Abstract

In the following essay I explore some implications of Kieran Cashell’s notably original recent book Aftershock. This is a searching examination of how we might treat transgressive artwork by exploring certain shortcomings of the aesthetic tradition and equally certain shortcomings of those who speak with artistic authority (critics, commentators, and artists themselves). Cashell cuts through a grossly impacted volume of subterfuge in order to advance arguments that question how we have come to appreciate artwork and which show how some transgressive artwork challenges conventional ways of considering art. This he achieves by deploying an impressive roster of theorists, commentators, critics and artists, dismissing various kinds of hyperbole and revealing what is left standing after a vigorous clearance. Cashell strikes at the foundations of the aesthetic tradition and locates some instances of transgressive art in a pivotal position where they may be appreciated not through the aesthetic tradition of disinterestedness but through the traditionally compromising (for aesthetics) paradigm of ethics. I illustrate this with specific reference to Cashell’s Chapter Two where he discusses Marcus Harvey’s publicly and critically reviled painting Myra. Cashell defends this painting, not through any appeal to the liberal-minded ‘freedom-of-speech’ principle, but for its sheer resistance to processing via the traditional idea of aesthetic disinterest. He recommends that the painting be regarded – without any loss of aesthetic worth – as immoral and disturbing and for just this reason as inviting us to join in human solidarity with those who were affected by the crimes associated with Myra Hindley. By thus merging ethical consideration with the response to an aesthetic artform the merits of the painting are preserved while its full force is sustained against the morally enfeebling aspect of Kantian aesthetic disinterest