Rick Gibson's Shock Art Analysis

Shock Art is a very controversial form of art—some believe it exists merely to draw attention to itself, while others see it as the height of creativity. Some would argue that art itself has no set definition; that it is up to the artist and viewer to decide. What is aesthetically pleasing is a question to ask as well. Some attack the artist themselves when creating controversial work, but in the end it is the art itself that will go through many different analysis in determining if it is considered to be art or just entertainment.
Rick Gibson, born in 1951, is a Canadian native, who frequently wears a business suit and sunglasses. He started off crafting 3D holograms and was very successful in doing so, he now likes to push boundaries and

see how far he can go with his art stating that he is “interested in the discrepancy between popular morality and the law” (Moore). In his lifetime he has caused quite the commotion in galleries around the globe. In one piece of performance art, he placed a sign on a dog that read “Wanted: legally preserved human limbs and human fetuses” (Pert). He also practiced cannibalism in the streets by eating a slice of a human testicle (White). Perhaps the most notable of his works are his freeze-dried sculptures, where he freeze-dries human body parts, animals, and even human fetuses and makes them into jewelry.
Gibson first shocked and offended in 1987 when he used his freeze-drying technique on a human Uterus, titled “I Own a Uterus with a Paint Job”. This was just the beginning, after painting, drilling, and sanding the uterus, he pinned it to the receipt that showed he had obtained it legally. Questioning how easy it is to buy humans and how much value they really hold? His next piece was titled “Mother and Child”. Gibson went to a slaughterhouse that sells the unborn piglets of a pregnant pig for education and science to buy his own fetus. He freeze-dried the unborn pig and put it in a frying pan with bacon strips around it (Gibson). His final and most disturbing piece titled “Foetus Ear-rings”, is one in which he took two human fetuses and made them into earrings on a sculpture of a fashionable woman. He was given the fetuses by an anatomy professor because the liquid they were persevered in evaporated and they shriveled up making them unusable (Moore).
Many have criticized him for not being an artist, claiming his lack of skill has led him to resorting to insane shock tactics.

Art critic Cynthia Freeland believes this is not how art should be viewed, that you can not personally attack the artist, but rather look solely at the art and go from there. Lippard’s analysis of art states that you should look at a piece of art in three ways; you look at the works formal and material properties, its content and its context to determine whether it is acceptable as a piece of shock art (Freeland). As for Gibson’s work, the formal and material properties of his work are very delicate and scarce—if you make a mistake when freeze drying the fetus or other human body part, you cannot simply go by the corner shop for another. The act of freeze-drying flesh in itself is a very difficult and laborious task to perform successfully. There are many very time sensitive steps and exact temperatures required in the process, and a mistake will turn the specimen to dust. The content expresses intense meaning, making the viewer question how valuable life really is. It gives a whole new perspective on life, just seeing a carcass that was once a living breathing thing turned into a piece of art provides a new experience of the meaning of life. Gibson finds justification in the idea that there are already animal and even human parts being used for things all the time but they are just unnoticeable. In art supplies, clothing, food and things we use and consume everyday there are often animal parts incorporated into it—this art just draws attention to it. He legally purchased all these parts that would be consumed and purchased by the public regardless. His art exists in the context of the taboo surrounding death—particularly death resulting from objectionable practices such as abortions and the slaughter of animals. Gibson did not kill or harm any of these beings personally; rather, they were already dead for other

purposes.
Scottish philosopher David Hume and Kant argued their views of aesthetic in art. While they both agreed that some art is better than others, they argue how one determines that to be so. Hume argued that it is taste based, the viewer’s subjective opinion on how to perceive the quality of a piece of art is heightened by your own experience and fluency in the artistic world. Gibson has an extensive background in art and received a Master of Science degree in Interactive Art and Technology from Simon Fraser University (Surrey), so he has knowledge of art and what it means to have a good piece of art. Conversely, Kant sees the universal judgment of beauty as more important than ones personal definition of it. Throughout history, artists have viewed the human body as being inherently beautiful—many of the greats depicted the human form in the nude, celebrating the natural aesthetic of the body (Freeland).
Rick Gibson has built his career on art’s ability to simultaneously shock and inform the audience. He takes subjects that are often taboo, and puts them in the public eye in order to demand a deeper inspection of these subjects by the often unwilling public. By doing so he involves the viewer directly in the art, creating a dynamic in which one’s own reaction to the art is just as important as the art itself. Many see his art as cheap, offensive, and inappropriate. Countering this, Gibson points out that the ingredients of his artistic process already exist in more mundane forms. Whether widely celebrated as an artist or not, he can’t help but be noticed and remembered. Ironically, the things he uses in his art exist all around us, and we accept them. Only when they are labeled as “art” do we find them objectionable. In this way, is it actually the art or only our own reaction to it that we find reprehensible? Perhaps the real value of shock art is its ability to make us confront our fears and discomforts, and in this way, Rick Gibson is a masterful artist.