Myra

Myra- Marcus Harvey-1995:

• Black, white and grey
• mugshot style image with very intense gaze (puts you in position of those killed?)
• taken after her arrest
• iconic
• made using casts of children's hands (juxtaposing the "innocent child with the depraved world of adults"

• was made in 1995, Myra was on trial in 1966 so was made after the fact
• was part of the controversial exhibition 'sensation' exhibiting young British artists at the Royal Academy of Art in London 1997
• bought by Charles Saatchi
• very 'high brow' (maybe couldn't be understood? out of context art?
• would be seen by many as was in big exhibit, so would have possibly shocked and offended not only those that came to view the other works in the gallery but parent of murdered children specific to this case and to others
• seen by many as an important work that needed to be seen, but by others as vulgar and in poor taste

• this image relates directly to the idea of the relevancy of context in art as brought up by Erin Tapely in Scrutinized Art 
• says that from her position she can take into account a persons possible inspirations and look past that to see valuable art but that she realises that others could interpret differently
• just as the images discussed in Erin Tapelys article could offend people on the basis of religious, political, and pornographic offence, Myra could offend members of society. 
• this offence could be seen as societal, cultural or just pure tastelessness offence. Some could find just the image of this woman's face so distasteful that they cant see any reason for it
• Myra herself (the lady, not the painting) said that she would like for it to be taken down as the work was "a sole disregard not only for the emotional pain and trauma that would inevitably be experienced by the families of the Moors victims but also the families of any child victim."
• Quotes that could relate:

"He also added that those who viewed the poster regarded the woman as 'nude', which became the most objectionable part of the image. Having been conditioned perhaps by art history, I mentioned that I hardly saw the nudity factor of this poster, but of course I would respond as he had asked."

"The connection to Serranos work- allegedly about the numbing effects of "spirituality" in the United States- was uncanny. But I knew that anyone could interpret it differently."

"While people often maintain that nudity or violence in art should be allowed, they draw the line when such themes construed as pornographic, tasteless, or blasphemous. The real question is, what definition or parameters will ever satisfy everyone?"

I think the final quote is going to be the one I pick as it raises the question of where we should all draw the line with offence and what constitutes as tasteless in our society. Does the art need to be important of relevant in order to warrant its offensive nature?