disturbing art 2

[Melusine]

If the definition of art was exactly delineated, no art could ever be made. Think about it. Art by definition expands all the time. It's not just about "presenting the artist". In fact art would probably be terrible and boring if it were.
Therefore, what you think art should do Link, is not exactly relevant.

As I said, BTW, I don't like this type of art very much myself and I was playing devil's advocate so you can all take your grief somewhere else. However, what I *can* see is that there's more to this exhibition than "ewww he is a pervert". Do you have any idea how much art has been cried down in the past in similar ways?

Aerich, thanks for your interesting replies that pertained to the substance of the matter. As I've said the people who feel I'm defending the artists should read my posts again, but I'll go on a little while longer.
While you're right a salmon can be said to be killed out of necessity, you already objected that vegetarians would feel otherwise and indeed I agree that it is not at all necessary to kill salmons. But that leaves the valid argument that at least the salmon's death is useful. Nevertheless I could again respond saying art is useful to human beings too, and therefore both deaths serve a purpose. In fact, the art draws attention to senseless killings, mass killing for food, unnecessary cruelty, etc. and in that way can be said to serve a higher purpose than the killing of a salmon to provide us with food. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Melusine]

Originally posted by johnny: That's what i meant, as if he's studying the guests' behaviour.... in a Hannibal Lecter-ish kind of way.

And what would be wrong with that? Would you feel uncomfortable having your morals examined? Why, if you find the mere thought of killing the fish so repulsive, would you mind?
Also, I disagree that this is about the artist alone. The fact that you perceive it to be so simply because you cannot believe anyone would come up with such a perverted exhibition completely ignores the fact that it's the VISITORS who make the art work. Do you eat bio-industrial meat, for instance? If the answer is yes, the artist is showing that you are just as perverted as he is, only he draws attention to the fact, brings the killing out in the open, deliberately shocks people, whereas the average consumer simply ignores the horrors of the bio-industry, pretends he is not endorsing this cruel system.

Aerich, I forgot to say, I agree the statement would have been more poignant and would have hit home harder if the blenders were not connected at all.

Absynthe, great post! And nice to see you around again. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 06-22-2004, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

[Sagramore]

definately not art [img]graemlins/jarswim.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/gore.gif[/img] i think its just cruelty to animals...even though what Timber posted would definately qualify to me as an art form

[ 06-22-2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Sagramore ]

[Melusine]

I think most of you have trouble distinguishing between "morally reprehensible/perverted/disturbing" and "non-artistic".
Just because it's WRONG doesn't mean it's not art. Just because you don't like it, or it bothers you, doesn't mean it's not art.
One possible definition of art is that it makes people examine their own worldview, their beliefs, that it makes them think, makes them discourse.
If your only reaction to this art is "eww", obviously you have not understood the art.

Disclaimer for the slower-witted: I am NOT endorsing killing the fish. Personally I couldn't hurt a fly, and the thought of those cute little fishies in their blenders makes my heart break. I'm a sucker for little animals. But I also eat meat (albeit more and more rarely) and fish. That's pure hypocrisy and I know it is. An exhibition like this opens one's eyes to the fact that while we obviously consider ourselves far too ethically advanced to kill these cute little fishes, or have others kill them, most of us do actively support far more brutal, wide-spread killing and close our eyes to it because we don't like the way it mars our good opinion of our own morals.

And for the umpteenth time, I don't like this art myself, BECAUSE cute little fishies are killed for it. But I also recognise and applaud the intention behind it, although like I said before, I agree with Aerich that it would have been much better to use non-working blenders: the mind-f*** effect and poignancy would have been just the same (well, until the word got out, of course, and visitors came to the exhibition aware of the fact that they couldn't really kill the fish. Maybe the best solution would be to tell the public that *some* blenders were connected, others were not, and secretly disconnect all of them)

[ 06-22-2004, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

[johnny]

The visitors may be the ones that make the art work, but he's presenting the opportunity to them, obviously counting on some of them to press the button. So i'm sticking to my point of him being a sicko.

And yes, i eat that kind of meat, but you can hardly compare that with a mere goldfish.

[Aerich]

Melusine, I agree entirely with the conception of Art as valuable beyond the purely practical considerations. That's the second weakness with the salmon necessity argument (the first is that the purpose behind killing salmon is not strictly necessary, just convenient and tasty). What I have a problem with (as I'm sure most of us here have) are those people whose art disgusts us without providing any redeeming qualities. Of course, that leads into the question of individuality; everyone has a different and ultimately personal viewpoint about what is disgusting, what qualities are redeeming, and what is valuable art. I also like your idea of telling the public that some are plugged in and leaving none of them operative. It would turn it into a russian-roulette style psychological self-test, instead of a gruesome display.

I would have to disagree, johnny, that presentation of opportunity = moral sickness. Maybe it's an indicator of someone who pushes the envelope and is not afraid to provide the *opportunity* to sacrifice goldfish to make a point, but it is not the main question. Do we blame gunmakers for deaths caused by those who pull triggers? Should we? Or should the responsibility rest most heavily on those who choose to exercise that power?

[johnny]

I don't want to go any deeper into this than i already have, it's not worth arguing about. I just honestly hope that this guy doesn't get subsidized for his pathetic attempts to express himself. I think i would be more entertained watching drawings hanging in kindergarten, but to each his own.

However, if he really wants to impress me with his artistic interrests in fishes, then let him stick his arm in a container with a bunch of Piranhas and keep it there for five minutes. Perhaps then i'd have some appreciation for his efforts.

[Aerich]

Sorry, johnny, not trying to rag on you or argue with you, just trying to present an alternate view (call me assistant Devil's Advocate to Melusine). I personally wouldn't get much out of the exhibit either, I prefer my art to be a little more conventional.

I too hope that he does not get obscene amounts of art subsidies. It hardly seems like work to put together something like that. At the same time, I would defend his right to express himself/test other people in any way he chooses; PROVIDED that it is not harmful to others - including goldfish.

[Aerich]

Oh, speaking of art subsidies, I have another disturbing story.

NOT FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT STAND DISTURBING IMAGES
*
*
*
*
*

Several months ago, an artist (whose name I forget) was nominated by some association of artists to receive a Governor-General's Medal, or something like that. iirc, the award came with a healthy amount of cash. Anyway, this guy was known for two things (there's probably more):

1) Being banned from the National Art Gallery for throwing paint on other peoples' works.

2) Staying in the lotus position for several hours upside down in a grave with a vial of his own blood stuck in his anus until blood from the vial came out his mouth.

Understandably, this got some unfavourable press. I forget what happened, but I really hope he didn't get it.

This thread is digging up some exellent points about art and it's place in our society. I've had this thought in my head since I started reading through the posts and I don't know if I can express it properly, but here goes: (art majors and others who know more about this subject please correct as necessary)

Art in human history has until recently (last 200-400 years?)been mostly representational, expressing ideas about religion (lots of this sort), our relationship to the world around us (early cave paintings), or used as a record of sorts - portraiture of roryalty & such.
It seems that as our societies become more advanced, art has become used more as an outlet or tool for social and political criticism.
Is that a good thing? Is it a perversion of art to be used this way, or is art an all-encompassing medium of expression which has no intrinsic values or limitations save those of the artist?
Is it perhaps a sign of a sickened culture that morals and ethics have to be challenged or taught through art because of the lack of other venues?

p.s. to Mel,
Hello there and thanks for the welcome! It's been a long while since I've been posting, but I think I'll be around a bit more. Glad to see you here and still active.