Should we end ‘Cancel Culture’?

By Kei Yong

As a term that is constantly haunting the twenty-first century, ‘Cancel Culture’ leaves the modern man with an inescapable dread as it pushes the celebrity and the ordinary to ostracization. Comedians are being called out for insensitive jokes, twentieth century movies are being removed from platforms due to their nostalgic portrayal of slavery, and fans are constantly dreading the day when their beloved pop culture icons are revealed to be immoral beings. We are overwhelmed with the anxiety of second-guessing our pleasures to the point that we may even start resenting ourselves. It is about time we realise that our new habit of over-criticizing everything we receive through media and life is detrimental to our appreciation of the arts, culture, and the very nature of being human.

Nina Power, who has also written an article concerning this issue, states that ‘amidst all the outrage, the genuine concern to make the world a better place for more people, our own loyalties, predilections and tendencies, and the sympathy we might feel for oppressed groups, we are, above all, being taught to distrust our own aesthetic sensibility and our capacity to think for ourselves.’ Power’s criticism allows us to realize that our generation’s new coping mechanism of ‘cancelling’ is a rebranding of censorship. To immediately turn to anger and demand for things to be taken down reflects how we are losing the ability to tolerate and take the time to sit with the emotions we are feeling.

Édouard Manet, Luncheon on the Grass (Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe), 1863, Musée d'Orsay, Paris

To be outraged, shocked, and uncomfortable, are emotions that artists have toyed with for centuries. For example, Manet’sLe Dejeuner sur l’Herbe (1863) was criticized by its contemporary audience for its inappropriate depiction of a nude woman amongst clothed men. In the twenty-first century, no one really blinks an eye towards such outdated perspectives on art. Nevertheless, we can appreciate its importance today for what it tells us about the misogyny and rules of aesthetics in nineteenth century France.

Damien Hirst’s With Dead Head (1992) addresses the contemporary issue of consent as the family of the cadaver Hirst is pictured with did not give the artist consent to have this photo be displayed in the New Art Gallery Walsall in 2013. The picture should have never been taken in the first place given the rules of the Leicester University morgue where this was captured, however, Professor Sarah Tarlow, who specializes in archaeological ethics wrote to the gallery stating that ‘it deserves a place in Hirst's archive, but not in a gallery.’

Damien Hirst, With Dead Head, 1992, Tate and National Galleries of Scotland

Some of Hirst’s audience were shocked to see such a betrayal of ethics from the artist to display the picture in the first place and to still allow its existence. Others are shocked at the demand for the work to be censored and the lack of artistic license given to Hirst. Hirst’s main intention was to confront the audience with the feeling of dread as they looked in the face of death, just as he did when the photograph was taken. Nevertheless, perhaps the prominent outcome of public outrage is more than he wished for as it shows our raw emotions after being confronted by such a morally and visually controversial piece of work.

What we fail to realise is that the discomfort we feel from this piece of work derives from our confrontation with a new form of breaching of ethics. If Hirst’s photo were to be taken down immediately without public debate, we as a society would not have been given the chance to be challenged by art ethics in this way, therefore stunting further discussions in this field. We must not forget how we are capable of learning so much about ourselves and others through not only the art itself, but also through audience reaction. In the same way that, if the nineteenth century audience were never confronted with artworks concerning female promiscuity, who knows how we would be treating works like Tracy Emin’s if they were even to exist?

Tolerance is important in helping us see different perspectives, sometimes even to an extreme degree. Power states that ‘it is art that reveals to us, as if in a flash, the absurdity of the status quo, the mechanisms of domination, how we find ourselves caught in webs of unfreedom of all kinds, even, or especially those, that purport to be ‘on our side’.

Of course, artists like Hirst should not be regarded as unbiased immoral beings that are brave enough to show the darkest sides of the human race. However, those that censor should also not be regarded as protectors of justice. Understanding that as humans we are complex beings and are capable of doing wrong but also learning from our mistakes are key steps towards allowing us to evolve in our emotional intelligence and as individuals.

Notes:

Jones, Jonathan. “Don't Lose Your Head over Hirst.” The Guardian (Guardian News and Media), July 17, 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2013/jul/17/damien-hirst-photograph-severed-head-censorship.

Power, Nina. “How Cancel Culture Made Us Forget the Art of Interpretation.” ArtReview, July 30, 2020. https://artreview.com/how-cancel-culture-made-us-forget-the-art-of-interpretation/.

Whyman, Tom. “Is This the Moment 'Cancel Culture' Comes for the Ybas?” ArtReview, January 6, 2023. https://artreview.com/is-this-the-moment-cancel-culture-comes-for-the-ybas-balenciaga-christies/.