Controversial Art: Marcus Harvey “Myra”
In 1995 Marcus Harvey composed a 9 by 11 ft portrait of a serial killer responsible for the Moors Murders in England in the 1960’s, entitled “Myra”. The piece is a painting of Myra Hindley, a woman who, along with her boyfriend, carried out the rape and murders of 5 children ranging in age from 10-17. The piece of art is a large scale black and white painting of her infamous mugshot. The painting itself is considered very offensive because of the subject matter; however, what might have been considered the most offensive part of the composition was the fact that small infant handprints were painted in a pattern that constructed her face.
In 1997, Harvey’s work was recognized in the Young British Artists Exhibition “Sensation” at the Royal Academy of Art. In defending his work, he also defended her. Harvey made it clear that he felt she had no part in the acts committed and had fallen too hard for her boyfriend. Years after, Myra admitted to all five of the rapes and murders, not only making Harvey’s beliefs about her inaccurate, but also making it that much more controversial. The work was considered incredibly offensive as it was almost a homage to her killings. It not only showcases her as a serial killer, but also highlights the horrific acts she committed against children. The piece completely disregards the family members of the children she killed. Many people felt is portrait glorified her killings and the fact that Harvey then defended her solidified the fact that the sympathy for the victims and their families was severely lacking.
Based upon the classificatory definition of art, the painting, “Myra” by Marcus Harvey, is considered art. It is made by an artist, who had made other works of art and displays knowledge and an understanding of art and it was made specifically for the purpose of being art. The artist made this piece for an audience, knowing it would stimulate traction, on the basis of the controversial subject matter. It references art history in the aspect that it is a black and white painted portrait and it does exist in an artworld, therefore by the classificatory definition it is considered art. Although this piece is incredibly offensive to many people, the victim’s families in particular, I struggle with the idea of it being censored. With that being said I understand where the people are coming from when they say it is upsetting, disrespectful and wildly inappropriate, because it is; however, I also understand that censoring an artwork can be considered a slippery slope, because it disrupts the process of free thought and creativity. There is no doubt that Myra Hindley was a horrible person and I don’t believe that this painting should have ever even been constructed, but it was, and censoring that is not going to change anything. While I disagree with this piece of art because of the subject matter I don’t believe it should not be censored.
References:
Portmann, Emily. “MARCUS HARVEY.” HSC Visual Art Resources, 10 July 2012, hscvisualartresources.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/marcus-harvey/.
Hattenstone, Simon. “Simon Hattenstone Views Marcus Harvey’s New Artwork.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 21 Feb. 2009, www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/feb/21/marcus-harvey-margaret-thatcher.
I cannot agree more with you on the subject. It is and should be offensive because of the incident that happened related to the painting, moreover, the baby handprints that are being made to compose it. I think that it is true that although sometimes we may not agree with the artwork, it is still necessary to acknowledge it’s value and beauty by drawing definitions within the art sense.
I completely agree with your feelings on this piece. I feel like such criminals should not be memorialized in such a way, but responding by censoring the piece will not solve anything. Although it is technically considered a piece of art by the classificatory definition, I agree with your feeling that such a piece should not be created in the first place.
I agree with you that this portrait should have never been done. Not only do the families of the victims find it offensive I do too. I know art is supposed to be a way for people to express themselves however, I don’t think any thing that has to do with this subject m after should have been made into a piece of art. I feel that this piece and any other piece that depicts a murderer should not be considered art and should be destroyed.
This piece would be considered offensive because of what they did. I do agree that censoring a piece of work won’t solve anything. Even though it is art, we don’t need to comemorate criminals in this fashion. I think the victims’ families would not want to see the women’s portrait hanging up in a gallery, they would prefer to have the child being comemorated in a way. Anyway, this piece should not have been created in the first place I agree but it shouldn’t be censored.
My favorite thing about this piece, what sets it apart from other shock art, is the motivation. It’s easy to be crass and vulgar like Serrano or Offili, but Harvey’s “Myra” is something different. He stands up and gives his full voiced support to this woman that we all know has committed horrible crimes. He doesn’t just want to shock or offend his audience like other controversial artists. He’s telling us what he really believes, which is much more shocking to our humanity than even Dali’s joking embrace of fascism.
One thing that I don’t necessarily agree with, however, is your stance on censoring the work. Any surviving relatives of Myra’s victims likely don’t want their family’s tragedy broadcast to a wide audience. Even worse, Harvey is a complete stranger to this family. Should he be allowed to make massive profits off of their tragedy when he doesn’t even know them? Her crimes ruined their lives, and now this artist is coming in and salting the wound for money. That sounds kind of like it should be a crime to me.