When art becomes a dirty word

In general I applaud artists who dare to take risks, be creative and stir debate. But recent coverage of ‘art’ in the Daily Mail Online (stop laughing, I was exposed to it without choice), caused frustration at the ease at which absolute drivel is allowed to be admired as ‘art’, or allows the perpetrator to excuse his product because he is ‘an artist’. The person in question is Thomas Czarnecki, and the product is a photographic series entitled From Enchantment to Down.

The premise behind the photos – alternative endings for Disney Princesses – sounds interesting, and like it could be delivered with dark humour and creativeness. Well, no. Besides the series being repetitive and unimaginative, the majority of pictures clearly indicate sexual assault/rape, before murder. In the article, Czarnecki admits his aim was pure culture shock, saying he “was inspired to create a clash between what he calls 'the naive universe and the innocence of the fairy tales' and a 'much darker reality’.” It’s the equivalent of torture porn for the art world.

This isn’t the same as real shock creativity, as in Jake & Dino Chapman's or Grayson Perry‘s work. This is plain old fetish delivered as bluntly as can be. It could have been so good. A shame the idea came to a complete misogynist.

Like the highly sexualised photos of 10-year-old Brooke Shields taken by Gary Gross in 1975 for commercial use. Rights to reproduce as ‘art’ were sold to Richard Prince who attempted to exhibit a photo in 2009 at the Tate Gallery London. Shields lost a court battle to get the negatives due to the consent her (then alcoholic) mother gave for the photo shoot all those years ago; she was powerless. Tate eventually removed the photos after outcry and a bit of common sense. So why on earth would a respected art institution wish to exhibit pictures akin to sexual exploitation of a child? Why, because he was an ‘artist’ dear, it’s ‘art’.

I’m not sure when exactly the art world felt it no longer held responsibility for the views of the art it promotes, but it should. Maybe it is less so about censorship – art is an important part of freedom of expression – and more about taking a stand when something is evidently exploitation over art. Brook Shields’ photo began life as a commercial endeavour, and was only considered high profile art by the Tate and other galleries once an artist decided to include it in an exhibition. It’s almost a blind snobbery on the part of art institutions which prevents the bare truth of the matter hitting home. The truth being a naked 10 year child made not only to look sexually attractive, but to seem as though she desires sex.

As for Czarnecki, I’m not overly concerned. The unoriginality and sheer disappointment of his photographic series will hopefully mean it doesn’t go much further than the Daily Mail. However, when it comes to high profile endeavours, the public expects galleries to be the experts and with this comes responsibility.

Feel free to shock, feel free to challenge the status quo, but don’t wrap up woman-hating and worse as art. It’s childish, more akin to the straight-laced view of Disney then against it.