I meant to post this back a few weeks ago when Quintan Wikswo came to speak with us, but I kept this in my archives to edit, and I forgot about posting it.
I’m ambivalent towards the use of shock value in art. On one hand, I wasn’t particularly fond of what Wikswo called “performance art” which was mainly her sitting on a field writing on her typewriter. I definitely appreciated her efforts and her intentions to make a statement, but I’m still skeptical to believe what she does is “performance art.” When she showed some of the pictures and videos she had taken, I wasn’t very impressed with the aesthetic qualities, I saw some technical flaws, sometimes the camera was shaky and the foreground was blurry, but I couldn’t tell if that was intentional or not. The worst part is that I hate to admit that I don’t enjoy looking at her types of art and it feels wrong to repulsed by her acts of shock value because there’s a supposed statement underneath it. Similarly, when we were looking at the article about the man who nailed his scrotum to the ground, it felt wrong to label it as art because it felt like a cheap act of shock value, even though it was an act of protest.
I’m just very conflicted about how I feel about the use of shock value in art because it feels like using shock value gives artists a “free pass” to call whatever they’re doing as art. It’s also very difficult to critique because you can’t really say anything bad about it. I do think the concept that Wikswo was talking about was interesting, the fact that her art is supposed to look grotesque and unpleasing because that’s what captures people’s attentions and highlights the statement behind it. But does that excuse the fact that it looks bad and do people have a right to call it good art?
For example, take this new video that Lily Allen just put out, called “Hard Out Here” which is supposed to be satire on how women are portrayed in the media.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0CazRHB0so>
I actually love this song and the message behind it, but looking at it from the flip side, I can see that some people dislike it because she features many women of color twerking in the video, despite that she is condoning against it. Many other people would say that she’s making fun of the situation by showing how ridiculous twerking looks. I understand Allen’s message and I would agree with the latter opinion, but the people who might not understand the sarcasm would think that she’s being hypocritical. Although it is satire, her video is still sexually explicit and raunchy, (and based off visuals only) looks exactly like the rap and hip-hop videos she is against. Is it still satire if you’re contributing towards the thing you’re parodying? How do you know those other rap videos from the likes of Flo Rida or Pitbull (*shudder) which CONSISTENTLY feature scantily clad women aren’t also types of satire? What if there are deeper messages in those hedonist and self-indulgent videos? (Ugh, I feel disgusted by even the thought of these sleaze balls trying to have a meaning) WHAT IF BLURRED LINES IS ACTUALLY SATIRE AND A SUBTLE PRO-FEMINIST ANTHEM??? The lyrics suggest otherwise, but hey, artists can try to BS any type of justification they want as disguise it as their “artist’s intent.” This is where things get problematic.
This brings up the question, should the message underneath overshadow the actual aesthetic content? I could literally do anything, like commit a crime, and try to justify it by saying “it was my kind of performance art in which I’m trying to address the deteriorating state of the inner-city consciousness, etc etc etc” but that doesn’t excuse the fact that my action had hurt some people.
What do you guys think about the use of satire and shock value in art? It definitely has its merits in conveying certain ideas with stronger messages, but it seems to give artists easy justifications if their work isn’t very visually appealing.
