The Evil Genius of David Shrigley

http://design observer.com/feature/the-evil-genius-of-david-shrigley
Essay by Rick Poyner

This essay isn't strongly related to my topic but I thought that reading about Shrigley's practice might mean I could analyse it in relation to social responsibility. 

'Until Shrigley was 15 or so, he dutifully attended Bible study classes and Sunday school in Leicester, England, where he grew up, but then decided enough was enough and stopped going. He isn't complaining, though, since those years left him with a peculiar way of thinking and enough material to last a lifetime. "I find the language of religion, particularly the language of Christianity, something amusing to subvert, I suppose. But then I think I'm a moral creature," he says. "I believe in right and wrong." 

• This tells us that Shrigley has made strong decisions about what he believes and what he doesn't. 
• Having the experience of being a part of something that he doesn't believe him has provided him with 'a peculiar way of thinking' which suggests that maybe going against your own beliefs for a brief or project might actually help you grow and evolve as a practitioner and person. It doesn't have to water down your own opinions. 
• The concept of what is right an wrong will differ between people. There is the obvious but there is also a big grey area.

His books 'connect with a broad, non-art audience.'

• Is connecting with a non-art audience the key to making social change? Making work only relevant to people with an art background does not allow a concept to grow and spread.
• Does the broad audience that his work reaches entail a stronger sense of social responsibility?

'He presents his intuitive scrawls unrevised, exactly as they come to him.' 

• This suggests he is true to himself and shares exactly what he thinks. 
• Does he have a responsibility to censor his own material? 
• In relation to an image of Shrigley's that I analysed this summer, he states that the artist only has a social responsibility once the work is displayed for people to see. 

'Shrigley is an affable, easy-going person to spend time with, and this gives added force to the emotion in his reply when asked a direct question about his view of humanity. "We exist in times when wars are fought for financial reasons rather than to protect human life," he says. "Human beings, it seems, are just horrible, greedy, terrible creatures. All they're interested in is the accumulation of wealth, and they have an obsession with tittle-tattle and the most tedious, tawdry aspects of each other's lives." '

'... these are the terms in which we should understand his endlessly repeated scenes of violence, anomie, social breakdown, and unthinking callousness towards others.'

• Again, he has formed strong opinions about society. 
• These are reflected in his drawings. 
• He seems unafraid to share his own opinions. Does he feel like this is what he should be doing as an artist?

Reading through and analysing this essay in relation to my starting point has made me think about the topic a little differently and start to ask more questions. I think Shrigley is a very open artist, unafraid to share his views and opinions of the world, however I don't think I have reached the root of whether he feels a sense of responsibility to do this or whether this is just what he wants to do. 

I think I need to do this same process on and essay about or interview with another practitioner to see whether there are similarities and differences between their approaches.