MEDIA ETHICS: CASE STUDY 1

Case Study No. 3

“Multiples: The Artwork of John Wayne Gacy”

MEDC 2200 W1 S2 2018

Professor: Larry Baden

Student: Isidora Colic

MEDIA ETHICS: CASE STUDY 2

In the third case study, inspired by one of our online case studies, Vargas’s exhibition, I have

decided to write about one of the most controversial exhibitions ever. As someone who

appreciates art, I think that artists shouldn’t have boundaries in expressing their ideas. However,

as everyone in the world, artists, exhibitors and everyone who affects individuals or groups,

should decide to make ethical decisions. More than art, ethical decisions that do good to

individuals and groups inspire me the most. The main idea and question that I was thinking while

writing this paper was whether paintings, books or installations can be agents of trouble and

concern. On the other hand, what does people who earn money or publicity from those kind of

art value? Finally, while observing various perspectives, my intention is to find out and explain if

it is ethical and if there is a purpose of profiting from serial killer’s art.

John Wayne Gacy or “the Killer Clown” was convicted of raping and killing 33 boys during

eighties in U.S. He was captured in 1978 after series of crimes and executed in 1994. He was

spending time in jail painting, and in 2011. Arts Factory in Las Vegas decided to organize

charity sale, where they would exhibit and sell his work, and eventually give money to

organizations that need it. There are people who are obsessed or interested with things that serial

killers have created throughout the time, so-called murderabilia, presented mostly on the Internet

nowadays. There are many stakeholders in this story such as people who organized the

exhibition, those who would profit from it, victims’ families, sites who encouraged and

supported the exhibition and professionals who have dedicated their lives in observing and

explaining who serial killers are, and why they do what they do.

Westly Miles, director of Arts Factory in Las Vegas, who organized the exhibition in 2011

said that he doesn’t care what people would think about the exhibition and claims that it will

provoke discussions and that it would provide financial help for those who have been hurt. Also,
MEDIA ETHICS: CASE STUDY 3

he told that he thinks that it would help and make good things from something that was bad.

Portion of funds from the exhibition was intended for The National Center for Victims of Crime,

but Myles said that if they don’t accept the money, there are organizations who certainly would.

(CNN, 2011) There were sites and organizations who supported this exhibition. Website

johnwaynegacyart.com, set up to promote the show in Las Vegas thought that everyone should

have known about Gacy’s life, in order to understand him and his work. Also, they claimed that

artists shouldn’t be judged, no matter who they are, and that they should be qualified equally, no

matter of their sins. The Serial Killers Ink, true crime collectibles company, that promotes work

of serial killers around the world from 2008, agreed that there was nothing bad about promoting

and selling Gacy’s work. They compared the exhibition with selling things tied with WWII, and

didn’t find any argument why Gacy’s work shouldn’t be presented. On the other hand, there are

many who think that Gacy’s work shouldn’t be exhibited in Las Vegas. Firstly, as I have already

mentioned, portion of monies from the exhibition was intended for The National Center for

Victims of Crime, American nonprofit organization dedicated to providing information,

resources and advocacy for people who suffered of any type of crime. (Wikipedia) Their opinion

was pretty radical, and they ddin’t want to be related to any events of this type, or to profit from

it. By sending a cease-and-desist letter to the owner, Mr. Myles, they explained that their

organization doesn’t want to be a beneficiary of the sale, as it is poor taste to the extreme. (CNN,

2011) Another potential beneficiary of the sale, The Contemporary Arts Center in Ohio also

denied to receive monies and to host the show. Even though CAC first accepted to host the show,

they eventually cancelled it. Anne Mulford, the board president of the center went to the

extreme, saying that she wouldn’t like to see Gacy’s work ever, and thinks that everyone would

be creeped about it. As it is important to find various opinions and perspectives, one of the most
MEDIA ETHICS: CASE STUDY 4

important stakeholders are people who suffered the most, victims’ families. It seems that their

pain didn’t vanish, and it probably won’t. Annette Locorriere, sister of one of the victims,

implored the art gallery to destroy the collection. However, she claimed that this exhibition

reopens old wounds. As she said, this exhibition would re-opened old wounds all over again.

Some of them, such as Bonnie Schlesinger, whose brother was killed by Gacy, wanted to learn a

little bit, but she didn’t hope for answers, because such a tragedy doesn’t offer answers.

Exhibition of Gacy’s work raised controversies, and many professionals were interested in

observing and learning from serial killer’s work. As they all claimed, they didn’t want to

celebrate or glorify him, but to learn as much as possible from his paintings. “We have the

artwork to help demonstrate if he had any type of mental illness or degenerative qualities that

emerged in the art that would otherwise not be available. His art is derivative, it’s flat, it’s

boring, in many cases ridiculous and it reveals how much he was trying to mask from the world

what he was really about.”, says Dr. David Gussak, an art therapist and charmain of the Art

Education Department of Florida State University, who described this exhibition as an

opportunity to do a late-case autopsy into Gacy’s mind. (Bornfeld, 2011) On the other hand,

there were people who tried to find a golden balance in explaining this controversial exhibition

from the ethical point of view. Professor Dave Schmid, from University of Buffalo didn’t think

that exhibit is a problem, but he have seen a problem in shelling out money from the exhibition,

for any cause. (Rosario, 2011) In his book “Natural Born Celebrities: Serial Killers in American

Culture”, he empathizes with the crime victim group’s reaction and their denial to take this

“blood money”, and he thinks that the problem nowadays is what we choose to value. At this

point exactly, we come to values.

MEDIA ETHICS: CASE STUDY 5

As Schmid have already mentioned throughout his book, it is exactly what we choose to value.

On one hand, there are stakeholders who definitely suffered the most, victims’ families, whose

wounds are re-opened with this exhibition. They want intimacy and peace in lives where they

have already suffered too much. They are both individuals and a group, who wants to leave this

pain in the past, realizing that they won’t find any answer in Gacy’s paintings. Also, there are the

National Center for Victims of Crime and CAC, who also denied to be part of this project and to

take money of it. As we can see, they value dignity, humanity and people’ lives and tragedies.

On the other hand, we have Myles and people who think that there is nothing strange and

terrifying about the exhibition. Some of them took portion of monies by selling his paintings,

they got a publicity and focus on their gallery, and they definitely had an advantage of the

exhibition. Those are people who are in the business for years, and who value money, success

and publicity among everything. Supported by people who buy those paintings and websites,

who like to read about serial killers and see controversial exhibitions, their success is guaranteed.

Also, there are professionals, who see both advantages and disadvantages in everything. They

empathize with victims’ families, realizing how hurt they are, and care about people’s lives.

However, they think that educated people can learn a lot from paintings of John Wayne Gacy.

Those are people who can find a balance between ethical and unethical and avoid dichotomy.

Those are people who won’t buy his paintings, but would observe it and learn from it.

Eventually, that is part of their jobs.

I was raised in Orthodox Christian family, by very religious father, whose most important

mission in life was to make his children a good people. It is somehow in my veins to treat people

fairly, to be kind, to help everyone that needs help and to try not to judge people and their

actions. On the other hand, my mother always taught me not to be radical, and to make radical
MEDIA ETHICS: CASE STUDY 6

decisions, and that the balance is the key. She was always teaching me that family is the most

important thing in the world, my only true friends, who will be there for me no matter what. She

taught me to value family, and love and strength that it gives me. In this particular case,

exhibition of serial killer’s paintings, it is hard to find a balance, or a golden middle. Thinking

objectively, the only group from all those mentioned above, who will have benefit from showing

and selling those paintings are Westly Myles and his gallery. I value peoples’ lives and their

emotions the most, and think about the fact that they have already suffered too much. In order to

find a solution, if I were a media professional I would make a private exhibition, for

professionals and people who can learn from his work. I wouldn’t make it as auction, and I

wouldn’t take a penny from it, since I wouldn’t like to benefit from tragedy like this. Firstly, I

wouldn’t like to hurt again people who suffered the most, victims’ families. Because I

understand what It is to have a sister and brother, who means everything to me. This put me in

level 3, stage 6 of Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, because I am the person who always

listens to inner conscious, and value equality and justice, and empathize with humans. However,

this attitude probably wouldn’t bring me a lot of money in the business, but I don’t value the

money at all. And then we come to the point that professor Schmid emphasized, that we are the

ones who choose what to value.

MEDIA ETHICS: CASE STUDY 7

References:

Bornfeld, S. (2011, September 19). Exhibit of serial killer Gacy’s artwork comes to quiet close.
Retrieved from https://www.reviewjournal.com/entertainment/shows/exhibit-of-serial-killer-gacys-
artwork-comes-to-quiet-close/

Concepcion, K. (2011, July 27). Serial Killer Art: Censorship and John Wayne Gacy. Retrieved
from https://burnaway.org/review/serial-killer-art-censorship-and-john-wayne-gacy/

CNN (2011, May 13). Controversial serial killer's paintings go on display in Las Vegas.
Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/05/13/serial.killer.art/index.html

Gurian, J. (2016, November 25). The Controversy of Killer John Wayne Gacy’s Artwork.
Retrieved from https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/usa/illinois/articles/the-controversy-of-
killer-john-wayne-gacys-artwork/

Rosario, R. (2011, May 26). John Wayne Gacy, Murder, Art and Anger. Retrieved from
https://www.buffalo.edu/content/dam/www/news/imported/pdf/May11/StPaulPPSchmidGacy.pd
f

Williams, E. (2011, May 13) What Would You Pay For John Wayne Gacy’s Clown Art?
Retrieved from https://www.salon.com/2011/05/13/ted_kaczynski_john_wayne_gacy_auctions/