Vanessa Beecroft has used immigrants in her artwork and caused controversy over her provocative style of working. Her works, such as VB61 and VB65 seem quite harmless on the surface; the former, titled ‘Still Death! Darfur Still Deaf?’ was a performance to raise awareness of the genocide happening in Sudan and the latter was a performance to reveal prejudices against Africans, especially from the Milanese bourgeoisie.
VB61 Still Death! Darfur Still Deaf?
VB65However, due to her self-indulgent attitude towards her artwork, her motives are questionable. She has admitted herself to being tormented, from an ethical point of view, as to whether or not she exploits her subjects. Her success seems to be more important to her than her dignity, “If an image has a higher purpose to communicate something, I will do anything. Then I have no shame.”
Her most controversial project was VBSouthSudan, which created outrage from the Black Artists Association and eventually led to the breakdown of her marriage. The most prominent piece of work was a photo where she posed in a Catholic church in Sudan like the Virgin Mary, breastfeeding Sudanese Twins.
White Madonna with Twins, 2006.It began when Beecroft read an article in the newspaper on a plane to Italy and was deeply moved by the violent situation in Darfur. She had a plan to make a documentary, but ended up staying in South Sudan where she came across Madit and Mongor Akot; Sudanese twins who were severely malnourished. As she had been breastfeeding her own child prior to her visit, she offered her breast milk to them in the hope to help them. However, this apparent act of kindness became the beginning of a new art project and quickly spun out of control.
Her attachment for these children grew whilst she was nursing them, and she decided that she wanted to adopt them, in the hope to give them a better life. Pietra Brettkelly, the director of “The Art Star and the Sudanese Twins” said that Beecroft was an odd, interesting character, but it did seem that her love for the twins was genuine.
The adoption was made known to Beecroft’s husband after she found out that she could only adopt them with his consent. He disagreed because he believed it was not ethical to take a child away from their own culture, and that it spoke of the kind of adoption in the media – like Angelina Jolie and Madonna. Beecroft believed that this would really be a better way for them, and that she was creating a relationship with the community. But is it better for these children to be taken to a new country and offered a life with a wealthy white celebrity? Or, as Beecroft’s now ex-husband Greg Durkin felt, is it just a shortcut that misses the real, underlying problem? I personally agree with Durkin, that more long term aid needs to be offered to fight the poverty; saving two children may be a good thing for them, but it is the community as a whole that needs help. In the end, the adoption did not go through because the twins’ father turned up.
The film reveals the conflict between the Sudanese community and Beecroft’s artwork. In one scene, a Sudanese woman is angry that they are ‘collaborating with the whites’ to which Beecroft is left exasperated, asking, “What are you doing?...These people!”
It appears that Beecroft had a very simplistic way of looking at things- she wanted to help these children and claimed to love the community, yet her attitude towards the community suggests that her main purpose was for the sake of art; “I really enjoyed this criticism. It is what I work for. I want people to exercise their thoughts, and I provoke with this image… So I was happy with this reaction. That is part of my work. To create a little bit of irritation for the audience.”
It begs the question, if Beecroft's first priority is her artwork, does she really care about the issues she is dealing with? Does she want to shock so that her fame rises, or does she want to help the people she is using in her artwork?
No comments:
Post a Comment