The following is a brief preview - the full content of this page is available to premium users only.
Click here to subscribe...
Can shocking works of mutilation and animal cruelty be defined as art? Erin Green explores the limits of self-expression and artistic freedom through the analysis of some of the world’s most controversial artists.
What is art if it does not challenge social norms and push the boundaries of what we perceive as acceptable? Through provoking emotion in viewers, art can effectively communicate artists’ opinions and raise awareness of social issues. But as we become desensitised to the increasingly violent, immoral and unethical images we are exposed to in society, how far will artists go in order to confront their audiences?
Australian artist Mike Parr is renowned for the confrontational nature of his performance art. Driven by his belief in equality, Parr opposes the injustices of politics and society through his work, including the racist and unethical treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. Through the extreme trauma, torture and physical endurance Parr suffers in his performances, he intends to shock audiences into recognising the lack of social awareness and consideration for others in Australian culture, which he describes as ‘privileged and deeply uncaring at the same time’ (Parr, 2002). In 2002 Parr performed Close the Concentration Camps at Monash University Museum of Art, Melbourne. During the performance Parr was seated in silence with his ears, mouth, nose, eyelids and cheeks sewn up. His audience members were not allowed to speak to him and he was to respond to no one. The performance was a reference to the recognised form of protest conducted by refugees in Australian detention centres who sew up their lips, ears and eyes in order to communicate that they have no voice and that no... The rest of this article is available to subscribers of Eyeline