investigating quotes part 2

'In his studio the artist has no social responsibility. But when the artist displays his work the situation changes' - David Shrigley

• key terms defined:
  social responsibility - an ethical framework that suggests that an entity, be it an organization or individual, has an obligation to act for the benefit of society at large.
  
• what is the quote trying to communicate?
  The idea that in his studio, his private sketchbooks ect. the artists work has no impact on wider society and because of this in his private work he has no responsibility to be tolerant or aware of others feelings and reactions. The artist may doodle a poster titled 'kill all Jews' and illustrate hate speeches with ugly racist drawings - all of this doesn't necessarily matter until the artist publicly displays his work. At this point there begins the problem of the artists social responsibility. If he created hateful private work it wouldn't matter so much if no one ever saw it or were hurt by it, but say such work became public the situation would change. More importantly the art may influence other people negatively or generate certain socially damaging attitudes. Its a similar prospect with any behavior, in your head you may be ranting about 'dirty immigrants'or making a rape joke, but the moment you voice this thought aloud you're in sighting hate speech or normalizing dangerous and damaging behaviors. You do not become a better or worse person, but you do have a social impact. It is much the save with private and displayed artworks.

• how does this quote relate to society
  The quote is focusing on how an artists work can impact on people who see it and wider society
  
• two images to illustrate this quote

• Michael von Hausswolfs painting created using the ashes of holocaust victims he stole in 1989 from a former Nazi concentration camp.

•  Alexander Savko’s series “Mickey Mouse’s Travels Through Art History, banned from being exhibited by the Russian court. The courts called the work “extremist,” and “religiously offensive

         

• counter argument
  The artist has no social responsibility. How do we define social responsibility? art which pleases and does no offend? Or art which offends because it raises difficult but important moral points? Simply we can ignore all of this and just argue that the artist has no responsibility to anyone other than himself and  his client (if he has one) The artist may make racist work, hateful work, lies or propaganda - the artist may offend and insight hatred where he likes, he is only responsible for himself - there re no legal obligations for his displayed work to further the public good. I do not agree with this idea, but clearly as the work of Carl Michael von Hausswolff shows, some people do. And its not simply a question of whether I believe the artist should have social responsibility, its whether he does.