Is This Art?

[Ladyzekke]

On a lighter note, Dron_Cah I got your email, that song was hilarious! [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Attalus: 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.

So you are more of an Apollinian than a Dionysian then. That's great, Apollo is a powerful force in this world too [img]smile.gif[/img] (You don't have to take that statement at face value )

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.

And that's a solid standpoint. I find the existence of life and consciousness itself to be art. And so yes, for me, all experience is art. I feel that the energy of life itself is art. But as you say, this concept does not sit well with many people.

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

Fair enough. The intent of these filmmakers is difficult to pinpoint, at least for me. I hesitate to simply dismiss them as sickos, but by the same token I do not empathise with their compunction to film this act. I do not see any need for it, but they obviously have begged to differ.

[ 09-17-2004, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[Aerich]

Hmm, interesting new article. I didn't realize that the film being shown neither showed any of the gruesome footage nor used it as the only example.

I find it funny that all the protestors felt they had to show up to criticize a movie that explored the public outcry and deplored the cat murder. Convenient (e.g. no brains necessary) target, I suppose; I bet none of them actually watched it or read a (relatively) unbiased criticism of the film before jumping on the bandwagon.

EDIT: to make it entirely clear, I'm referring to the film shown at the film festival, not the "artistic" slaughter of the cat. The film at the film festival, which is getting all the publicity and is being heavily protested, appears to deal with the public reaction to these sorts of stunts. The cat-killing is referenced, but no footage from it is used in the movie, as far as I can tell.

[ 09-17-2004, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: Aerich ]