Art’s ethical and moral dilemmas

When Is It OK To Do What?

As the fine expression of our humanity, the arts is packed full of moral dilemmas.

Here’s an example. I have just been asked the question, “When is it OK for art to be bought directly from the artist rather than going through a dealer and paying the extra price of their commission?” Not simple. My answer would begin with, “It depends on what was agreed between the dealer and the artist.” It may be the case that the dealer has invested a great deal of effort over several years in promoting the artist and building demand for their work. Or alternatively, the artist may have become successful through other means without the dealer making much of a contribution. It is often the case that this has not been sorted out in advance by the parties involved and has to be dealt with when there’s a problem. And even if a contract had been signed, circumstances may have changed. While the Code of Practice for our industry gives guidance on this amongst a huge range of matters, the details of a particular issue may not be covered.

One of the most interesting parts of being the representative body working on behalf of the art sector is dealing with these kinds of ethical dilemmas. While we have laws that regulate many do’s and don’ts, the grey areas are where it becomes interesting and are usually dealt with outside legal frameworks. Even the law is almost always open to interpretation and relies on precedent for guidance.

Privacy vs Freedom of Expression
Take for example the area of privacy versus freedom of expression. An artist takes photographs of street people and puts them in an exhibition. The work is a hit and the artist is gaining a reputation. Some of the people in the photos are embarrassed by the context and the very public way in which the work is shown. But the artist maintains that the work was intended to reveal the bigger issue of the plight of the homeless. Whose interests should prevail? In relation to freedom of expression versus privacy, phone hacking by Murdoch employed journalists in the UK and the publication of politically sensitive material on Wikileaks has made us think harder about the borderlines between the public’s right of access to information and the right to privacy. How do we decide which is most in the public interest?

Representations of children
Another thorny one is the recent public obsession with artists’ representation of naked children. It has been thoroughly debated but is no nearer to resolution between the child protectionists and the defenders of artistic freedom of expression. Should all images of children be erased from public view in case pornographers will access them? Or should it be understood that artists may have the intention of stimulating us to question certain public mores and this is of value?

Copyright
Copyright presents us with competing interests. On the one hand we can agree that everyone should have free access to ideas; but what about when a creator has invested their unpaid professional time in inventing, researching and realising these ideas. Copyright only has jurisdiction when ideas are expressed in material form, say in a painting or digital artwork. But it has become complicated. Digital technology has changed people’s expectations because they are used to everything being free on the web. So is it OK to find an image of an artwork on the net and use it for your own purposes without the permission of the creator of the work? Is it fair to deny artists payment for this use? What if it is for a really worthy cause like environmental sustainability?

Indigenous heritage
With the work of Indigenous artists there are similarly great complexities. For example, there is debate about the use of dots and rarrk cross hatching which are hallmarks of Central Western Desert and Arnhem Land Aboriginal art styles. Should this be covered by copyright? Some artists and designers are inspired and excited by Indigenous artwork and either unconsciously or deliberately employ these styles in their own work. Should the living heritage of Indigenous forms of expression be protected against appropriation; or are dots and hatching not unique to Indigenous art. Should other artists be able to use them in their work without seeking permission?

Who should be able to call themselves an artist?
Recently an artist friend was complaining about people living in her regional area learning to paint and then calling themselves artists. She felt this term, and art itself, was being debased by amateurs. She argued that it would not be tolerated in any other profession for people with little real skill to claim the territory. Is there an artist in everyone or should this honour be reserved for those who have been trained and honed their practice over many years of dedicated work? What are the consequences of living in the age of interactivity where we are witnessing a convergence of amateur and professional and everyone can claim the digital space for their 15 minutes?

Most importantly should artists be allowed to do things that others aren’t because they hold the dark glass up to society? Something to think about over the Xmas pudding and turkey or is it pavlova and seafood? So many decisions to make! Let me know if you have the answers.