I was discussing a film with a colleague the other day and they voiced a concern about giving publicity to sick/deranged individuals. An analogy was used that was something along the lines of "would you approve of selling paintings by Charles Manson?" Well the analogy wasn't really apt and the discussion went in another direction but I was just thinking...why not?
It's not like Manson is gonna get more famous for his paintings or that anyone will emulate him because now he can sell paintings. I'm asking you the Internet, what do you think? Is there any downside to selling artwork made by serial killers? If so what? And if there is a downside are you not just advocating that capital punishment is the only solution to the problem of societies' malcontents?
Seriously, this is an interactive forum, let me know if I'm way off base here.
8.06.2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I'd sell the hell out of those paintings.
Well, I don't think its wrong per se; but unlike Franklin, apparently, I wouldn't personally want to sell them.
Say instead of making paintings, Manson was making cancer cures. Surely, it would ok to sell that; indeed, that would make up for his crimes in some sense. To a lesser degree, art also contributes to society, I guess (at least to the person willing to pay money for it).
Perhaps in some attenuated way this might encourage violence. But less than, like, buying a diamond- which I'm told directly funds the brutal murder-sprees of kill-crazed african jewel mongers.
The crucial point is that Manson is already imprisoned, though. I wouldn't encourage, like, buying brownies at a serial killer's bakesale to raise money to buy night-vision goggles.
The real question is, would you buy one?
Well I don't see how it encourages violence in anyway. It's bad kitch to purchase one IMHO but I don't have any problem with someone else selling them.
Yeah, I don't think it encourages violence, as such. I think what people find objectionable is that the value in the art stems not from its aesthetics, but from the murderous back-story (ie, the paintings would be worthless without the back-story). Thus, you have really just monetized the past-murders and created a market in them.
I don't think there would be a problem if you sold the paintings while attributing them to an anonymous artist.
Well put, I think yo got to the heart of the argument there.
Profiting off of long past atrocities = bad?? Someone call Spielberg.
Some might see a difference between art that comments on the implications of atrocity vs. art that capitalizes solely on the artist's own personal reputation for atrocity. But if you think its the same, you're free to pursue your whole "profiting off of atrocities = good" thesis.
Post a Comment