Limits of Artistic ExpressionFollow

I don't have a problem with ***** or dead animals in art. I may not particularly enjoy it, but I don't think it goes beyond any limits. In fact, I was pretty pissed at all the outrage over that art display in New York a few years ago that had a painting of the Virgin Mary done in elephant dung. As I understand, it was a legitimate medium used in Africa.

Human corpses bother me a bit more. I don't mind journalistic or historical type photos of corpses. But where are the artists getting these corpses to "pose?" Do you have to sign a waiver or something...selling your body to art instead of selling it to science?

Here's somthing...when reality TV shows film people on the street, they have to get a waiver signed saying it's okay to show their face on TV. Is that a law, or just a precaution against civil suits? But you don't have to get a waiver signed to publish a photo of someone. A bit odd.

If you want to see art, play Far Cry. Geez, that is a beautiful game. Or what a well built Intel Pentium 4 3.0 Ghz processor, 1GB of DDR PC3200 RAM, ABIT IC7-MAXIII Motherboard, Gigabyte GeForceFX 5900 128MB Video Card, Sound Blaster Live! Gamer Limited Edition, Seagate 7200RPM 200GB HD, and a Logitech Wireless MX Duo keyboard and mouse set can do to it. Shoot, ignore the game and look at the PC in a beautiful Lian-Li PC-6077 case. Talk about art!

So if you've critiqued him before, let's have some now. Why is this photographer esteemed by other photographers and art critics?

Well, "tame" art is not what we are talking about in this thread. If you've seen his work, you know the type of photos I am talking about.

I have read a fair amount of praise for his photographic skill, but the subject matter, to me, is lacklustre and tries a bit too hard. Am I missing something? Maybe. Can anyone decipher what the merit of this particular work is?

We spent a week on him and I vaguely remember all his pieces. Fortunatly we had some sort of quote from him as to what he was thinking when he had been creating pieces. I am at work at the moment so I can't really look them up but I will look back over them when I am out of the office.

However I can tell you that a lot of his pieces explored the dark side of the homosexual population and being repressed as a child.

Edited, Thu Jul 22 17:26:44 2004 by Pulseczar

LOL. Probably. There's no doubt he's over my head.

Joph draw us a picture of a ranger!

Tare, I think the point of the photo you linked to is the artist trying to show us an emotion he feels. To convey to us the darker side of human nature. It looks to me like hes shying away from the attention given, trying to hide behind a persona that he has created in defense of something. (Maybe his parents pestering him, his neighbors giving him **** about his azaeleas, whatever it is.)

As for the corpse art, I think its cool, The point of it isnt to shock. Its to bring awareness to the human anatomy and the fraility of the human body. People join lists (like organ donor lists, or cadavre lists) to become part of the exhibit. This is the particular one I am thinking of, it is work safe, or at least the homepage.

Art is always tricky. I really like Soryama, and Giger too, however, I don't try to compare them to say Da Vinci, or Monet. They can't be, but when you compare my lifestyle to the lifestyle of people who would buy, say, a Monet piece, or a Rembrandt (sp?) Giger and Soryama are more relevant. They portray emotions and situations that I might deal with a bit more than the Greats do.

You mentioned the dead cat in a box, (I'm assuming its in an ASPCA patrolled area) I doubt the artist killed the animal, it may have been a pet that recently passed away. You leave out one major note; What was the context of the piece? You didn't say what he was trying to say, only that his medium included a deceased animal. You also left out the feeling the piece inspired in you (which in the end is what art is for isn't it? To convey an emotion, thought, or belief?) How did you feel? Beyond grossed out, I mean. I haven't seen that piece, so I personally have no impressions of it.

Edit: Typo hell....

Edited, Thu Jul 22 18:33:15 2004 by AriesGhost

Hmm. Perhaps. At any rate, an interesting read on the subject matter and more than anyone else has offered.



Well, the whole point is that I don't know what a piece like that is saying. The cat was inside a plastic box, decaying. No words are present. No lighting. Nothing. Just dead cat in a box. So, it inspired the questions that I had regarding the validity of such a piece. I would never say that that art should be removed, unless the cat were killed by the artist, but I still question the message, intended audience and purpose of art like that.

I can really only offer you a "Why" as to why I would do something like that. The dead cat isn't really a cat anymore. It's an empty shell. Just a broken vessel. I would do it to show people that the body of the cat is just that, a body. To illustrate that death comes, we go. Death is natural, and yet we aren't desensitized to the passing of people yet. How many of us have anger when a loved one dies? Even if it was for the best? Cancer is horrible, and yet we would still be selfish and bring them back to suffering so that we may have them with us again. I would do an exhibit like this to show people that once you're gone the body just rots away, leaving you with memories of what it was once. To help people understand that a body is worthless, it's the memories that we carry that make the person to us, not the corpse. The cat could have been any cat anyone has owned, or symbolic of a greater anatomy, a dog, or maybe grandpa Seth. Just my personal take on why it might be done.

Edit: Pickle beat me by some odd seconds, *******.

Edited, Thu Jul 22 18:49:11 2004 by AriesGhost