The Art of Violence

There has been a bit of buzz around the internet lately regarding the above paintings. It turns out the artist responsible for these pieces recently painted a portrait of Obama, and people are upset because he chose this particular artist to do his presidential portrait. The outrage seems to stem from the hypocrisy of people that usually preach "love" and "tolerance" seemingly endorsing (which I don't necessarily agree with) someone that is "promoting" depictions of violence in a racially divisive manner. It is certainly interesting seeing people argue that the current President is extremely unprofessional and emboldens "hate groups" while something like this is viewed as okay, so while I may not be on the outrage bandwagon, I understand where it comes from.

I have no personal objection to art depicting violence against a certain type of person, my only issue is the double standard that one is empowering and the other "problematic." Many default to the "history of oppression" argument to justify one depiction over another, but by viewing one as acceptable, you are creating that very historical precedent in the here and now. Not to mention, you are ignoring a large portion of history that shows that every group of people has faced unjust treatment at the hands of another at some point in time.

Art is not an automatic endorsement of a specific behavior or mindset. For example, an artist painting a scene from World War II isn't endorsing genocide, they are depicting a historical event. History should not be erased simply due to the fact that it can be viewed as offensive to some, in fact, it should exist as a reminder and be used as a lesson to learn from. "Questionable" art may or may not depict an individual's personal feelings toward a group, but unless they act on it by infringing on another individual's rights, they shouldn't be punished.

Society is, of course, free to judge, but the social consequences often do not fit the so-called crime in this overly sensitive "outrage culture" of social media. It has become more about mob justice to placate delusions of grandeur about "progressing" society, rather than tackling actual issues that require real effort to solve. People should not have their lives ruined just because some find their opinions or work offensive.

Feeling good about oneself in the moment under the illusion of "being part of something" has taken precedence over critical thinking and has encouraged people to act out on their most petty of emotions. Temper tantrums and victimhood are rewarded as brave and desirable, as long as you are "battling" against something or someone it is acceptable to detest.

Creative freedom is one of the most important values we currently have. It should not be taken away or limited just because some people may use imagery to promote their ideology as desirable. However, this value must be applied equally across the board, as special treatment will lead to unfair treatment for some, and in turn, resentment. This only works to keep people divided, which is supposedly the opposite of what people claim to want.

Unhinged lunatics that would act on violent fictional and/or historical representations of certain actions or ideas will always exist. These fringe actors are a very small minority that would find a way to justify or excuse their behavior regardless of whether or not they have someone else's creation to "embolden" them, and should not determine what is acceptable for the rest of the world.

I don't know if the people angry about this would apply their standards equally, but I do know that if Trump chose an artist that had "racist" artwork in their portfolio that it would only be used against him to prove that he is a bigot. If that is the standard of judgment being used, and fairness is what society is really after here, then either both of them should be branded bigots, or neither of them should.

In my opinion, the latter is preferable, as working with someone does not mean a 100% endorsement of everything they may personally believe. It seems like common sense, but it appears to be lost on many, many, people in this age of bandwagon outrage. Artwork, whether or not you find it personally offensive, should continue to exist in pursuit of a world where the ability to express oneself through non-violent means is a priority, and to be clear, a depiction of violence does not equate to actual physical violence.