Considering the context of my work, I am aware that some audiences may have moral or ethical concerns with this installation. By integrating a system that promises safety, the work could be seen as contentious. My intention when creating this installation was not to directly impose my beliefs on the topic onto the audience, but rather to suggest a questioning of surveillance to the audience. My success at this is currently unknown to me, as I have not yet publicly presented this work. However, I will utilise the opportunities in element two to understand a variety of opinions on my work, including through the work-in-progress show and group critiques.
There are also potential ethical concerns of recording the perimeter of the factory. If I had asked permission, it would have been granted; there was a sign near the factory entrance that expressed a desire for no videos or photographs to be taken around the factory. Because the area I chose to record bordered the factory and a public footpath frequented by dog walkers, which was not specifically factory grounds, it felt reasonable to record here. I do not believe a company can “own” the sonic space bordering their premises, but I am sure the company would dispute this thought. I theorise that the factory does not want documentation of any kind of the factory and its perimeter because of its contentious nature. The factory was a site for protests in 2024. I assume the request for no photographs/ videos is a preventative measure of sorts. The factory aims to protect itself through the use of surveillance, knowing that it is subject to protests.
To make work of this nature, there are risks involved. Risks of safety, morality, and politics. I feel, though, that the subject matter of this work encourages individuals to shy away from the topic so as not be seen as “controversial”, and I believe it is important to confront such topics as surveillance within art to encourage discourse among audiences.
I am also aware not to publicly disclose the specifics about this project, so as not to cause any unwanted altercations now or in the future. I do not think that by naming the factory any significance is added to the work, and so I will not be doing so. By not naming the specifics, I protect both myself and the factory, I understand this to be professional practice.
In the introduction to the ‘Arts – Ethics – Education’, editors Buschkühle, Atkinson, and Vella propose that “art, when representing pertinent topics, must be underpinned by adequate knowledge and an understanding of ethical and political issues.” (Buschkühle C, Atkinson D, Vella R., 2020, 61). I feel as though I have successfully articulated my ethical and political understanding of the themes within the work. Through the use of questions (presented on the landline) I have encouraged audiences to consider pertinent topics without imposing personal beliefs.
In ‘Art for Democracy in Crisis,’ Brian Hughes discusses political art in the setting of art school, its implications, and strengths. When talking about art students making political projects, Hughes states, “Aesthetic and political aspects of art can intermingle, suggesting new ways of thinking or feeling about an aspect of the social world.” (Hughes, B. 2020, 65). It is important for this project to combine the aesthetic and political because it can encourage thought within art audiences. By encouraging political thought within art, the function of the work changes; political art can encourage critical engagement with the work and the world, resulting in new perspectives or feelings.
Hughes, B., 2020, ‘Moral Enquiry and Political Correctness’ in Art – Ethics – Education, Doing Arts Thinking: Arts Practice, Research and Education Series, volume 7, edited by Boldacchino, J., Buschkühle, C., Atkinson, D., Vella, R., BRILL, Boston.