Artwork come in all guises these days and many artists are slowly realising that if they want their work to rise above the pack, and to draw as much attention as possible, then they have to make in controversial. They probably reckon that the criticism they might draw is well worth the attention they are going to get anyway, and so all kinds of 'art' are now justified for display.
But is there be a point at which real art stops and plain manipulation and exploitation begins?
This question is asked because of the latest 'artwork' to be displayed in a library. It is a controversial drawing of a An African American female slave performing oral sex on a white man. The drawing is supposed to depict the 'horrors of racism' and 'race based violence' and is being displayed at a New Jersey library. It caused public controversy at another Newark library and had to be taken down the day after it went up. The artist, Kara Walker usually deals with race and gender themes among her portfolio. But are some topics counter productive? What is her artwork supposed to demonstrate exactly? And is that the right place for such a theme?
A library trustee said,“The library should be a safe harbor for controversies of all types, and those controversies can be dealt with in the context of what is known about art, about literature, democracy and freedom."
But do you agree? How exactly is one supposed to react to such an image?
Should there be a cut off point in what should be depicted in art, which could just be simply exploitative for personal gain, or to generate genuine debate? And what would the debate be about, in this case?
Over to you.