JUSTIFIED OFFENSE

In the context of western discourse concerning contemporary art, this essay aims to contribute a set of ethical criteria concerning the concept of offense, which is simply stated as the subjective reaction of feeling affronted or upset. These criteria are derived from a set of case studies of contemporary artworks and their respective encounters with the public. Because of the conceptual proximity of offense to that of artistic transgression, this essay makes the case that, while not mutually exclusive, they should have their own distinct definitions. In each case study, different ethical approaches to the concept of offense are examined, as well as the consequences of these approaches on individual, societal, and legislative levels. In that sense, a “justified” offense is one in which the artist’s actions are ethical, and in which the results of these actions outweigh the potential consequences of affronting the public’s sensibilities. These studies conclude by proposing a set of criteria that are derived from a combination consequentialist, deontological, and aesthetic imperatives when determining if an offense is justified and suggests the need for these criteria to be applied to the notion of identity as it concerns art practice today.