In this thread, a story was presented that was absolutely disgusting, in my opinion. This story offended me to no end. I felt like I was going to vomit, I have 6 cats of my own and each one has it’s own personality, and the thought of one of them being tortured for the sake of this person’s “art”…
Well, there would be my debate topic. That thread has developed into a debate on the definition of art, so I thought I’d bring it here.
IMO, art is the expression of emotion, real emotion, using mediums which require a certain degree of skill and discipline.
Skinning cats is not art. Painting a rendition of the brutal killing of a cow is. It will prove quite adequately the emotion you are attempting to get across. I can’t wait to hear everyone else’s opinions.
Oh, and just so no confusion erupts, I don’t think that art is limited to the traditional mediums of drawing, painting, sculpting.
Preview, preview, preview.
Please refer to this thread for the aforementioned thread in question.
I apologize for the mistakes that I would have fixed had I not been so emotional at the time…
While it may be art to someone it still is torture and skinning alive.
Now, you can’t skin something alive and then say you’re totally against it. I don’t support such “examples”.
So, my view is yes. It’s art, not to me, maybe to someone out there.
Yeah, it’s art. It would also be art for me to film a recreation of the execution of Marie Antoinette with an unwilling victim who thinks I might let her live if she says her lines correctly and with enough feeling, but it would still be illegal.
This came up in the Pit thread on this subject. I wouldn’t have had any problems with it at all if the cat was killed first, and in a fairly humane manner.
Yeah the pit thread was what made me start this, because it was turning into a GD thread anyway.
Just because you film something doesn’t make it art. Are security cameras a form of art? How about forensic photography or x-rays?
Marc
It is art, as far as I can tell, if the reports of the art and artist are truthful. The creator, a sentient (if apparently bereft of normal moral sensibilities) being, used materials on hand to express an emotion, to convey his thoughts, with assumed aesthetic intent.
Now, I think it is remarkably stupid art. I think it is morally abhorrent art. I think the creator likely needs counseling, and is a poor artist in that he was apparently so not-in-touch with his audience that he thought his work would draw attention to the plight of suffering animals, rather than inspiring a deep desire to fling the creator out the nearest window. But I think it is art.
I think the problem is that many people think art is inherently good and noble. They see it as ::harps and trumpets:: ART. But it’s not like that. It’s a human act, neither moral nor immoral without context, much like philosophy. Philisophizing can create brilliant, noble, thoughts that better the whole world. It can also give people a justification for the torture of their fellow humans. So too is art. Woodworking is woodworking whether you carve a cradle for a baby or carve cunning little spikes to shove under people’s fingernails. So too is art.
However, you are perfectly free to say, “That is morally abhorrent, disgusting (woodworking/philosophy/art) and it should not be tolerated in this society!” If unneccesary torture of animals is wrong (and I think it is), then it is wrong whether it is done in the name of art, or anything else. I find the creator’s actions revolting. I think he is a lousy artist. I think he should be arrested under every animal cruelty law we can throw at him. But, yes, I think he tried to make art, and my awareness of this makes it art to me. Horrible, icky art, but art.
The way I see it, if shit as sick as this videotape can be called art then anything can be called art. Right? I mean by upholding this as a work of art really does mean that art has literally no boundaries of any sort at all, in any way. I personally cannot imagine anybody liking this videotape for the statement it makes but if we label it as art just because somebody, somewhere might like it then we must concede that there is absolutely nothing at all in existance, nothing whatsoever on the face of the earth anywhere that cannot be construed as art. When that happens the word loses all meaning as there is no dividing line to tell us what is art. It puts the drawing my four year old nephew has pinned to the fridge on the same level as Dali’s melting clocks.
Call it Art if you/they wish. Call it Bob, I don’t care. Anything can be called Art. This does not mean that we (society) have to respect, promote, view, display, revere, like and/ or protect it. So, yea, they (the artists) can call it art, had I been a gallery owner, I’d have refused to display it. As a patron, I’d refuse to view/buy it. As a citizen, I’d demand that they be prosecuted for animal cruelty (apparently they are); if I were on the jury, I’d find them guilty, and if I were the judge, I’d give 'em the maximum allowed. Calling it ‘art’ (capitalized or no) doesn’t give it power/protection.
You da–mn right.
I realize now that i probably should have posted my response in this thread rather than the pit one… but I’ll restate the part that’s relevant here (a large portion of my post were specific responses to people)
Nietzsche would suggest that creativity is the only real freedom we have from the giant society-machine. That said, even if creativity is the main factor, what these guys did is in no way creative. They were directly responding to an act of society with a very gruesome and mechanical act of their own. My view? Not art. But art really IS whatever a person wants to make of it, at least to himself. That doesn’t mean a museum should give a shit about it (it here not being the video, but any highly subjective personalized art) or that people should pay money to see it/own it, but that doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not its art.
And then in response to “art is such because the audience says so”
I could sit down right now and paint a painting (well I actually have no such abilities but hypothetically) or write a song. Even if I’m the ONLY person who ever sees that painting or hears that song, its art to ME. The audience is shit, this is the tree falling down argument all over again
I was going to reply in the other thread but this is more what I wanted to get at.
What we have here isn’t really a need for a debate about ‘what is art’ it’s about the limitations that we, as a society, wish to place on art.
I provide my own, someone ill-thought out, definition of art:
Art is the expression of an idea (including emotions) designed to illuminate for the perceiver the thought processes and impressions of the artist.
Obviously, under this definition, literally ANYTHING can be art. Books, music, performance, smart-aleck behavior, what-have-you.
But also obviously (to me, at least) there exists a certain standard to which we, as a society (defining ‘we’ as western civ, I suppose) hold artists accountable for the appropriateness of their art.
Just because something is defined as ‘art’ does that place it outside the bounds of civilized behavior? I think not, some art is good, some art is poor, some art is filled with joy and some art is filled with hate. Is it possible to define a line beyond which society does not wish an artist to go?
Some analogies:
We have freedom of speech, yet speech can be limited for the greater benefit of society (the ever-classic yelling ‘FIRE’ in a crowded movie, incitement to riot)
We have freedom of religion, yet some religions aren’t recognized as legitimate (cults and what have you) and are legislated against.
We have freedom of association, yet some groups are dispersed by the authorities. (Riots and conspiracies and such)
We have protection of private property, yet some property is regarded as not protected. (Automatic weapons, home made bombs, condemned buildings, dangerous animals)
So, I believe that I have established that the rights we, as members of a western liberal society, have are not absolute. In each case the government (and each government can choose a different line) has established limits on each of those rights.
Why then, is there an impression I get from time to time, that no one has the right to limit expression when it’s called ‘art’? I think the procedure for setting those limits is well-established. Is it just because we’re in the midst of the debate now and the other limits are far enough back in time that they are simply accepted? If the whole ‘FIRE in a crowded theater’ thing were debated now would we find it as difficult to define those boundaries now?
Look, I’m normally as crazy, whack-job Libertarian as the next guy (OK, as the next Libertarian) but I’ve always recognized that human nature will take everything to extremes if no attempt is made to rein that nature in. It is clear to me that art requires some sort of limitation on it, as do all other inherently assumed rights.
Why then (again) is there such hue and cry about such limitations? And can we, as a group of debaters, acheive a consensus about what those limitations should be?
Jonathan Chance, while I agree with everything you just said, I think the limitations on freedom of expression are already reasonably clear. We [society] have drawn lines all over the place; we have laws covering almost all aspects of human behavior.
When art such as the execrable example in the OP is perpetrated in such a way as to violate any of these existing lines, it ceases to be “Protected Art” and instead becomes “Evidence.” Skinning a cat alive may be Art, but it is definitely a crime; blaring G. W. Bush speeches over a bullhorn at 3:00am in a posh residential district may be Comedy, but it’s also disturbing the peace. There’s really no ambiguity involved.
I think it’s more craft than art.
Well, I might disagree with you about the ‘Comedy’ thing. I would just find that annoying. But I live in the country.
I agree with you that there are already legal boundaries surrounding what is and isn’t freely expressable. But clearly there are people who DON’T classify ‘art’ with other forms of limited expression. Clearly, the chair of the student union (who helps to fund the gallery) doesn’t. Maybe I’m misinterpreting but when he says:
…he chooses to distance himself from the actions of the artist while supporting the art.
And again, we’re at the ‘moral cowardice’ level of argument here. If it’s not the role of the people who fund and run the gallery to determine if something is worthy (via artistic value) of being presented then who’s is it?
Even if this does turn out to be a hoax I still would not call this art.
Simulated cruelty is a violation of the viewer, would the simulated ‘snuff’ movies be called art ? I doubt it and this is on the same level.
If I wanted to cause moral outrage and offense in such a manner it would not be called art, and the reason is that I don’t posess an arts background, I don’t have the artsy contacts and it seems to me that this is all that separates ‘art’ from petty ramblings of the uneducated masses.
If a mechanic shits on a blanket its disgusting but if an art student does it then its art.
This is a bit like the King without his clothes type of discussion.
Here I was, gonna open a debate about the essence of art after I read THIS story, http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010720/od/cow_dc_1.html
(which, while it has little to do with skinned cats, and in that the only animal tortured was the artist himself, is similar.) and I find a thread already opened. Poop.
I think that the indiviuals that perpetrate this kind of “art” are in need of serious counciling. Skinning cats? Blowing up dead cows while hung crucifixed and bleeding on dancers? All in the name of something as ephemeral as “art”? My only question is WHY?
Michalangelo carved “David” as a tribute to the human form. Van Gough was driven by insanity. All were trying to express human emotion thru a medium, be it paint, stone, music, or whatever was lying around the studio. I believe THAT is what art is supposed to be. Using a medium to try to convey emotion. A painting can express joy, anger, love, hate or deep sorrow. As can music, or sculpture or prose or poetry. These things are art.
The only emotion I feel when viewing or hearing about the “art” in these stories is revulsion.
But then I think that is what the “artists” were going for.
I think Gaudere and wring have expressed my position eloquently and effectively. Mama always said, “find some smart women and ride 'em as far as they’ll take you.”
Or was that LArry Flint – I get confused sometimes.
It was art. The artist should be institutionalized.
I haven’t seen it mentioned yet, so:
1.What does it say?
2.How well does the artist say it?
3.Was it worth saying?
- are the three questions I’ve heard to “qualify” art. If you can’t “quantify” art - that is, agree on a subset of “everything” to call art - then you can at least thresh away the stuff that is such crap art that it is irrelevant as art.
What did he say? well, he said something. My impression ( and I think there’s general agreement on this)is that the guy knows how to be unbelievably cruel to an animal.
How well did he say it? well, I’d honestly have to see the video to develop opinion[sup]1[/sup].
Was it worth saying? I don’t think so - not “Hey! I can skin a cat”, at any rate. If his objective was to say “Hey! society is brutal to animals! we should stop! it’s torture! Meat is Murder!”, then he IMHO COMPLETELY failed in producing his art, because that was NOT my reaction/thought. It is the artist’s responsibility to communicate what they’re trying to communicate – not my responsibility to “get it”.
If someone wants to declare their work ‘art’, then it is subject to review as such – just as if I declare my theory about ‘how quantum turnips hold the universe together’ as physics, my theories are subject to review (and ridicule) by physicists.
And in this scenario you are… the most perfect, subjectively and positively-biased audience there is. Art is meant to express something - which implies both a creator/performer AND audience. The audience plays an ENORMOUS role in the creation of art - its response determines the art’s validity (see above). While I can see why this would be a case of the “tree falls in a forest” debate, in this case we’re not arguing as to whether the tree makes a sound (I’d argue yes – I can say with some certainty that it will create the air vibrations that we call “sound”) but rather, if it falls and there’s no one to hear, does it create music.
Now I’m off to the PIT to write about what I think should be done to they guy…
[sup]1[/sup] [sub]Hypothetical Statement. I don’t care to see the video – I’ve got enough rage as it is just hearing about it. [/sub]
So by this definition, if I write my name in the snow after drinking beer in the winter then it is art. If I whack someone over the head with a frying pan when they piss me off, it is art. I have to disagree. I think there has to be an element of betterment, either for society or individuals, in the definition to seperate vandalism and illegal/immoral acts from art.
Plus the last line disturbs me. The fact that anybody could have “aesthetic intent” when skinning a live cat.