This week’s workshop involved everyone in the class performing a one minute piece inspired by a stimulus in the galleries. This work was extremely varied, ranging from interactive pieces which involved the audience having to explore aspects of their surroundings for themselves to extracts of playscripts and poetry. One piece focused on a black civil rights activist named Paul Robeson. This got my mind thinking and exploring ideas of morality in Art. In the viewpoints gallery, there is an exquisitely carved full ivory tusk. There is no question about it’s craftsmanship and  intricacy, but the moral impact of the tusk could be interesting. The ivory trade is of course illegal and in my opinion immensely cruel to Elephants. We of course make the assumption that this piece is of a certain age, and was made before the ivory trade was so controversial. Still does this mean its appropriate to display or not? Could it encourage the trade and demand of ivory? This is of course a rather extreme example but the point still stands.

If we displayed a beautifully carved manacle that was used during the slave trade, would that be appropriate? Is it more a question of whether something is displayed as Art or History? There is of course Holocaust museums to remember and respect the victims of these atrocities. These are way of never forgetting the horrors that went on. Is Art different in that respect? Would it be right  display Adolf Hitlers artwork for example? Do the views of the artist really make any difference? And how about if there was incredibly beautiful artwork created but it had offensive racist words covering it? Would it be appropriate to display that as art? and where? I realise this post is an awful lot of questions but my imagination was sparked massively by these thoughts. Does Art have to be appropriate?

Image from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_trade