Does theartisthave aresponsibilitywhenrepresentingconflict?

a digital artists book by Hannah Kemp-Welchfor Arts Award Gold2015

This text invitesartists, curators and researchers to respond to the question - presenting an argument or view.

Contributors

Hannah Kemp-WelchAndrew Dundas

Paul StewartSamantha Mcguire

Amanda MillisMark PeterWright

Dan Mitchell

The artist (in theirrole/capacity however this is

defined by their practice and inaddition to the responsibility

held by all people) has (timeframe is fluid) a responsibility

(complex and plural, to bedefined by the subject, relative

to the issue and artistsrelationship with the conflict)

when representing (bothimplicitly or explicitly) conflict

(to mean all scenes of humansuffering).

DOESthis implies a right or wrong, black and white, definite answer. Surely this is more

fluid?

THEsegregation 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’ areoften issues we are in close proximity too – an injustice by authorities in thelocal area, instances of inequality experienced by a friend, the illness orstruggle of a loved one. These issues surround us, and we tend to take onboard 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 withothers, protest, sign petitions, etc etc. This is our duty, and we fulfill itautomatically if we are engaged with the issue. Some may be more of thespray paint it onto a wall than sign a petition character, but the desire topush change forwards is the same.

Though we know that war, starvation, mass illnesses and atrocities arehappening in the world, we tend to fight the battles that we have personallyexperienced. The pay off for us, even if our battle is unsuccessful, is thatsome of our emotional needs are met: connection to the wider community,autonomy and control, a sense of achievement, meaning and purpose. Soit is in our human nature to care and respond to issues, and we receive apayoff of emotional security for our engagement.

When travelling, we come into contact with social issues which are outsideof our usual sphere. We experience new conflicts, struggles and dilemmas,and most often our response is not to engage or take up these battles. Weassume that as we are active in our community, the problems of this othercommunity are the responsibility of our counterparts. We feel we are notinvolved, informed or able to engage or contribute to these battles of theother.

Many communities, both at home and abroad, have so many problemspiled up, that they become impossible to solve. When a community is facedwith multiple challenges and threats to their security, they are placed in aposition of personal powerlessness. They are unable to function effectivelyas all areas of self are threatened, or become apathetic as instincts of selfpreservation settle in. Unless we have personally experienced thispowerlessness it may be misunderstood or difficult to comprehend.

Problems of powerless people or communities must be solved by a powergreater than themselves – a government body, support from a charitableorganisation, a neighboring community or family. But how do the powerlessappeal for power? What other powers exist when the government orneighboring community does not arrive with support? Is there a power thatexists that can affect change, or order help and support for the powerless?

Art has considerable power. It’s essence is to transcend barriers, alterperceptions, instigate new chains of inquiry. Historically, art is always apart of revolution. Whether it’s in protest banners, propaganda images orphotography, it is used to help the other understand our needs. Artists(both official and unofficial) who make such works (whether or not theyview it as an artwork or present it in an art context) wield a powerful tool forcommunicating an experience or view.

‘A picture says a thousand words’ we repeat. Those with the ability tocreate images in our minds, communicating issues in an effective way holdconsiderable power. In this way, the power of the artist is evident. And is itnot the responsibility of the powerful to help the powerless? If artists do notuse this power to instigate change, the alternative is to use their power forpersonal gain – whether this is to fulfill ambitions, for financial benefits orself-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 arepowerful, and this power must be used for the benefit of the powerlessrather than to secure the advancement of self. The artist has aresponsibility to a conflict, when representing it in a work.

ARTISTwhy 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’dsay yes; it’s impossible to deny that actions haveconsequences. When I let a work go there’s aloosening of identity or authorship and it becomespart of a more shared sense of ownership which Ilike, but even then, I’m the one who set the thingoff, so I have to be sensitive to the possibleramifications of what it is I’m doing. It’s kind of likea personal ethics I think and definitely not a moralcode of conduct. I can’t and don’t want to controlthings beyond the work but I’m mindful to go aboutthat process in empathetic and inclusive ways.That said, I do think there’s a lot of responsibilityput onto artists generally and I’d say art does apretty good job at being responsible/political/social.What I’d like to see more of, and what I think isvital right now, would be politics becoming moreresponsible towards art, for me that’s where theemphasis needs to be.

HAVEwhen 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?

Aimplies the responsibility is single, rather than plural and multifaceted.

In 2007 American Magnum Photographer, Susan Meiselas, contributed toan article addressing the appropriation of her infamous image ofNicaraguan Sandinista, Pablo Arauz, throwing a molotov cocktail duringthe 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 photographwith commentators asking, "Who owns the rights to this man's struggle?"Meiselas’ response, however, reveals an interest in her subject over aninterest in her image, “In 1990 I returned to Nicaragua … to documentwhat had happened to the people in my earlier photographs. I learned that‘molotov man’ was Pablo Arauz.” Meiselas claims her concern around thereproduction of her photographs was born out of a respect for theindividuality of her subjects rather than an interest in the ownership of herwork.“There is no denying in this digital age that images are increasinglydislocated and far more easily decontextualised….If history is workingagainst context, then we must, as artists, work all the harder to reclaimthat context…We owe this debt of specificity not just to one another but toour subjects, with whom we have an implicit contract.”Meiselas argues that only Pablo Arauz owns the right to his struggle butthat, as an artist who documented this struggle, she bears theresponsibility of ensuring it is recognised.[Excerpts from “On the Rights of Molotov Man Appropriation and the art ofContext” from Harper’s Magazine February 2007, p.53-8]

RESPONSIBILITYare we talking about morals and ethics? What are the kinds of responsibility we are discussing?

My main draw was to thinking about this questionin terms of war reporters, as they probably have

the most direct and powerful link to a subject. Iappreciate that many would not describe their work

as art, but that probably veers off into territorytotally off topic. At first I was thinking about TimHetherington, he became well known as a war

reporter in West Africa, when civil war broke outthere. He made a successful report following the

conflict there, but instead of leaving as soon as thefighting was over he stayed in West Africa for 8

years and documented the way everything pannedout after the conflict had died down. I think he is anideal example of someone who felt a great deal of

compassion towards his subjects, and who wasmoved to continuously draw attention to theirplight. He was a really inspiring person, who

obviously cared a lot. On the other side of this arethe war reporters who jump from conflict to conflict,

arguably they make a document about a specificevent or moment, and by publishing this

(journals/magazines/exhibitions) they alert theworld to the plight of a people/place, and you couldargue that their responsibility is continued throughthis. However, you could also say that by running

from conflict to conflict they are feeding into ourmassive system of consumption, i.e. going from

tragedy to tragedy to feed our gluttony for thetrauma of the other. No responsibility is taken for

the subject after their work is done and they havemoved onto the next subject.

Instead I thought about it from my own perspectiveas an artist. In my own practice, I feel that myresponsibility to the subject effectively ends oncethe work is complete. This stems from the nature ofmy practice, in that, accuracy in the portrayal of mysubject is the crucial element of my work. Althoughthis makes it sound like my work is purely aesthetic(maybe it is?), the important part for me is thephysical process of making, of looking, thinkingand doing. As I almost exclusively makeportraits of family members (living anddeceased), and friends, it is crucial that each workfeels for me like a step closer to knowing an aspectof a person. If I don't feel that I have achieved asense of better understanding, then I wouldn'treally allow people to see the work as, for me, ithas failed. In saying that, maybe that is theresponsibility once the work is completed! Bydeciding what would or would not be viewed byothers, I am in a way affecting a responsibility forthe subject. In essence, I don't really know! I createbecause the process is a challenge and is arelease, the stuff that comes after has alwaysbaffled me and been something that Istruggle with, this has made me try and figure it outa bit better, but potentially I am more confusedthan when I started!

WHENthis 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. Theidea of freedom is about responsibility to theartwork alone, and this is sacred. No compromiseis possible. The artist is subjugated by the artwork,in essence must allow the artwork to tell her/himwhat to do.

The artists plays many roles in socio-political projects as a creative process,but is in no way obligated to commit toa particular position. I want to brieflydiscuss is how the artist’s political orideological position holds a differentbearing on the action to the political orideological position of the art work.These are separate emotions. First Iwant to re-define what I mean byemotion, this is not in turn used to be‘emotive’ but more emo-active. To bearoused to produce a strong feeling orreaction to something but notspecifically connected to emotion butto what emotion can activate. It is alsonot connected to an individual it is acollective emotion that is active in thisscenario. This is not to say the art-work holds a collective emotion but inturn can produce an emo-activeresponse based on its formation,context and site. The collective emo-active positioncreated in a group consensus towardsa political position that refers to aninfringement of people produces acollective agency. Furthermore theindividual is able to have anautonomous experience away from theoppression of the hegemonic statethrough a collective agency ofconsensus in relation to a socialinequality.

I want to use the term‘mountain’[1] that is defined inmy text search foralternatives…alternativesin search (2014) as the wordto represent the position of theartist. The artists does notspeak the language, the artistcomplicates, disfigures ascenario or situation butexplicitly and importantly sayssomething differently. InDerridian terms the failure ofcommunication is the reasonfor our continuous talking if wesaid what we mean directly wewould soon stop talking andshut up forever. Thereforewhat the artists says isimplicitly important to theoverall conversation as ratherthan producing a vertical topdown or horizontal left to rightit allows the interpretation tohave curves and right anglesallowing a more indebteddebate to re-defining thepolitical or social issue. Andthis position is only availableas the artist is only committedin presence thus the art workis only committed when theartist is present.

[1] M

ount

ain

is d

efin

ed a

s to

cro

ss th

e oc

ean

and

to n

ot s

peak

a w

ord

of E

nglis

h an

d st

art u

p an

art

scho

ol in

the

mou

ntai

ns.

REPRESENTINGalthough 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 ofUniversalisability. 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 thiswhere 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 meanby 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 piecedepicts.

-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 tothe person, their story, the aesthetics and the participatory self, MolotovMan by Susan Meisalas. This work is of particular interest because thisimage was re-appropriated, without permission by Meisalas, the original

artist, from 1980-2004 by many different parties involved in the NicaraguanRevolution. Meisalas’s decision to protest the de-contextualisation of herimage 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 dowith 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 aestheticallysuccessful 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 theNicaraguan Revolution and in her protests without demanding outcome ofGarnett) 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?