The Ethics of Eco-Art Criticism
A critical ethical art question was raised in an email I received this Earth Day from my friend Ann Rosenthal: Should artists be held accountable for the waste, extravagance, or pollution associated with creating their works of art?
This question is particularly testy when it is applied to eco-artists who sometimes claim that the damaging impact of the materials used in their works is excusable because their art works awaken consciousness of irresponsible behaviors and may ultimately be redeemed by the reformed behavior of members of their audience.
Ann’s comments were instigated by another email, this one from Alyce Santoro who informed us about a sculpture by David Buckland takes the form of a polished internal combustion engine mounted on a steel plinth. This extremely common object is widely known to spew pollution into the atmosphere. The artist’s intention is honorable – he means to draw attention to the environmental blight caused by this ubiquitous technology. In order to dramatize this statement, Buckland’s engine actually operates. The result – this anti-pollution sculpture produces pollution.
Ann questioned Christo and Jeanne Claude‘s excessive use of materials “which they happily boast about (yards of cloth, tons of steel, etc.) and which they excuse by listing the number of people they employ for a project or how all their materials are reused or recycled.”
I would add an infamous installation created by Mark McGowan in 2005 entitled “The Running Tap”. McGowan intentionally left the water running in the backroom kitchen of House Gallery in Camberwell. His goal was to raise public awareness of water leakage and water wastage. McGowan’s work was leveled at careless individuals and Thames Water. This private company providing water throughout London had been accused of massive water wastage due to leaking pipes. In order to make this point, McGowan’s installation used 42,000 liters of water a day! The art work was forcibly turned off several times by protesters of McGowan’s protest.
Are these artists exempt from social/environmental responsibility because their work stimulates dialog about human impacts on the environment?
Should social/environmental responsibility factor into today’s art criticism, serving as a prerequisite of ‘good’ art?
Are these artists guilty of waste and pollution or are they conveyors of noble intentions and worthwhile missions?
Ann Rosenthal and Alyce Santoro exemplify artists who make meticulous material decisions in creating their art works. Ann has created delicate imagery utilizing plant materials. Alyce often constructs artworks utilizing recycled, recorded audio cassette tape.