Douglas Crimp’s essay, AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cultural Activism brings up a point leftover from talks of censorship – what can be considered an effect of art, especially public art? In his essay, Crimp claims not only that art has the “power to save lives” but also that “this power must be recognized, fostered, and supported in every way possible” (144). Crimp salutes members of ACT UP and Gran Fury for bringing information about HIV/AIDS to the community while the federal government remained officially silent. He points out that the location of their informative installations in the display window of the New Museum “on lower Broadway” is practical because it is “passed by many people who would never set foot in an art museum” (147). This means that the message would be in eyesight of people who were not necessarily looking for it. Moreover, according to Crimp, “until a cure for AIDS is developed, only information and mobilization can save lives.” The implication of this statement is that art and its content move people to a course of action of which they would otherwise be unaware or avoid entirely.
However, how much credit can art, or artists rather, claim for saving lives? Crimp’s broad and vague use of language presents problems. For example, what does it mean to save a life? To say that it means “preventing death” is hardly helpful. Silly as it sounds, the number of events prevented in any given day is immeasurable. Additionally, if we assume that art does save lives, then what is to be said about the people that did die from AIDS? Should art be blamed for their deaths? Some opponents of censorship might claim that a person’s actions after viewing art say more about that person than the art. With this in mind, Crimp is justified in his praise for artists that provide information, but he is saying too much when he claims that they or their works actually save lives. Viewing the pieces does not make one immune to AIDS, nor does merely knowing about transmission and safe sex. The responsibility for saving lives lies in each person and has little to do with art.
Crimp, Douglas. “AIDS: Cultural Analysis/ Cultural Activism.” Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Ed. Zoya Kocur and Simon Leung. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. 141-149.
As patrick states in "Art and Saving Lives", "The responsibility for saving lives... has little to do with art." I personally would have to disagree and say that art could and can save lives. Groups such as "Music for Life", "Dancing for Life", and "Art against AIDS" not only provide informational art rather than aesthetically pleasing art, but also raises money and awareness for AIDS. The money raised can then be used in research for medical purposes to help find a cure. Therefore, money raised by art can or could one day possibly save lives.
ReplyDeleteNot to downplay the potential of change (monetary and otherwise) through art, but I understand Patrick's uneasiness with the concept of life-saving art. To say that art should "save lives" is putting way too much responsibility on one artist, and inhibits an artists sense of freedom in creating. It feels perfectionistic(and perhaps egotistical?) to approach art from an evangelical viewpoint. It is interesting how different artists have different motivations behind their artwork, and different abilities to contribute in their culture and community.
ReplyDeletePrograms and events such as those are absolutely praiseworthy and I would even say in conversation that they do save lives. However, the point of this blog was to step back and look at the similarities between claims that certain pieces of art and entertainment ruin lives, society, contribute to juvenile delinquency, etc. and claims that art informs the public, improves lives, saves lives, etc. Moreover, it is important to remember that money that goes toward research and cures at those events comes from people who care about the cause (and it may have nothing to do with the art), not straight from the art itself.
ReplyDelete