Fifteen minutes of fire.

Recently, I participated in an open critique that included a few of the images from “Ricochet”. It was an opinionated affair, laced with controversy and confrontation. The session lasted fewer than 15 minutes, but suffice it to say it was time well spent.

Student work is rarely, if ever, fully formed—that is why we are students, and that is why we hold dear the opinions of our faculty and classmates. Nowhere else can an artist receive as much qualified and condensed opinion as in an open critique- I will always jump at the chance to participate in these forums.

That being said, one item in particular caught my attention as a matter for open discussion. Who decides the authorship of an artist’s work and how it should be presented? Who decides the right to decide on the perception of the content in the message, and who has a voice in its delivery?

If I identify the audience as the subject of a piece of art, who has the authority to disagree with my hypothesis—and does my intention have to be obvious? If I provoke a response from the viewer, is it any less genuine if it occurs by a slight-of-hand delivery? Is the data corrupt if the intention isn’t announced prior to the viewing? Am I being dishonest, deceptive or both?  Is response to a constructed stimuli a subject for analysis? Isn’t that a valid question that Art should ask?

The following were a few of the suggestions I received as a response to the viewing of the work:

-       Photograph knives instead of guns, “guns don’t intimidate me…”

-       Consider a different subject that isn’t trendy.

-       “I don’t give a s**t about guns. Why should I care about this work?

-       Photograph the bullet entry wounds of a victim.

-       Have you considered toy guns instead of confiscated ones?

-       Consider a different approach from the current “All guns go to Heaven theme.”

-       Consider pointing the gun at the viewer to make your opinion more dramatic.

-       Consider making the prints extremely large so they are more dramatic.

-       Draw inspiration from other artist’s subjective work and emulate their approach.

-        “I don’t think you are getting what you need from the photography department.” 

-       This is propaganda…

Wow.

There were so many other opinions in the room that weren’t expressed because of time constraint and even more thoughts that were held private for personal reasons. Growth doesn’t occur without change and change is disruptive by nature.

My intention of this first formal critique was to assess how the work was received by viewers who aren’t invested in cultivating the idea firsthand, or inconvenienced by the burden of creation. 

Should I make Politics my position and choose sides on the issue of gun rights/control, or should I produce documents that are ambiguous and non-committal?  Sometimes taking a neutral position is the most difficult stance of all. There are few allies and many adversaries. Perhaps it is more offensive to reject an ideology than it is to proclaim one.