The following is a brief preview - the full content of this page is available to premium users only.
Click here to subscribe...
Why is it that so many modern artists face moral objections concerning their artwork? If it is an expression of one’s opinion, why are some artists forced to shamefully revoke their artwork, and some artists are allowed to flamboyantly display theirs? Art is a tool to express an opinion of the society or environment the artist resides in, so for some artists to be denied the right to display their work, just because it does not conform to acceptable social stereotypes, is unfairly biased.
Traditionally, artists predominantly chose pastel, charcoal or paint as their favoured medium, and created works on canvas or paper. However, the floodgates have opened on what goes into art. Artists now explore unique ways to express their opinions through an outlandish use of a variety of art media. Modern artists have expertly manipulated even the everyday object, or the extraordinarily strange, to suit their conceptual concerns. But with so many distinctive new ways to construct art, modern artists must feel the need to shock and confront their audience. Is it that they are confronted with an audience that desires entertainment? Intense pressure exists for artists, primarily within academic based art communities, to conjure up new ways of capturing their audience. What if the only way to do this is to compose radical and confronting art? One artist who has been closely scrutinised throughout his at times shocking career is the eccentric Damien Hirst.
Hirst is most famous for his glass chambered formaldehyde tank works, in particular, The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living (1991), a piece in which a fourteen-foot long tiger shark is suspended in a tank of formaldehyde. Controversy surrounded... The rest of this article is available to subscribers of Eyeline
