“Why do you do this stuff? There’s enough real horror in the world without you adding to it”.

Amid the criticisms my work has received over the years, I have heard this particular line quite a few times. Personally, I think any fictional or fantasy horror (which I shall just call fake horror) designed for entertainment is utterly irrelevant to what happens in real life. But some people really do think that fake horror in media, be it films, books, and even photography such as that created by Horrify Me, somehow contributes to the real world horrors that mankind has to endure. So let’s look into it.

The statement “there’s enough real horror in the world” rests on an implicit assumption: that fake horror causes or amplifies real-world suffering in a way that is ethically questionable or psychologically harmful. However, many would push back on that equivalence. It is a normative claim about representation, rather than a substantive evaluation of the horror genre itself.

There is a paradox of fake horror: Why do people actively seek out experiences that will cause them to be afraid, or feel disgust or dread? What is the appeal of horror? Many have morbid curiosity, and the curiosity of the unknown, as well as a fascination for the transgressive. The emotional responses to fake horror are structured and mediated, not raw and traumatic as they might be to real world horror. Fake horror is not negative in itself, as it has no real world impact (many studies have proven that horror films cannot create real life serial killers for example), and compared to experiencing something real, it is an entirely different kind of experience.

Fake horror allows individuals to explore dark human themes, experience fear and disgust and other emotional responses, build tolerance to stress, and experience the type of situations that they would normally avoid in real life, all in complete safety. I’ve often thought that horror films provide a similar function to the public executions of centuries past, which often drew large public crowds of spectators, all seeking a thrilling morbid spectacle or exploring their own morbid curiosity. Only now we get to fulfil that old human craving without anybody actually being harmed. And let's not forget, not one of us here right now is free of this morbid curiosity; haven't you slowed down and turned your head when driving past a car crash to try and catch a view of the unfortunate carnage?

I do understand that any creative work put out to the public is subjected to scrutiny and critical response, which is fair and even expected, but I think that this particular criticism, "there's enough real horror in the world", actually says more about the person’s own relationship with the horror genre rather than the genre itself. Fake horror isn’t trying to add suffering to the world, but through its entertainment it can reflect real human fears, help process general human suffering, and expose us to strong emotions, safely. Some people don’t like the horror genre, I get it. Some are already overwhelmed by real life horror and don’t want any additional exposure to dark topics, and others feel it is exploitative and negative. These are very fair personal boundaries, and such people have every right to avoid the genre of fake horror, but these points do not create a good or even reasonable argument to stop creatives from engaging with the genre. Saying “there’s enough real horror in the world” is a sound reason for them to avoid fake horror but that’s all. If anything, real world horror is part of why the the horror genre matters at all; fake horror should not be treated as redundant suffering, but as a mediated space where fear is processed, symbolised, and even made meaningful.

It’s only a certain section of my work that has received this criticism. My vampire and zombie portraits tend to be left alone as they are just a pure folkloric fiction, and don't tend to provoke anybody's moral outrage. But some of my more explicit portraits of suffering and death have attracted these critical rebuffs. I’ve been accused of doing these images just to shock people and nothing else. Yes! That’s the point. Some horror imagery is intended to shock. Believe it or not, shock is a major part of the emotional tapestry that fake horror targets. Why do you think the Exorcist depicted a young teenage girl masturbating with a crucifix? Or Cannibal Holocaust allowed us to study an impaled girl? And the state of the victims of Art the Clown in the Terrifier movies are truly shocking! Shock for he sake of shock is a tactic employed all the time in horror, it's part of what fans sign up for.

Along the journey of my photographic work, I've had my fair share of critics who, very fairly, said they just didn't like my work. Yep, cool, it's not for everyone. But I’ve also been accused of exposing the people I work with to exploitation, indignity, and even real harm. One guy actually questioned me about my original impaled girl, asking without irony if she was actually okay in the photo (fun fact: she was fine and she had a great fun day. All my risk assessments were thorough and professional). A woman was so enraged with my torture sets that she went to great efforts to get all of my work removed from my web servers using legal citations, and even threatened to call the police to have me investigated. I was even once compared to a terrorist, for “posting violent images designed to disturb and frighten people” and someone even suggested that I should feel a huge sense of shame and embarrassment for my work, and that my wife should leave me. I've been called all kinds of names (misogynist, evil, satanist, pervert, pedo, scum bag, disgusting cunt, to name but a few examples), I've received a few death threats, and I've even been told that my work is "the exact opposite of what art is". And all because I am adding (fake) horror to the world.