of artworks created and, for them individually or societally, makes an ethical decision
\nabout a certain work of art.
\nAs we can see, art indubitably has had the power to shock and, as a source of social provocation, art will continue to shock unsuspecting viewers. Audiences will continue to feel scandalized,
\ndisturbed, or offended by art that is socially, politically, and religiously challenging. Being considered scandalous or radical, as already observed, does not take away from experiencing or appreciation of the art, nor do such responses speak to the artist\u2019s ethics or morality. Art may, however,
\nfail in some eyes to offer an aesthetic experience. Such a failure also depends on the complex
\nrelationship between art and the viewer, living in a given moment of time.
\n11.3 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN MAKING AND USING ART
\n11.3.1 Appropriation
\nArtists have always been inspired by the work of other artists; they have borrowed compositional devices, adopted stylistic elements, and taken up narrative details. In such cases, the artist
\nincorporates these aspects of another\u2019s work into their own distinct creative endeavor. Appropriation, on the other hand, means taking existing objects or images and, with little or no change
\nto them, using them in or as one\u2019s own artwork. Throughout the twentieth century and to the
\npresent day, appropriation of an object or image has come to be considered a legitimate role for
\nart and artists to play. In the new context, the object or image is re-contextualized. This allows the
\nartist to comment on the work\u2019s original meaning and bring new meaning to it. The viewer, recognizing the original work, layers additional meanings and associations. Thus, the work becomes
\ndifferent, in large part based on the artist\u2019s intent.
\nCHAPTER TEN: ART AND RITUAL LIFE
\nPage | 282
\nINTRODUCTION TO ART<\/p>\n
Sherrie Levine (b. 1947, USA) has spent her career prompting viewers to ask questions about
\nwhat changes take place when she reproduces or makes slight alterations to a well-known work of
\nart. For example, in 1981 Levine photographed images created by Walker Evans (1903-1975, USA)
\nthat had been reproduced in an exhibition catalogue. (After Walker Evans: 4, Sherrie Levine:
\nhttp:\/\/www.metmuseum.org\/collection\/the-collection-online\/search\/267214) She titled her
\nseries After Walker Evans, freely acknowledging Evans as the creator of the \u201coriginal\u201d photographic
\nworks. And, she openly stated, the catalogue\u2014containing reproductions of Evans\u2019s photographs\u2014
\nwas the source for her own \u201creproductions.\u201d Levine created her photographs by photographing
\nthe reproduced photographs in the exhibition catalogue; the photographs in the catalogue were
\nreproductions of the photographs in the exhibition.
\nVisitors to the exhibition who were familiar with Evans\u2019s depictions of Alabama sharecropper
\nfamilies struggling to make a living during the Great Depression were being challenged to view
\nLevine\u2019s photographs, such as this one of Allie Mae Burroughs titled After Walker Evans: 4, independent of their historical, intellectual, and emotional significance. Without those connections,
\nwhat story did the photograph tell? Did the photograph itself having meaning, or is its message
\nthe sum of what meanings the viewer ascribes to it? Levine\u2019s work in the 1980s was part of the
\npostmodern art movement that questioned cultural meaning over individual significance: was
\nit possible to consider art in such broad categories any longer, or is there such a thing as one,
\nagreed-upon, universal meaning? She was also questioning notions of \u201coriginality,\u201d \u201ccreativity,\u201d
\nand \u201creproduction.\u201d What product can truly be attributed to one individual\u2019s thought processes
\nand efforts, with no contribution from a collective of influences? If none exists, then we cannot
\nstate something is an original work of art, springing from a single source of creativity, after which
\nall subsequent works are reproductions. One is not more authentic or valuable than the other.
\nIn 1993, Levine was invited by the Philadelphia Museum of Art to be the first artist to participate
\nin Museum Studies, a series of contemporary projects: \u201cnew works and installations created by
\nartists specifically for the museum.\u201d Levine created six translucent white glass \u201creproductions\u201d of a
\n1915 marble sculpture by Constantine Brancusi (1876-1957, Romania), titled Newborn I. (Crystal
\nNewborn, Sherrie Levine: https:\/\/s3.amazonaws.com\/classconnection\/93\/flashcards\/7114093\/
\njpg\/thenewborn1334629599199-14C4CC989054F51F15F.jpg) She titled her 1993 work Crystal
\nNewborn; it is shown here along with Black Newborn of 1994. (Crystal Newborn and Black
\nNewborn, Sherrie Levine: http:\/\/api.whitney.org\/uploads\/image\/file\/337061\/xlarge_8._crystal_
\nnewborn_1993_black_newborn_1994.jpg) Both works are cast glass, which in the case of Black
\nNewborn, has been sandblasted. (Black Newborn, Sherrie Levine: http:\/\/www.moma.org\/
\ncollection\/works\/89955?locale=en)
\nSimilar to her 1981 photograph After Walker Evans: 4, these works are meant to examine
\nnotions about something being an original or, instead, being a reproduction. Just as her earlier
\nphotographic reproductions of Evans\u2019s work themselves could be reproduced, so also were these
\nglass works part of a series; Levine cast a total of twelve versions from one (original?) mold. In
\naddition, although sculpture such as Brancusi\u2019s Newborn I, is generally displayed on a pedestal or
\nstand that elevates the work to a comfortable viewing height and separates it from its surroundings, Levine had her work displayed on a grand piano. Doing so changed the setting from a more
\nPage | 283
\nINTRODUCTION TO ART CHAPTER ELEVEN: ART AND ETHICS<\/p>\n
conventional, expected, but consciously neutral mode of display, the pedestal, to the more nuanced, domesticated, yet sophisticated tone of a polished piano top. She wanted the difference to
\nregister in the viewer\u2019s mind and influence the viewer\u2019s response to the work, including thinking
\nof the contrast: the typical museum display is masculine, that is, part of the male world of wealthy
\ncollectors and museum board members. The piano, on the other hand, brings to mind the feminine world of the comforting and comfortable home\u2014it is a sculpture of a newborn, after all. But
\nthe cool, smooth, hard surface of Levine\u2019s glass, as was the case of Brancusi\u2019s marble, does not
\nallow the infant head to descend to the level of maternal sentimentality.
\nLevine maintains tremendous similarities to the works preceding hers that she appropriates
\nfrom, but she opens up their accumulated meanings to even more, new ones.
\n11.3.2 Use of Materials
\nThe materials artists use to create their art throughout history have generally contributed to
\nthe value of the work. Using silver or ivory or gems or paint made from a rare mineral or numerous other materials that are costly and difficult to obtain literally raised the monetary value of the
\nwork produced. If the artwork was made for a political or religious leader, the cultural value of the
\nwork increased because it was associated with and owned by those of high status in society. On
\nthe other hand, using materials at odds with social values raises questions in the viewer\u2019s mind.
\nFor example, ivory was\u2014and still is\u2014a desirable material for carving, but it is illegal to trade
\nin elephant ivory within the United States as African elephants are now an endangered species.
\nViewers\u2019 awareness of and sensitivity to the plant and animal life impacted in the production of
\nart is increasing, and may actually be a factor in the materials an artist chooses to use.
\nDamien Hirst (b. 1965, England) began his career in the late 1980s associated with the Young
\nBritish Artists (YBA). Hirst, along with others in the group, was known for his controversial subjects and approaches in his art. Much of his art from that time to the present has been concerned
\nwith spirituality\u2014Hirst was raised Catholic\u2014and with death as an end and a beginning, a boundary
\nand a portal. One of the motifs he has returned to throughout his career is the butterfly. With its
\ntransformative life cycle, from egg to caterpillar to chrysalis to adult, the butterfly serves for Hirst as
\na \u201cuniversal trigger.\u201d That is, the symbolism associated with the butterfly\u2019s life cycle, linked by the
\nancient Greeks to the psyche, or soul, by early Christians to resurrection, and by many to this day to
\ninnocence and freedom, is so deeply imbedded in human consciousness that it springs to the viewer\u2019s mind automatically. In his art, those associations are the foundation upon which Hirst builds.
\nHirst began his experimentations with butterflies in 1991 when he created a dual installation
\nand exhibition, In and Out of Love (White Paintings and Live Butterflies) and In and Out of
\nLove (Butterfly Paintings and Ashtrays). Both contained living butterflies that were intended to
\nand did die over the course of the five-week display. (http:\/\/www.damienhirst.com\/exhibitions\/
\nsolo\/1991\/in-out-love) His first solo show, In and Out of Love, set the stage for Hirst\u2019s career and
\nreputation as an artist who confronts definitions of art and provokes the viewer to explain how art
\nhelps us to grapple with boundaries between and intersections of life and death, reason and faith,
\nhope and despair.
\nCHAPTER TEN: ART AND RITUAL LIFE
\nPage | 284
\nINTRODUCTION TO ART
\nTouching upon his interests in religion and science, including lepidoptery, the study of
\nbutterflies, Hirst often makes biblical references in the titles of his artwork, and he mimics aspects
\nof how butterflies have traditionally been displayed in his compositions. He began the Kaleidoscope
\nseries in 2001, not using entire living or dead butterflies, but using only their wings, symbolizing
\nfor him a separation from the unavoidable ugliness and unpleasantness of life\u2014the butterfly\u2019s hairy
\nbody\u2014to preserve only the fleeting beauty of the wings and their associations with the swift passing
\nof time. The Kingdom of the Father is a later work in the series, dating to 2007. (Kingdom of
\nthe Father, Damien Hirst: http:\/\/broadmuseum.msu.edu\/sites\/default\/files\/Hirst-Kingdom%20
\nof%20the%20Father_72.jpg?width=90%25&height=90%25) The title, compositional elements,
\nand overall shape of the mixed-media work are directly linked to the artist\u2019s absorption with
\nreligion: here, as with a number of works in the Kaleidoscope series, the work looks like a stained
\nglass window found in the Gothic cathedrals that fascinated Hirst as a child.
\nDespite the splendid effect of their vivid colors, energized compositions, and iridescent glow,
\nsome viewers object to the materials Hirst uses: the beauty and luminosity is derived from thousands of butterflies killed so that their wings could be used in his work. In 2012, the Tate Modern
\nin London mounted a retrospective of Hirst\u2019s art, the first major exhibition in England to review
\nwork from his entire career. His 1991 installation, In and Out of Love, was recreated as part of the
\nshow. (http:\/\/www.damienhirst.com\/exhibitions\/solo\/2012\/tate) Some critics and animal rights
\nactivists lodged complaints about the estimated 9,000 butterflies that died over the course of the
\ntwenty-three week event. For example, a spokesperson for the Royal Society for the Prevention
\nof Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) stated, \u201cThere would be national outcry if the exhibition involved
\nany other animal, such as a dog. Just because it is butterflies, that does not mean they do not deserve to be treated with kindness.\u201d The Tate Modern issued a statement that the butterflies were
\n\u201csourced from reputable UK butterfly houses.\u201d They also defended their use as integral to Hirst\u2019s
\nart, stating, \u201cthe themes of life and death as well as beauty and horror are highlighted, dualities
\nthat are prevalent in much of the artist\u2019s work.\u201d
\nIn essence, the museum, along with many other individuals and institutions over the course
\nof Hirst\u2019s career, acknowledged the complaints, but accepted the artist\u2019s actions as an acceptable
\npart of his creative process, and determined his artistic intentions were of greater importance than
\nany issues of morality raised. Simply, the butterflies were the means to a higher end, his artwork.
\n11.3.3 Digital Manipulation
\nDigital manipulation of photographs through the use of Adobe Photoshop and other computer
\nsoftware is so commonplace today it generally goes unnoticed or without comment. Digital manipulation is used by amateur and professional photographers alike, and can be a helpful, constructive tool. When photographs are manipulated with the aim of altering factual information,
\nhowever, an ethical line has been crossed.
\nIn 2006, freelance photographer Adnan Hajj made changes to a photograph, carried by Reuters
\nGroup, a news agency, of smoke rising in the midst of buildings in Beirut following an Israeli
\nattack during the Israel-Lebanon conflict. (The Adnan Hajj photographs controversy revolving
\nPage | 285
\nINTRODUCTION TO ART CHAPTER ELEVEN: ART AND ETHICS
\naround digitally manipulated photographs: https:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/en\/0\/0f\/
\nAdnan_Hajj_Beirut_photo_comparison.jpg) A blogger commented that the photograph showed
\nsigns of manipulation. Comparing the unaltered photograph on the left to the published image on
\nthe right reveals that the smoke is obviously darker; in addition, the spreading smoke at the top of
\nthe photograph shows the telltale patterning, known as cloning, which indicates a digital effect
\nthat has been repeatedly duplicated. Reuters immediately retracted the photograph and issued
\nthe statement, \u201cReuters takes such matters extremely seriously as it is strictly against company
\neditorial policy to alter pictures.\u201d
\nThe ethical premise is that photojournalists are expected to conform to accepted professional
\nstandards of conduct. In fact, the National Press Photographers Association has established a Code
\nof Ethics that addresses the issue: \u201cEditing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images\u2019
\ncontent and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead
\nviewers or misrepresent subjects.\u201d Of importance here is that, as news, these images must remain
\nfactual, and must represent the events and people truthfully and faithfully. When a photograph is
\nmanipulated with the intent to deceive the viewer, as was the case with Hajj\u2019s enhancement of the
\ndamage done by an Israeli strike against the Lebanese, it changes the historical record; it is unethical.
\n11.3.4 As an Observer
\nPhotojournalists are expected to follow the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA)
\nCode of Ethics not only when it comes to the manipulation of news images, but also in the acquisition of those images. In times of war, political unrest, or natural disasters, for example, they may
\nbe in the midst of events that unfold in unexpected and disturbing ways. The photojournalist is
\nan observer whose role is to make a record of the events, but as a fellow human being, should the
\nphotographer become involved or offer aid?
\nIn 1993, photojournalist Kevin Carter (1960-1994, South Africa) photographed a starving
\nyoung girl being watched by a vulture during a time of famine in Sudan. (Vulture, Kevin Carter:
\nhttp:\/\/theunsolicitedopinion.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/10\/kevin-carter-vulture.jpg) The
\nphotograph was sold to The New York Times and was featured in that newspaper and numerous
\nothers worldwide, generating tremendous concern about the fate of the child and commentary
\non the ethics of taking the photograph, especially as the scene was described as a toddler having
\ncollapsed on her way to a relief station for food. But, guidelines in the NPPA Code of Ethics
\nstate: \u201cWhile photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or
\ninfluence events.\u201d Many felt, however, that in light of the child\u2019s condition and helplessness, the
\nphotographer had the responsibility to take action.
\nAccording to Carter and Joao Silva, a friend and fellow photographer, the situation and Carter\u2019s responses were more nuanced than it may appear in the photograph. Carter and Silva arrived
\nby airplane in the village of Ayod with United Nations personnel bringing provisions to the local
\nfeeding center. As women and children began gathering at the center, Carter photographed them.
\nThe child was a short distance away in the bush, approaching the center with difficulty on her
\nown; as Carter watched, the vulture landed. As recounted later in Time magazine:
\nINTRODUCTION TO ART CHAPTER TEN: ART AND RITUAL LIFE
\nCareful not to disturb the bird, he positioned himself for the best possible image. He would
\nlater say he waited about 20 minutes, hoping the vulture would spread its wings. It did not,
\nand after he took his photographs, he chased the bird away and watched as the little girl
\nresumed her struggle. Afterward he sat under a tree, lit a cigarette, talked to God and cried.
\n\u201cHe was depressed afterward,\u201d Silva recalls. \u201cHe kept saying he wanted to hug his daughter.\u201d1
\nSo while Carter did not otherwise aid the child, he did remove a source of immediate danger to
\nher by waving away the vulture. He expressed regret he did not, and felt he could not, further help
\nthe girl and the many other victims he saw while on assignments. The unrelenting suffering he witnessed contributed to the depression he was subject to for years. A little more than a year after the
\nphotograph of the starving child was published, in April 1994, Carter received the Pulitzer Prize for
\nthe controversial image. A week later, Ken Oosterbroek, another friend and fellow photojournalist,
\nwas killed during a violent conflict they were photographing in their native South Africa. Haunted
\nby sorrow, regret, atrocities he had witnessed, and the pain he felt, Carter committed suicide three months later.
\n11.4 CENSORSHIP
\nThe word censorship brings up
\nideas of suppressing explicit, offensive
\nimages and written material, perhaps of
\na sexual or political nature, or accounts of
\nviolence. What is considered prurient or
\nsacrilegious or barbarity is not universal,
\nhowever, so what was acceptable during
\none era may be banned in the next.
\nMichelangelo was a sculptor, painter,
\nand architect. He considered his sculptural and architectural works to be of far
\ngreater importance than his relatively few
\npainted works. But many know him today
\nas much for the two frescoes, or wall paintings, he completed in the Sistine Chapel
\nin Rome as for the far greater number of
\nmarble figures and buildings he created.
\nThe chapel is within the Pope\u2019s residence
\nin Vatican City, the seat of the Roman
\nFigure 11.1 | The Last Judgement
\nArtist: Michelangelo
\nAuthor: User \u201cWallpapper\u201d
\nSource: Wikimedia Commons
\nLicense: Public Domain
\nScott Macleod, \u201cTe Life and Death of Kevin Carter,\u201d Time, 24 June 2001, http:\/\/content.time.com\/time\/magazine\/
\narticle\/0,9171,165071,00.html.
\nPage | 286
\n1
\nPage | 287
\nINTRODUCTION TO ART CHAPTER ELEVEN: ART AND ETHICS
\nCatholic Church, in Rome. The first fresco Michelangelo painted on the 134-foot-long ceiling of
\nthe Sistine Chapel, from 1508 to 1512, is a complex series of nine scenes from the Book of Genesis,
\narchitectural elements, and figures. It was the first large-scale painting of his career. He returned to
\npaint The Last Judgment on the wall behind the altar from 1535 to1541. (Figure 11.1)
\nThe Catholic Church had changed tremendously in the twenty-four years between when the
\nfirst work was completed and the second one begun. In 1517, the singular authority of the Catholic Church was called into question when Martin Luther, a German monk, issued a series of
\ncomplaints against Church practices, especially the selling of indulgences, or pardoning of sins.
\nAs opposed to the complex hierarchy of the Church, and an emphasis on its teachings as the only
\nmeans to salvation, Luther championed personal faith and adherence to the word of the Bible.
\nAlthough his beliefs were denounced, and Luther was excommunicated from the Church in 1521,
\nthe new Protestant faith swept through northern Europe. The Protestant Reformation, as Luther\u2019s
\nattempts to revise the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church were known, was not just a serious threat to the Church\u2019s authority, it prompted the wholesale examination and revision of the
\nChurch\u2019s structure, activities, and methods.
\nMichelangelo began to paint The Last Judgment in 1535. In that time of upheaval and uncertainty, the subject of the faithful rising to their reward at Christ\u2019s side in eternity while those who
\ndoubt or turn away fall to their eternal damnation could have been intended to reassure those
\nremaining true to the Church. Rather than sticking to a clearly structured and hierarchical organization of figures, however, Michelangelo broke from tradition to show dynamic groups of moving,
\ngesturing, and emotion-filled angels, saints, blessed, and damned. Although Christ is in the center
\nwith His right arm raised, it is not clear if He is caught up in the erratic and chaotic swirl of the
\nfigures surrounding Him or confidently directing them according to their fates. The lack of distinction was originally heightened by the uniformity of clothing, or lack thereof, as Michelangelo
\npainted the majority of figures nude, removing signs of earthly status and riches.
\nWhen completed, the fresco was hailed as a masterpiece, but in the following decades, it came
\nunder sharp criticism. As the Protestant Reformation by Martin Luther and his followers continued to revolutionize religious doctrine and practices throughout Europe, the Catholic Church
\nformed The Council of Trent (1545-1563) in response. The Counter-Reformation remained adamant in condemning the new Protestant faith but did away with many excesses and leniencies
\nthat had grown within the Church, including art that served as a distraction from its proper use
\nas a tool of worship. In its findings, The Council of Trent stated that used properly, art instructed
\nthe faithful to \u201corder their own lives and manners in imitation of the saints; and may be excited
\nto adore and love God; and to cultivate piety.\u201d Michelangelo\u2019s Last Judgment lacked the clarity of
\nmessage and propriety now demanded in religious art so that, at odds with the Council\u2019s decree,
\n\u201cthere be nothing seen that is disorderly, or that is unbecomingly or confusedly arranged, nothing
\nthat is profane, nothing indecorous, seeing that holiness becometh the house of God.\u201d
\nIn 1565, two years after the Council\u2019s decree and the year after Michelangelo\u2019s death, Daniele da
\nVolterra (1509-1566, Italy) was commissioned to paint drapery on the nude figures and alter the positions of some that were deemed too indelicate. Some of his modifications, and others carried out in the
\neighteenth century, were removed when the fresco was cleaned and restored between 1980 and 1994.
\nINTRODUCTION TO ART CHAPTER TEN: ART AND RITUAL LIFE
\n11.5 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN THE COLLECTING AND
\nDISPLAY OF ART
\n11.5.1 Collecting\/Holding
\nArt is part of the cultural heritage and identity of the society in which it is made. It shares characteristics with work made by other artists such as how figures of authority are depicted or what
\nis considered appropriate subject matter in art. Because art is closely aligned with the history and
\nvalues of the people in the society it comes from, individuals and governments alike take care to
\npreserve and protect the cultural treasures in their possession. For the same reasons, invaders
\noften loot and confiscate or destroy the works of art and architecture most cherished by those they
\nhave conquered to demoralize and subjugate them.
\nRepresentatives of the Nazi Party in Germany took art from its rightful owners, both museums
\nand individuals, from 1933 until the end of World War II in 1945. When Adolf Hitler assumed
\nthe role of Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he began a campaign to sell or destroy art he did not
\napprove of in the collections of German museums. Much of that art had been produced by artists
\nwho were part of twentieth-century art movements such as German Expressionism, Dadaism,
\nCubism, and Surrealism. Hitler objected to avant garde\u2014experimental and innovative\u2014art and
\nto the artists who were part of those groups. By 1937, his agents had amassed nearly 16,000
\nworks, 650 of which were included in the Degenerate Art Exhibition (Die Ausstellung Entartete
\nKunst) held in Munich that year and viewed by more than 2,000,000 people. Hitler condemned
\nthe degenerate art as contributing to, if not the cause of, the decay of German culture, and the artists as racially impure, mentally deficient, and morally bereft. Thousands
\nof the works were then destroyed by
\nfire, and thousands more were sold to
\ncollectors and museums worldwide.
\nThe funds generated by works
\nsold were earmarked for the purchase
\nof more traditionally acclaimed artists and subjects that were to go into
\nthe F\u00fchrermuseum, or Leader\u2019s Museum, in Linz, which Hitler intended
\nto be the greatest collection of European art in the world but which was
\nnever built. Art for the Leader\u2019s Museum was purchased from museums,
\nprivate owners, and art dealers, often
\nunder pressure to sell the work at a
\nsteep discount to Hitler\u2019s agents or
\nrisk arrest. And, the Nazis acquired
\nFigure 11.2 | German loot stored at Schlosskirche Ellingen
\nAuthor: Department of Defense
\nSource: Wikimedia Commons
\nLicense: Public Domain
\nPage | 288
\nPage | 289
\nINTRODUCTION TO ART CHAPTER ELEVEN: ART AND ETHICS<\/p>\n
art by confiscating it from institutions and private owners, many of whom were Jewish. The Nazis
\npurchased and looted work in every country they occupied during World War II. They had amassed
\n8,500 works intended for the F\u00fchrermuseum by the time Hitler committed suicide in 1945.
\nThey plundered tens of thousands more for the private collections of Hitler and a few of his
\ntop commanders, including Hermann G\u00f6ring, who held approximately 2,000 works of art by the
\nend of the war. Art and other cultural spoils of war (such as books) were stored in numerous locations throughout Germany and Austria, including air raid shelters, estates that had been seized by
\nthe Nazis, and salt mines. In the photograph shown here, hundreds of crates holding sculptures
\nand cloth-wrapped paintings are stacked in the Palace Chapel (Schlosskirche) in the town of Ellingen, in Bavaria. (Figure 11.2) Standing guard is a United States soldier.
\nIn 1943, Allied forces created an organization known as Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives
\n(MFAA). At first, the approximately 350 men and women from thirteen countries who were part
\nof the \u201cMonuments Men,\u201d as they became known, worked to prevent damage to historically and
\nculturally significant monuments. As the war was ending, they began locating and documenting
\nart held by the Nazis and then led the effort to return art to the country from which it had been
\ntaken. By the time they completed their work in 1951, the Monuments Men had located and returned to their owners 5,000,000 works of art and other culturally significant items, as well as
\ndomestic objects of value such as silver, china, and jewelry. As of 1997, approximately 100,000
\nobjects were still missing.
\n11.5.2 Display
\nMuseums of all types play many roles. In the collections they hold, museums act as keepers
\nof the public trust. The objects or artifacts have value to all, from the casual viewer to the avid
\nscholar, in one or more realm: scientific, educational, cultural, social, historical, political. The
\nobjects help preserve our memories and carry them into the future; they also help us to understand the lives, thinking, and actions of others. Through the exhibitions they hold and objects
\nthey display, museums promote debate, encourage new ideas, and stimulate our imaginations.
\nThe objects in museums communicate with us by appealing to our senses, emotions, intellect,
\nand creativity. That is why we continue to wonder about and ponder on what we see and experience in museum settings.
\nWhen objects are placed within a context in a museum display, it stimulates our ability to
\nmake connections and broaden our understanding. For example, if a historical museum presents
\ninformation about the geography and history of an area as part of a display on canoes and river
\ntrading, we have a context in which to appreciate the objects and interpret the practices of the
\npeople in that place and time. That was the approach artist Fred Wilson (b. 1954, USA) took when
\nasked to create an exhibition for the Maryland Historical Society (MHS) in 1992. He titled his
\nshow \u201cMining the Museum.\u201d (Metalwork: http:\/\/africanah.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/06\/
\nFredWilsonMiningTheMuseum2.jpg)
\nThe mission of the MHS is to collect, preserve, and study objects related to Maryland history.
\nThis is often accomplished through the display of objects in its collection. As the organizer of the
\nCHAPTER TEN: ART AND RITUAL LIFE
\nPage | 290
\nINTRODUCTION TO ART
\nexhibition, or guest curator, Wilson was allowed to explore the thousands of artifacts in storage,
\nmany of which are seldom if ever displayed. He was seeking to bring to light, so to speak, objects
\nrarely seen, and to present groupings of objects in unexpected ways, sometimes humorous and at
\nother times disturbing. For example, with the label identifying the objects as \u201cMetalwork 1793-
\n1880,\u201d Wilson placed iron slave shackles in the midst of ornately decorated silver tableware. No
\nexplanatory text accompanied these things; Wilson wanted viewers to contemplate what they saw
\nand make connections without directions:
\nBy displaying these artifacts side by side, Wilson created an atmosphere of unease and
\nmade apparent the link between the two kinds of metal works: The production of the one
\nwas made possible by the subjugation enforced by the other. When the audience made
\nthis connection, Wilson succeeded in creating awareness of the biases that often underlie
\nhistorical exhibitions and, further, the way these biases shape the meaning we attach to
\nwhat we are viewing.
\nSo, in addition to asking viewers to question the meaning of the objects through his mode of
\ndisplay, he also wanted them to think about how history is made or constructed by what we include and omit; what we value, and why; and how we highlight objects and information of value
\nin exhibitions within museum settings.
\n11.5.3 Property Rights, Copyright, and the First Amendment
\nArtist Shepard Fairey (b. 1970, USA) designed a poster with a portrait of President Barack
\nObama above the word \u201chope\u201d in red, beige, and two tones of blue in 2008. (Barack Obama \u201cHOPE\u201d
\nposter, Shepard Fairey: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Shepard_Fairey#\/media\/File:Barack_
\nObama_Hope_poster.jpg) Sometimes printed instead with the words \u201cprogress\u201d or \u201cchange,\u201d the
\nposter and image quickly became associated with Obama\u2019s campaign for presidency and was soon
\nofficially adopted as its symbol. After the election, the Smithsonian Institution acquired for the
\nNational Portrait Gallery a mixed-media version of the portrait.
\nIt soon came to light, however, that the poster was based on a photograph taken by freelance
\nphotographer Mannie Garcia in 2006. The Associated Press (AP) stated they owned rights to the
\nphotograph and that Fairey had not obtained permission from AP for its use. The Associated Press
\nclaimed they owned the copyright on the photograph, having contracted ownership of the image
\nfrom its creator, Mannie Garcia. Garcia, on the other hand, stated that according to his contract
\nwith AP, he still possessed the copyright. The exclusive legal right to print, publish, or otherwise
\nreproduce a work of art or to authorize others to do so belongs to the artist who created it according to the U.S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 8: \u201cThe Congress shall have Power: To promote the
\nProgress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
\nexclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.\u201d That right, or copyright, remains in
\nplace for the artist\u2019s lifetime plus seventy years, granting the artist the power to control their work,
\nits use, and its reproduction.
\nPage | 291
\nINTRODUCTION TO ART CHAPTER ELEVEN: ART AND ETHICS
\nFairey, through his attorney Anthony Falzone, countered with the statement, \u201cWe believe fair
\nuse protects Shepard\u2019s right to do what he did here.\u201d Fair use allows for brief excerpts of copyright
\nmaterial to be used without permission of payment from the copyright holder under certain conditions: commentary and criticism, or parody. The idea behind allowing quotes and summaries of
\ncopyright material to be used freely is that what is written will add to public knowledge. Parody is
\nreferencing a well-known work clearly, but in a comic way; by its very nature, the original work is
\nrecognizable in a parody of it. Unfortunately, Fairey\u2019s case was settled out of court, so the question
\nof how his use of Garcia\u2019s photograph in his poster was an example of fair use was not answered.
\n11.6 BEFORE YOU MOVE ON
\nKey Concepts
\nTraditionally, art has a history of being judged and censored and more than likely in the future artists will continue to blur many boundaries, sometimes even offending the audience\u2019s sensitivities. Offenses may address politics, social injustices, sexuality or nudity, among numerous
\nother subjects and concerns. Contemporary societies, on the other hand, generally do not want
\nto endorse any form of censorship; but, at times due to the sensitive nature of art, it happens.
\nSome contemporary art is expected to make some groups in society uncomfortable. Artists over
\ntime have pushed many boundaries in society and have brought to the surface questions about
\na society\u2019s moral beliefs. Just the questions alone have perhaps expanded the freedom of artistic
\nmanifestation. So, works such as Duchamp\u2019s Urinal, or Ofili\u2019s The Holy Virgin Mary challenge
\nsociety\u2019s moral beliefs and values by the nature of the art itself. They also shock segments of society by exploring the notion of aesthetic taste. Such works that challenge traditional notion of
\nethics and aesthetics, in fact, have led some to believe that contemporary art practices are based
\nmore on the idea than the object of art.
\nNevertheless, artists do make ethical decisions in such areas as the appropriation of others\u2019
\nwork, what materials they use in their work and how they use them, the digital manipulation of
\ntheir work, and what role they play as observers of the events they capture in their art. And, as we
\nhave seen, museums and other places in which art is exhibited play distinct roles and have responsibilities in how art is preserved, interpreted, and displayed.
\nTest Yourself
\n1. Is there a relationship between art and ethics? Defend your answer explaining why you agree
\nor disagree. Select works not used in this text to clarify your stance. Attach selected works with
\ncaptions. Add a commentary at the end of your response explaining why you selected the art
\nworks and their significance to the topic.
\n2. Select two ethically controversial works of art from different periods in history. Explain how
\neach work was received at the time it was made, and how changes in societal values have
\nimpacted acceptance of the works today.
\nCHAPTER TEN: ART AND RITUAL LIFE
\nPage | 292
\nINTRODUCTION TO ART
\n3. Should certain types of art be censored? Explain your answer and select at least two examples
\nto assist in clarifying your statement. Give an opposing response with justifications and select
\nworks to describe and clarify your opinion.
\n4. Describe one way appropriation has become acceptable in contemporary art.
\n5. What does it mean when some contemporary artists question what is an \u201coriginal\u201d work of art,
\nand what is a \u201creproduction?\u201d
\n6. What concepts was Damien Hirst exploring in using butterflies in his artwork? What did the
\nbutterflies symbolize for Hirst?
\n7. Why is it important that news photographs not be altered?
\n8. What was the ethical dilemma photojournalist Kevin Carter faced when he photographed a
\nchild during the 1993 famine in Sudan?
\n9. What acts of censorship did Adolf Hitler and his associates engage in prior to and during
\nWorld War II?
\n10. As guardians of culturally significant objects, what obligations do museums have?
\n11. Describe how claims of \u201ccopyright\u201d and \u201cfair use\u201d came into play in relation to Shepard Fairey\u2019s
\nportrait of Barack Obama.
\n11.7 KEY TERMS
\nAppropriation: the use of pre-existing objects or images with little or no transformation applied
\nto them.
\nCensorship: the suppression of art and other forms of communication considered to be
\nobjectionable or harmful for moral, political, or religious reasons.
\nCloning: the repeated duplication of a digital effect.
\nEthical Judgment: an alternative decision between being morally right or morally wrong.
\nEthical Values: principles that determine one proper behavior in society.
\nFormal qualities: the elements and principles of design that make up a work of art.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
11 Art and Ethics Peggy Blood and Pamela J. Sachant 11.1 LEARNING OUTCOMES After completing this chapter, you should be able to: \u2022 Understand why art and ethics […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pagelayer_contact_templates":[],"_pagelayer_content":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1942],"tags":[1944,1839,1838,1837],"class_list":["post-5783","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-write-my-psychology-papers","tag-write-my-psychology-research-paper","tag-psychology-research-papers","tag-psychology-dissertations","tag-psychology-assignment"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5783","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5783"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5783\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5783"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5783"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.homeworkacetutors.com\/acemyhomework\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}