I have a minor in the history of Art and enjoy visiting galleries and reading about art in general. My question for you stems from some articles I recently read about questionable ethical practices relating to artistic expression. More specifically, some artists have employed the use of decaying animal corpses and photos of deceased human fetuses as part (or sometimes the whole) of their art pieces. What do you think? Is this ethically wrong? Is it acceptable because it's caged under the catagory of "capital A art"? Should there be limits placed on what we can use to express ourselves?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Limits of Artistic Expression
Limits of Artistic ExpressionFollow
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
Limits on expression are dangerous. I am not saying all are bad, just that they are dangerous. Taste being subjective, that it offends the sensibilities of one group or another is irrelavent. If an object's or medium's use does not violate some law relating to the rights of an individual or group (ie: child ****, snuff, etc.) the answer must be that the offended are free to ignore the material.
EDIT: Spelling > me
Edited, Thu Jul 22 13:17:20 2004 by MoebiusLord
EDIT: Spelling > me
Edited, Thu Jul 22 13:17:20 2004 by MoebiusLord
Tare, have you ever hear of Joel-Peter Witkin?
http://www.zonezero.com/exposiciones/fotografos/witkin/jpwitkin1.html
His stuff is great!
http://www.zonezero.com/exposiciones/fotografos/witkin/jpwitkin1.html
His stuff is great!
The only reason these so called artists use whale **** as a from of artistic expression is because it gets more attention than useing clay.
Attention is the name of the game. Use a dead baby and you'll get national attention. Use putty and not even a grade school teacher will take notice.
Attention is money to an artist.
Attention is the name of the game. Use a dead baby and you'll get national attention. Use putty and not even a grade school teacher will take notice.
Attention is money to an artist.
eh it's all about taste. Usually the most conterversial artists create a name for themselves. Look up Andres Serrano sometime!
Sure, Moe, offended parties always have the option to ignore offending material, but do you think that the material should be allowed to be used in such a context at all? The author of one of the articles I read vehemently argued that such material has no place in artistic expression, or galleries that showcase it. He questioned the value of a dead cat in a box or pictures of mutilated fetuses as art proper and art's "subjectivity" claim doesn't cut it in this case.
I am of the opinion that art's subjectivity is critical to its survival. If we had to please the masses there would be no real expression. At the same time, I also find myself questioning the artistic value of a dead cat in a box. Can I just chalk it up to that particular piece not being "my type" of art? Or are there just some things that artists shouldn't do?
I am of the opinion that art's subjectivity is critical to its survival. If we had to please the masses there would be no real expression. At the same time, I also find myself questioning the artistic value of a dead cat in a box. Can I just chalk it up to that particular piece not being "my type" of art? Or are there just some things that artists shouldn't do?
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
pickleprince wrote:
Tare, have you ever hear of Joel-Peter Witkin?
Interesting. Never heard of him. Mostly a photographer?
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
Personally I think that there are lots of things that artists shouldn't do. But It goes way beyond artists. On the other hand, I also realize that what's good for me may not be good for someone else. When it doesn't effect the bottom line, let them do it. Galileo wasn't an artist, but his work used quite a few ideas that were beyond the acceptable limits for his time. They flew in the face of common moral and ethical considerations. We now revere him and his discoveries.
The odd thing about me is that as conservative as my political beliefs may be, I am fairly adament about keeping the freedom of speech (and by association artistic expression) as unabridged as possible.
The odd thing about me is that as conservative as my political beliefs may be, I am fairly adament about keeping the freedom of speech (and by association artistic expression) as unabridged as possible.
I simply look at those pieces as forms of reality. I can't remember his name, I would have to be at home to find it, but there is this one artist that had a bunch of mannequin children intertwined in very controversial positions. He also had a photo of a man taking a dump on a child's chest. Sometime's life isn't always pretty.
Edited, Thu Jul 22 13:32:57 2004 by Pulseczar
Edited, Thu Jul 22 13:32:57 2004 by Pulseczar
Yeah, he photographs posed and manipulated corpses.
Did you check out that link?
Seems like whoever did some of the NIN videos ripped him off big time.
I happen to think his work is really good. It's weird how when you first see his work you think "it's a painting". Then you notice it's not.
Did you check out that link?
Seems like whoever did some of the NIN videos ripped him off big time.
I happen to think his work is really good. It's weird how when you first see his work you think "it's a painting". Then you notice it's not.
More specifically, some artists have emplyed the use of decaying animal corspes and photos of deceased human fetuses as part (or sometimes the whole) of their art pieces. What do you think?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, yuck! If thats the case than you could consider the killings of a certain serial (spelling?) killer art.
Is this ethically wrong?
------------------------
Probably not, unless you are the one who took the life of the animal. It leads to that serial (spelling?) killer art thing again.
Is it acceptable because its caged under the category of "capital A art"?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital A art?
Should there be limits placed on what we can use to express ourselves?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There should be limits of a sort. Once again the serial (spelling?) killer art thing again. Taking a life, or anything that harms a person physically is definelty a big limit. Its like freedom of religion. Should a person be able to burn someone as a steak, b/c their religion dictates it is right?
To them it is art. So, it just depends on how you look at it. Personally, my idea of art is a good book, a good song, a good rpg, a good movie, and a good anime. Its that "certain point of view" thing again. Curse you Obi Wan Kanobi!
Of course, I'm not a big fan of some nut splashing paint on a canvas and calling it art. The last time I went to an art exhibit, some of my friends tried to analyze some of the paintings. I decided that some of the so called artists need to stay off the drugs.
Now I have a painting of Aurora Borealis (~sigh~ Spelling?), and a picture I took of the phenomenon. I still think its better in real life, pictures don't do it justice. Then there are some wonderful picture of Glacier Bay National Park that I consider art. Especially, during the different seasons. That is a beautiful place to vacation, and enjoy some peace and quiet. In fact there is a really nice hotel in that area of Canada that is wonderful for a little peace and quiet. Prince Albert, or Prince something or other. Haven't had time to vacation in a long time. A good picture of that with the mountains and the lake in the background, now that is art! Of course I prefer pictures of nature over some of the strange stuff people call art.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, yuck! If thats the case than you could consider the killings of a certain serial (spelling?) killer art.
Is this ethically wrong?
------------------------
Probably not, unless you are the one who took the life of the animal. It leads to that serial (spelling?) killer art thing again.
Is it acceptable because its caged under the category of "capital A art"?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital A art?
Should there be limits placed on what we can use to express ourselves?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There should be limits of a sort. Once again the serial (spelling?) killer art thing again. Taking a life, or anything that harms a person physically is definelty a big limit. Its like freedom of religion. Should a person be able to burn someone as a steak, b/c their religion dictates it is right?
To them it is art. So, it just depends on how you look at it. Personally, my idea of art is a good book, a good song, a good rpg, a good movie, and a good anime. Its that "certain point of view" thing again. Curse you Obi Wan Kanobi!
Of course, I'm not a big fan of some nut splashing paint on a canvas and calling it art. The last time I went to an art exhibit, some of my friends tried to analyze some of the paintings. I decided that some of the so called artists need to stay off the drugs.
Now I have a painting of Aurora Borealis (~sigh~ Spelling?), and a picture I took of the phenomenon. I still think its better in real life, pictures don't do it justice. Then there are some wonderful picture of Glacier Bay National Park that I consider art. Especially, during the different seasons. That is a beautiful place to vacation, and enjoy some peace and quiet. In fact there is a really nice hotel in that area of Canada that is wonderful for a little peace and quiet. Prince Albert, or Prince something or other. Haven't had time to vacation in a long time. A good picture of that with the mountains and the lake in the background, now that is art! Of course I prefer pictures of nature over some of the strange stuff people call art.
http://www.understandingduchamp.com/
This guy posed these same questions almost 100 years ago. Granted it was more tame compared to what we have now, though during his time it caused quite an uproar He did things such as signing a toilet seat lid and calling it art. There's always people trying to push the boundaries.
Edited, Thu Jul 22 13:41:02 2004 by CrimsonMagician
This guy posed these same questions almost 100 years ago. Granted it was more tame compared to what we have now, though during his time it caused quite an uproar He did things such as signing a toilet seat lid and calling it art. There's always people trying to push the boundaries.
Edited, Thu Jul 22 13:41:02 2004 by CrimsonMagician
Didn't they do that in Japan?
Yeah, Pickle I did look at the link. Funny though - those pictures don't seem as offending as one might think they would be if they just read about the content. To really experience and make a decision either way one has to view the art in context, I think. Art is about boundaries and limits in many ways. I remember taking course in my last year of university where we looked at "pornographic photos" in comparison to canonical art and the objectivity was the same, but many women in the class were deeply offended that they'd be subjected to this type of material.
That was also the class where I wrote a great paper on Arnold Schwarzenegger as human phallus. Yay!
And Moe, I am surprised. I thought you'd be all over this.
That was also the class where I wrote a great paper on Arnold Schwarzenegger as human phallus. Yay!
And Moe, I am surprised. I thought you'd be all over this.
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
Quote:
I remember taking course in my last year of university where we looked at "pornographic photos" in comparison to canonical art and the objectivity was the same, but many women in the class were deeply offended that they'd be subjected to this type of material.
That's awesome. Who was the photographer that used real **** actors in a series of photos he did? I think he also made mannequins posed in **** positions and used them in an installation. 'Member that?
King CrimsonMagician wrote:
He did things such as signing a toilet seat lid and calling it art. There's always people trying to push the boundaries.
I'm not sure it was the same thing though, Crim. Duchamp was poking fun at the culture of high art that had been created. He was rebelling against what was considered to be "good" as opposed to deliberately trying to shock people. Duchamp was an acclaimed painter before he started his found art period.
Are these types of artists trying to make a statement about what is considered to be good art, or acceptbale within the canon? Is the canon even relevant anymore? Or are they simply tryingto shock?
By the way, I saw Duchamp's work in Rome. Loved it! He called the toilet "Drinking Fountain"...how cute!
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
There was one artist that had created a fake constitution and then he had the american flag in front of it on the ground. So in order to read it you had to step on the flag.
Last year, at our local art gallery a cartoon artist painted a picture of the leader of the conservative party getting *** raped by Jesus. This would be like GWB getting it from JHC.
People were outraged. I got nothin' but love for that artist though, because I am a bleeding heart liberal and his name is Spider. How can I hate someone named Spider?
Edited, Thu Jul 22 13:53:48 2004 by Tare
People were outraged. I got nothin' but love for that artist though, because I am a bleeding heart liberal and his name is Spider. How can I hate someone named Spider?
Edited, Thu Jul 22 13:53:48 2004 by Tare
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
pickleprince wrote:
Who was the photographer that used real **** actors in a series of photos he did? I think he also made mannequins posed in **** positions and used them in an installation. 'Member that?
Argh! That's the guy...but I can't remember his name. He used all those crazy strap ons too. Now, I'll be trying to figure it out all day.
Stupid brain.
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
Quote:
He also had a photo of a man taking a dump on a child's chest.
That's child abuse. Sometime's life isn't pretty, but that man is one sick puppy.
Drinking Fountain has always been one of my favorites, and yes, Duchamp was a good/accomplished painter. I honestly can't say wha the motivations behind these artists are. Whether it be shock, boundaries, or if they are simply expressing themselves. As has already been stated, it's very subjective. Personally, I don't see decaying animal carcasses or a dead fetus as art, but who am I to say "that's not art" It's a tough question.
Gadin wrote:
Sometime's life isn't pretty
Not least when someone is taking a dump on your chest....
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
In addition I'd like to say I know that being neutral on the matter is not adding to the debate. I guess anything anyone can come up with can be art as long as it does not interfere with someone's well being. Like causing death or trauma. We can always choose not to look.
It all depends in large part on what you consider to be the role of art, and of artists. If you accept that art can be used to open up new ways of looking at the world, then the limitations are far more relaxed than if you believe the purpose of art is to inspire reverence, for example.
As far as I'm concerned, artistic expression should not be limited as long as the artist does not actually cause pain or harm to any sentient creature (besides himself, of course). He should not, for example, solicit women to have abortions just so he can use the fetus; nor should he harm animals.
In the words of the immortal Mae West, "People who are that easily shocked need to be shocked a little more often."
As far as I'm concerned, artistic expression should not be limited as long as the artist does not actually cause pain or harm to any sentient creature (besides himself, of course). He should not, for example, solicit women to have abortions just so he can use the fetus; nor should he harm animals.
In the words of the immortal Mae West, "People who are that easily shocked need to be shocked a little more often."
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Would putting a goldfish in a blender in a performance piece be considered art? You think that's wrong?
That is actually a piece of art that I have seen, pickle. They actually give the viewer the choice of whether or not to push the button, if we're thinking of the same thing.
Recent Visitors: 535
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (535)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Limits of Artistic Expression
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC