BY KAHA GEDI
What’s the first thing you think of when you hear the word ”art”?
Something beautiful?
Something meaningful?
Something peculiar?
For many, art is a source of beauty or wonder, however what happens when it goes beyond aesthetics and makes us question our morals? What if an artist challenges our morality with ethical dilemmas? In this article, I will talk about ‘Helena & El Pescador’ by Marco Evaristti.
In the year 2000, an art exhibition took place called “Eye Go Black.” Let me set the scene for you. In the room there were lipsticks, military symbols, but then you see a table with blenders. These blenders were far from ordinary because there were live goldfish in them. The worst part being that there was an option to blend them, so these poor fishy lives were in the hands of the audience. You can only imagine that this artwork stole the whole exhibition.
Evaristti’s artwork was less about the fish, but more about the human mind, and how we respond when given the power of life, or death. He predicted there would be three types of people: The sadist, moralist, and the voyeur. And turns out he was more than correct, because someone blended one of the fish, and soon after the police were called. Let’s explore what might have been these personas ideologies when first seeing this art installation.
The Sadist
The Sadist would focus on the power they hold over the goldfish. They might think, “I have the power to end the fish’s life just by pressing this button. Why shouldn’t I? It’s within my control.” Blending the goldfish might excite them, because it shows their dominance over something vulnerable.
The Moralist
The Moralist would be mad at the thought of the goldfish in the blenders. They could think, “How could someone create something so cruel and unethical? It’s disgusting that this even exists.” They might see the artwork as an unethical exploitation of animals. They would either fight to try to save the goldfish or demand the removal of the installation entirely.
The Voyeur
The Voyeur would not press the button but would watch others to see if they do. They might think, “I wonder if someone else will do it, and how would everyone react? Will someone press the button, and what will that moment look like?” They are fascinated by watching how people will react to this situation, especially the tension between the sadist and the moralist. The voyeur loves watching the ethical struggle without directly participating.
Evaristti’s Helena & El Pescador makes us face our own morals. As he said himself, “Art is about engagement, about forcing people to see themselves in their choices.” The public’s outrage over the piece might have overshadowed its deeper message, but it still sparked important conversations about art and ethics.
The artwork raises a big question: What is art for? Is it to make us think, beautify the world, or do both? There’s also the issue of balancing an artist’s freedom with their responsibility. Where do we draw the line between artistic expression and exploitation? Who decides where that line is?
In the end, Helena & El Pescador teaches us that great art doesn’t give simple answers but challenges us to think. It makes us reflect not just on the artist’s choices, but also on our own morality on how far we’re willing to go when faced with ethical decisions.