Very true words, Hiero. The problem is in the practition of it, though, lol. After all, you can always change your outlook, but changing something as deep-seated as your view and concept of death... that's much easier said than done.

Also, in comment to your philosophy on death and conflict not being a tragedy... well I didnt want anyone to take that in an "aggressive" way, so I would like to add that you seem to be emphasizing the fact that all die, and that these things are actually of a natural state. That what you were saying, or did I misinterpret? Would say though, that while I can agree and emphasize with much of it, life itself is far too intoxicating for me to even pretend death is trivial. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 09-16-2004, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: Dron_Cah ]

That's pretty much spot on! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] Although again, 'nature' is a subjective term. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The definition of art that I would go by is: 1.Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. 2. the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
3.The study of these activities.
4.The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.

The old Victorian question used to be: "It's pretty, but is it art?" Now we turn it on its head and ask, "It's brutal and sickening, so is it art?" I would submit that it is not. The problem that I have with your definition, Heirophant, is that any sensory stimulus afffects parts of the brain, and thus, subtly or boldly, the emotions, qualifying as "art" in your definition. I think this stretches the definition of art so broadly that it loses all usefulness. I have no quarrel with your categorization of squeamishness as primarily unconcerned with morality. I have killed, slaughtered and eaten venison and different birds, and had no indigestion. I have argued many times that vegetarianism has no inherent moral superiority to omnivorism, simply because as a biologist, I regard all species as equivalent. Where the film quite obviously crosses the line is by treating a species that many people have an emotional connection with as a victim, they are attempting, quite dishonestly, to equate this with commercial slaughter of animals specifically raised as food. This is more akin to pornography, and indeed the lowest pornography, child pornography and snuff films. conscious

mmm...hmm, but one thing , didn't the guy say that he was protesting against animal abuse? cause i thought the article said that, and how exactly is this protesting?

Quoting the article:

In that video, Power and his friends hang the cat from the ceiling by a cord. They slit its throat as it struggles in the noose, then kick, beat, and disembowel it. Finally, they skin the body, cut off the head and store it in a small refrigerator.

Skinning the body and cutting the head off are normally done in slaughterhouses, before selling the animal meat. So, basically, they wanted to disgust the viewers by showing how brutal those acts can look like.


At least, that's how I see it.

[ 09-16-2004, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: uss ]

Funny, the definitions of art vary wildly here. The definition of art I prefer is the one discussed at length in James Joyce's Portrait of an Artist as a young Man, which tags off of St. Thomas Aquinas's definition of art as well as a dialectic definition of art. It'd take a long analysis for me to run it through the three qualifications for art Joyce so nicely put together, but my guess is that I would try to determine it's not art based on my own sensibilities. In the end, I think my gut feeling would drive the analysis.

But, I want to flip the coin over. The project was supposedly made to encourage discussion of the double standard we hold with "cute" animals and "pets" vis-a-vis the cruel treatment that goes on in industrial meat packing. Well, it HAS done that -- at least here.

So, returning to the question of "Is it Art" . . .

[img]graemlins/1puke.gif[/img]

i started to read it, but couldnt make it all the way through. sick b******s.

That is not art, that is polemics. And it hasn't made me want to do anything but do something ugly to the perpetuators.

If the author of the atrocity wanted to draw attention to the plight of slaughtered animals, torturing and slaughtering yet another one is a poor way to do so.
If he wants to create controversy for the sake of controversy, hiding behind the cover of 'art' is chickenshit.
If he's just a sick bastard, which I think is very likely given his history, he should be treated appropriately. Using 'art' as a cover for sick and malicious acts is a degradation of the concept of art. If an individual can, in good conscience, call this sort of thing art, and excuse it therefor from any moral or ethical repercussions, that individual should be considered a potential menace to their fellow citizens. There is nothing to be gained from the suffering of the cat that could not have been accomplished in any number of ways that did not involve the torture of yet another animal.

Here is an update re the "Festival":

http://www.courttv.com/news/2004/091...iller_ctv.html

He's lucky nobody beat his a$$, but we can all keep hope for the future.