Ethics

Art has stepped outside the boundaries of aesthetics, and in the post-modern world, art has become more of a channel of expression and not necessarily art in a conventional sense.  In this case, the common question What is art has now become subject to the follow up, What is art for  Art history has shown that what is considered artistic also implies a sense of elusiveness traditional perspectives emphasize how art is also intellectual, something that is appreciated by the chosen few.  Gaultier (2004, p. 53) mentioned that an artist chose his or her subject less on intellectual grounds than by reason of sensitive harmony or aesthetic agreement, an emotional intercourse between artist and things.  In this case, the dynamics between artist and subject is determined by a certain relationship which mixes both the emotion and the intellect, whereas the art and the audience creates a connection with a more balanced view on reason as mixed with taste and emotion.  This is why prior to the emergence and influence of commercial art, art is considered intellectual because it is a gamut of aesthetics and meaning, as opposed to the mainstream which is more direct.  In any case, art does have its social value because it creates a critical social impact, but in this day and age, the role and function of art needs to be assessed especially in terms of what it is now and what it is currently for.
With the onset of technology, and open and free access, almost anyone can claim and establish a sense of artistry.  A writer who self-publishes somehow becomes a published author, and anyone with a camera can have a broadcasted video work thanks to the likes of YouTube and other social networking sites.  The definition of an artist, in this day and age, somehow becomes challenged with the mere idea that it is no longer as prestigious as being an artist used to be.  Unlike the centuries in which art was supported through patronage, art now needs to exist in a more democratic environment filled with audiences with short attention spans and a hyper-reality where almost anything can be acquired with merely the click of a mouse.  In addition, public patronage is no longer directed to the arts more and more people would rather flock to the cinema or download and stream videos from the Internet.  The attention that was given to art before are no longer of the same degree as it used to hence, for some reason, art in itself can become a mechanism to strike up a sense of PR.  Moreover, many forms of art have emerged, especially along the digital lines.

    What is interesting is that so far, art has managed to grab the attention of the public when it features works that are controversial.  Transgression in art, interestingly, has given the public a reference point for intellectual assessment.  This is to say that transgression art, which is typically associated for its shock value, somehow elicits a discussion whether the piece is art or whether it is just plainly offensive or unethical.  This thereby brings about a debate whether certain works of art is valid in the sphere of what is still considered art or what is simply an expression or a subject merely for the purpose attention, controversy and scandal.

Transgression Art and Ethics
    If art is the venue in which freedom of expression is upheld, should ethics be considered  What is more important than the function and the role of art is how it affects and influences its viewers as Gaut (2007, p. 1) explained its impact,

Art has the power to upset, to disturb, to make us question our assumptions, to change us.  But it also has the power to celebrate our cherished convictions, to pacify us, to be, as Matisse put it, like an appeasing influence, like a mental soother, something like a good armchair in which the rest from physical fatigue.  These powers of art have made it the recurrent object of high ethical hope and deep ethical concern.

    It can be argued that ethical considerations in art is comparable to censorship and it is contradictory to the entire point of what art should be.  However, as art is associated with aesthetics, the problem is that art also becomes subject to the narrow perspective on aesthetics which is basically a discussion on what it beautiful and the ugly in an aesthetic sense.  Gaut (2007) presents an interesting argument that with such narrow view, aesthetics cannot be subject to ethics because ethics cannot be directly perceptible, hence, what is ethical cannot be beautiful or ugly (p. 27). 

    However, evidently art becomes subject to ethics based on its ethical standpoint.  For instance, a controversy emerged from the publication of offensive images relating to Islam such as the editorial cartoon in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005 which depicted the many faces of the prophet Mohammad.  The cartoon, evident of its commercial artistic merit, had its purpose of conveying a certain message, and in that case the message was a criticism of Islam and censorship.  The cartoon evidently met a number of protests because such illustrations were considered blasphemous.

    This thereby highlights whether an artist and a work of art should only function within defined ethical boundaries.  Many works have encountered similar problems, and this issue goes back as far as centuries ago during the time when nude artworks were frowned upon.  Hence, in the same spirit as distinguishing what is an artistic nude and what is blatantly pornographic, art remains to be subject to a set of audience that is still anchored on certain values.  This is why even though art should be representative of what freedom of expression is about, there remains the thin line many people think it should not cross.

    The issue of aesthetics and ethics, according to Littlejohn (1993, p. 1), has its roots in axiology which concerns what human persons value, why they value what they do, and how they express appraisals or judgments of value.  Evidently, such appraisals highlight what people value something that is physical (aesthetics) and something that is moral (ethics).  Aesthetics and ethics are not polar concepts, but rather they can work as incorporated elements in terms of the substance of an object.  Hence, for instance, the Jyllands-Posten cartoons may have scored higher in the aesthetics category yet in the ethics scores the rate is low.

    It should be noted, however, that art and artists do not constantly aim for high scores in both because in reality aesthetics is subjective whereas the issue of what is ethical has now become more subject to a debate.  This is to say that art is not tied to universal rules although art can be challenged in terms of its aesthetic sense and ethical considerations, some may still see certain pieces as something that has successfully expressed what needs to be expressed.  This is why when it comes to examining art that is neither aesthetically nor ethically pleasing, it somehow becomes an objective of meaning.  For instance, there remains a substantial amount of audience who may not get performance art, but in close inspection, the entire sensory experience of the art also integrates the experience of exploring and expounding on its meaning.

    In a sense this becomes an important aspect when it comes to assessing transgression in art.  Some may revere these pieces whereas some may dismiss them as basically ugly and highly offensive.  Many art pieces have garnered such position not only in the art world but among the members of the public as well.  This is why such issue brings forth not only the perception on art but also its current relevance.  It can therefore be argued that art, at present, may be in a position where it is on a limbo hence, whether art remains to maintain its conventional stance or whether it has further devolved from its post-modernist development.  In this regard, it is thereby important to discuss how art places in the world today, and whether the classical notions on aesthetics and ethics should remain to hold true.

On Ofilis The Holy Virgin Mary
The Painting and Reception
    Chris Ofilis The Holy Virgin Mary is a depiction of the Virgin Mary the piece is a mixture of different media including paper cutouts, paint, glitter, poly-resin and elephant dung.  Ofilis intention, evidently, was to depict the Holy Virgin Mary through classic African symbolism as can be seen in the style of the features of the face and the exposure of the female images breast.  The painting is reminiscent of iconic images of the Virgin such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

    As an artist, Ofilis works can be observed to be strongly reflective of his AfricanCaribbean background in addition, his opportunity to study cave paintings would evidently influence his style.  His themes can be observed to address sexual and gender stereotypes, in addition to his consistent reference to blaxploitation works and gangster rap.  His works also regularly use elephant dung (BBC News, 1998)

    What is interesting about this painting is the details.  The Virgin Mary is a black woman around her, what seems like winged cherubs from afar are actually cutouts of the female genitalia and backside.  Elephant dung and pins served as emphasis on the piece.  Instead of the Virgin cloaked in the typical white or light blue cloth, a bright Prussian blue is draped around the Virgins figure.  Furthermore, the face of the woman is far from the normal depiction of how the Mother Mary might have looked like.  All in all, the painting can be easily perceived as far from the Virgin Mary and what she was about.

    Evidently, the reception towards this work translated into protests and in the United States, a lawsuit from the then mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani.  When the painting was shown at the Brooklyn museum, many people protested including the septuagenarian Dennis Heiner who smeared white paint on Ofilis piece. The exhibit which the painting belonged in, Sensation Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection, was cancelled in Australia not because of moral outrage about the art but for reasons of ethics, explained Dr. Brian Kennedy, the director of the National Gallery of Australia (ABC News Online, 1999).

Ethical Problems with the Painting
    Evidently, there are three main problems with the painting the presence of elephant dung in an artwork depicting a sacred Christian figure, the presence of pornographic elements, and the depiction of Virgin Mary as a black woman.  The first two elements can be considered blasphemous in a sense their presence does taint the supposed sacredness of the image, but the point is that from afar, viewers will not automatically notice that the details were actually made up of elephant dung and picture cutouts of the female private parts.  Hence, with the initial knowledge that the painting is called Holy Virgin Mary, a cartoonish illustration of a black woman is the least that can be expected.

    The Virgin Mary, based on Biblical history, was a Jewish woman from Galilee.  This alone already shows that there is little likelihood that Mary was from Africa or a black woman.  Western Christianity has constantly depicted Mary as a white woman with a virginal face.  Everything about Virgin Mary is therefore aesthetically pleasing as she is observed as a beautiful woman.  Hence, depicting her in a cartoony sense in a race in which she is not typically associated with can cause accusations of misrepresentation.

    Ofilis portrait further took the controversy to the next level.  Surrounding the image of Mary are photos of female genitalia and derriere.  From afar they look like wings, but in close inspection, these images are far from virginal.  The added element of the elephant dung further added insult to the injury again, the presence of animal excrement is the opposite of representations of what is pure.  In this case, it can then be said that the portrait, in itself, tainted the very essence of the universal understanding as to who the Virgin Mary is, especially in terms of how her sacredness is connected to the human manifestation of God through Jesus Christ.   

    These ethical elements of the painting have shown how these representations are obvious opposites when it comes to the proper imagery of Virgin Mary.  Common perception as to who and what the Virgin is definitely shy away from the image of a black woman surrounded by pornographic images and smeared with animal excrement this is why many considered The Holy Virgin Mary as blasphemous work.

Historical and Socio-Cultural Analysis Blasphemous Depiction
    Some may be curious to inquire how people would respond to the portrait without the knowledge of its title evidently, the portrait would be least likely associated at all with the Virgin Mary.  However, as Ofili was the author of his work, and he called it The Holy Virgin Mary, the public will have to chew on the fact that the painting is that of the Holy Virgin Mary.  Interestingly, in an incident of the exhibits showing in Brooklyn, the security guards were noted to have remarked, Its not the Virgin Mary.  Its a painting (Saltz, 2010).

    The painting thereby elicits an assessment as to whether a painting such as The Holy Virgin Mary is blasphemy in this specific context.  The Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes the meaning of blasphemy as derogation of the honor due to a creature as well as of that belonging to God.  Blasphemy is further categorizes as heretical, imprecatory and contumacious.  As previously cited, some people have called the prophet Mohammad cartoons as blasphemous although according to the artists, they were merely editorial.  As for the case of Ofilis The Holy Virgin Mary, can the painting pass as merely artistic

    Basically, aesthetics-wise, the image alone is not beautiful in a sense that the woman in the painting is not pretty.  Her eyes, nose and mouth are oversized, and the blackness of her skin is too dark.  The cutouts look like flies instead of any beautiful winged creature furthermore, the selected photos of the female genitalia are more pornographic than artistic.  Hence, in making associations within the image according to common perception, the presence of flies means the presence of a foul smell, thus justifying the presence of dung in the painting. 

    Based on this, the image is derogatory however, this perception already limits what the painting is trying to convey.  In such works it is important to look at how a painting can mean something else outside the immediate response to the image.  With this image and the use of the title The Holy Virgin Mary, it requires more attention than automatically accepting that the Virgin Mary is a cartoonish black woman who smells foul and is being flocked by flies.  In this case, the aspect of moral value or the ethical context of the painting needs to be looked at.

    The first point of discussion is whether it is ethical at all depict the Virgin Mary as a black woman.  Depictions of a black Virgin Mary is not entirely rare Black Madonnas are accepted in the ChristianCatholic circles and can be in fact found across Europe and all over the world. In any case, the presence of these Black Madonnas has its cultural and historical significance such as the creation of these sculptures and images based on the materials that were used (i.e. ebony wood, darker inks) and not necessarily for intentional purposes except for the theories that the Black Madonnas were more of a depiction of Isis, an African goddess or pre-Christian Mother Earth (Begg, 2006).  In any case, the Black Madonnas, in the Christian context, are generally accepted as depictions of the Virgin Mary although it overlooks other historical significations such as the meaning of Black Virgins in the pagan world such as sexuality.

The presence of the Black Madonnas are not as widespread as compared to the typical version of the white Virgin Mary when learning about the Virgin Mary, the immediate picture that is shown is the white Jewish Mary in her white and blue garments.  Learning about the Black Madonnas comes with additional exposure mostly, their presence is learned and not necessarily taught.  This thereby highlights how the aspect of race remains to be critical in the context of religious art Western Christianity, in this case, is all about the cast of white people despite the fact that the locations of these civilizations were in the ArabNorth African world.  Which is why with the spread of Christianity, which was basically a European crusade, the images of the religion need to look like those who spread it this is why in order to be authentic (the religion), colonial discourse demonstrates the necessity of establishment and fixity (representations and images).  Hence, images of a white Virgin Mary and even a white Jesus have been ingrained in the Christian world.  Such association has defined a specific stereotype thereby establishing position and superiority especially in the aspect of race (Bhabha, 1994).  In going back to Ofilis work, even though it is a dark skinned Virgin Mary, the features remains to be African and not acceptable in a Black Madonna sense.   

Another important factor is the presence of the cutouts.  As a collage, any art piece can use any image a means to contribute to the big picture.  In isolation, images of the female genitalia are not new in the art world at all the public has been exposed to nudity and pornography that cutouts of the female private parts should no longer bring forth that certain degree of shock value.  Besides, as previously mentioned, from afar the cutouts do not really look like images of what they represent because of its shape and relationship to the entire canvass.

    The same can be also said about the presence of animal excrement on the painting although elephant dung is not a regular feature in most artistic work, the dung becomes more of a detail.  Although in the Brooklyn exhibit the portrait is propped on two elephant droppings, the dung is not the major highlight of the piece. 

    Hence, in isolation, the portrait of a black woman, the cutouts of female genitalia and enhancements by using elephant dung are not unethical they do have a sense of shock value, but its ethical issue is not as magnified as the controversy the painting aroused.  Furthermore, as previously mentioned, Ofili has used elephant dung several times in his works, and other artists have constantly used images of the female genitalia as part of their work what makes this one different Although the painting is not aesthetically pleasing, it does have its aesthetic and artistic merit.  This is to say that the painting functions as an intriguing portrait the composition is acceptable, the colors are pleasing, and the details make the painting very modern.  In a sense it looks like a twisted Kandinsky integrated with a twisted Picasso during his early years.  Apparently, the only unethical element about the painting is the name, otherwise it is just a painting.

The Artist and the Degree of Expression
    Are transgressions in art unethical  Many artists have crossed the ethical lines such as Damien Hirst who exhibited actual dead animals immersed in formaldehyde and a human skull encrusted with diamonds.  There was also the blasphemous work by Andres Serrano called Piss Christ which is a photo of a crucifix floating in the urine of the artist.  Based on these works, Ofilis The Holy Virgin Mary is not as shocking because it was merely an illustration as previously mentioned, the painting can be a painting of anyone.  In Hirsts and Serranos works, they used the actual objects in display and in illustration Hirst used real dead animals whereas Serrano used an actual crucifix.  For Ofili, it was merely a painting which becomes more of the absolute creation of the artist whereas these other examples were modifications, recreations and direct exploitations of the artists.

    What is interesting is that such works have had its support in the art community, even going as far as giving recognition to these artists based on these works for instance, for Piss Christ, Serrano won the prize  Awards in the Visual Arts from the Southeaster Center for the Contemporary Arts, a reward which was partially funded by the National Endowment for the Arts which was basically tax-payer money.  Damien Hirsts piece featuring a tiger shark immersed in formaldehyde called The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living has reached its iconic level which represents modern British art Hirst has been also noted to be the richest living artist to date (Graham-Dixon, 2008).  Ofilis work, after the scandal and scene at the Brooklyn Museum, assured the artist an increased value of The Holy Virgin Mary.  Such attention generated by the artists have definitely created a buzz in the art market, thus, making these paintings a good business deal despite their poor ethical ranking (Cuilla, 1991).  Thus, is the art market unethical in encouraging such works  According to the definitions of ethical practices in the arts (Bellingham, 2008), the code of ethics is practiced based on the dealings these individuals make concerns include the cultural heritage of the piece and whether the materials used are from ethical sources.  The art market thereby cannot determine what cannot be sold based on content hence, the art market cannot refuse to promote Ofilis and Serranos work, although Hirsts animals may be subject to scrutiny such as whether Hirst killed these animals for the purpose of art or whether he acquired these animals in the state they were in.

    Artistic expression is evidently subjective.  People may see the elements of depiction with distaste such as the case of Ofilis utilization of excrement matter.  Artistic expression can therefore go as far as changing the meaning of the components used in the entire composition of the art work.  For instance, excrements, in isolation, may be far from artistic however, as an artist, Ofili used his creative license to modify the universal meaning and reception towards this element.  In this case, it can then be said that instead of the elephant dung providing the shit to the image, it was actually used with a different intent.  Hence, with respect to the entire painting, the juxtaposition of the dung with a depiction of Mother Mary gives a different meaning.  The same is true with the images of the female genitalia within the painting these photos are not just cutouts of these images but rather, within the context of the painting, the pictures take a whole new meaning.  Hence, both dung and pornographic cutouts become something else within the painting, and as creator of this very specific factors, Ofili recreated something else. 

    Contemporary art has evolved from centuries of the definition and the redefinition of aesthetics from the prestige of the high art to the general acceptance of commercial and post-modernist art, art is definitely dynamic thus restricting it generally loses its point.  As an expression, an artist cannot be restricted as to what needs to be expressed whether it may result to something that is aesthetically challenged.  An artist is not just for aesthetics as are also bearer of additional meanings.

    As for transgressive art such as the case of The Holy Virgin Mary, the question of ethics is more on how the piece is supposed to be representational.  What is interesting in this specific case is that the unethical accusations on the portrait are based more on the societys conditioning.  Ofilis piece is not a direct representation of the Virgin Mary but rather, in artistic sense, it can be interpreted as a paradox and a challenge to the common perception as to what the Virgin Mary should be.  This piece thereby makes the people think more about their faith and its relationship to imagery.

    The importance of freedom of artistic expression should not be an ethical issue because it is subjective it takes an object from the real world and then recreated it into something that people can assess and evaluate.  Art does not exist in isolation because it integrates how individuals view these pieces according to their personal values and not through the imposed views of an institution.  Hence, individuals become the judge of the work, and they can express whether they like it or not criticism and critique should not become a basis of censorship.