I apologize for starting this before you got a chance to, particlewill. :rollseyes:
Anyways, I think that people who have the opinions of “anything is art so long as the artist says so” and set out to prove it are ruining the world to art in general. I can’t tell anyone what art is, but I can tell you what it’s not.
It’s not doing the most outrageous thing you can think of and call it art, in an effort to get your name in the newspapers. It’s not claiming to be “revolutionary” and deciding that your “art” is the next best thing, and that everything else is banal. It is not disgracing the actual artistic efforts of people like Picasso, Michaelangelo, and Monet, just because they have talent and you don’t…
Fine. So your defintion of art requires that a creative work make the world better for society or individuals. Now, if the skinning-cat video makes people even more revolted by animal cruelty (a good thing, I think you’d agree), will it become art?
Whether it disturbs you or no, the creator probably did have aesthetic intent.
IMHO, and as an artist, I believe art is no more inherently good than philosophy is. If soemone writes a book of philosophy that uses logical proofs the argue that all black people should be killed, does it then become “not philosophy” simply because what it argues is abhorrent and illegal? If I perceive that a sentient being created something with the intent of conveying emotion or a concept with aesthetic intent, then I see art. Is someone being hit on the head with a frying pan art? Perhaps. Haven’t you ever heard of performance art? Perhaps the person wielding the frying pan is trying to convey something to you. Perhaps the frying-pan wielder is in a play about spousal abuse–why wouldn’t that be art? ::shrug:: Without context I cannot say for sure whether something is art.
The fundamental schism is not between art/non-art; it is between bad/illegal/immoral art and good/non-immoral/legal art. I don’t convey any particular honor on the skinned-cat piece by calling it art; it’s simply a statement of my recognition of the creator’s intent. So it’s art. So what?
well, seems to me that at the time that Picasso and Monet in particular, were painting, their stuff was “revolutionary” and they probably did think it was the ‘next best thing’ and other’s stuff ‘banal’. (I am not claiming that the cat piece will become Louvre material in 2080, simply that the criteria you’ve chosen most likely exclude quite a few recognized renowned artists"
(or the shorter version, I agree w/Gaudere )
I didn’t read the article because there isn’t much doubt in my mind that it is art. Does this open the door for butchers to get more recognition? Can they start selling their used aprons?
My biggest question was…house pets? Who cares if they were house pets? Americans kill holy cows and build fast food empires out of them, for Eris’s sake.
I love cats too, though. He shoulda used dogs. Then eaten them.
However, it isn’t the fact that a cat was killed that I am so offended. Cows are killed everyday for slaughter, yes. But to the best of my knowledge, they aren’t tortured to do so. Nobody skins them alive, and again to the best of my knowledge it would seem reasonable that the butchers would want to make it as quick and painless as possible.
This is not the case here. The object was not to just kill the cat, it was to draw out its death for the purpose of getting it on video tape. I fail to make the connection between the slaughter of a cow and the agonizing death of a cat.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Do I need to once AGAIN point out that nobody has ever seen this tape, there is no proof that it even exists, and you’re commenting on the tape as if you have seen it and know what motives were in the head of the person who made it?
jeez, the way people are carrying on, you’d think these guys got caught in the act of making kiddie porn.
You’re right, Chas.E, I guess that is a large assumption to make. I do not know the motives of the person who made it, but that would have to be speculation to anyone anyway, right? Nobody can know what he was thinking or what his intention was if you believe it differs from what he told reporters, which was the protest of the slaughter of animals for meat.
However, there is proof that the tape exists, why else would prosecutors pursue the conviction? There is an excerpt from a conversation between what I assume to be a reporter from the news facility in question and a police officer who viewed the tape. Check out the site, it’s in the OP.
So many mistakes, apparantly it’s not in the OP. It’s right here.
Sorry for all the mistakes.
I read the OP, and all the links. I also did extensive online research before I made any comments. Let me tell you what I found:
There is no “Art Systems Gallery,” just a loose organization by that name.
Of the two “directors” of the Art Systems organization, one is homeless squatter and a self-described “art terrorist” and the other is still an art student.
The only remarks associating the alleged tape with art are the self-serving publicity-seeking statements of this art organization.
Are you starting to get the idea that maybe this is a HOAX?
May I ask to see some cites for this information, Chas.E?
So, all the research that phil and Peta Tzunami have done, including scanning and posting the press release from the police, posting the e-mail from the police…it doesn’t convince you any? I have yet to see you retract in any of the threads your “guarantee” that this is a hoax.
I remain unconvinced. The police have officially confirmed that two people were arrested for animal cruelty, and are seeking another person for questioning. That is the sum total of facts in evidence. There is still no information about art, art students, videotapes, motivations for making the tape, etc. Even if a tape exists, the incident could still be a huge hoax by publicity seekers who had nothing to do with the incident itself (like PETA or the self-proclaimed “art terrorist”).
And yes ladyfoxfire, you may ask. But you will have to Google for yourself. Just search for the names of the people and organizations (plus “toronto” to narrow the search) and you will find dozens of dead links (cached by Google fortunately) about these people and organizations. The conclusions are inescapable, unless you have a completely closed mind.
Fair enough, Chas.E, I understand where you are coming from now.
What is your source for this information? I found the following on the website for the Ontario College of Art & Design (menu item: “Why Choose OCAD” > Galleries and Exhibitions), which is referenced in the articles.
“Search yourself,” eh? When you asked us for evidence–we provided it.
Now…let me get this straight, you are more suspicious of the two guys who say they won’t display it, but also won’t denounced the “artists,” than you are of the two people currently arrested and charged with animal cruelty by the Toronto Police Service. This is despite a police detective Gordon Scott quoted as saying their video is the most difficult thing he’s ever had to watchable, and I quote: “After a couple of minutes, I was actually rooting for the cat to die to avoid the cruelties being inflicted upon it.” Further, this paper reports that Jesse Powers, an art student at OCAD charged with animal cruelty (confirmed by the TPS), reports that “Mr. Power has gone on record in a local newspaper defending the video as a work of art – a comment on the death and suffering of animals used for meat.”
Hmmmmmm…I wonder why the Ontario College of Art & Design hasn’t come out and called the article a lie, a fake and a hoax? I mean, it makes their college and associated gallery look pretty bad to be associated with these allegations…
Again, I said in the General Questions thread that I truly, honestly hope you prove me wrong, I genuinely don’t want to be right–but by the same token, I’m not going to bury my head to atrocities just because I don’t want to believe them (I choose to speak out against cruelty when I can) Unfortunately, so far, I have to say I really think the evidence leans strongly in favor of the cruel, sad conclusion that they did this versus the hoax theory.
So do you only believe news stories when you see the actual video and evidence yourself? How do you know everything we see on the news is not faked? Nevermind, I digress–that’s not the point of this thread…
Regarding the OP and the message suggested to relate to their production of this video, might I recommend a viewing of the works of artist Sue Coe, who manages to send a powerful message about the cruelty of the farm (food) animal industry (among other societal commentary and cruelty issues) without harming a living being to do so. I doubt anyone would call her pieces beautiful in the classic sense of “beauty.” Some of them could certainly be considered horrifying and unnerving. They are thought provoking, impactful and make us uncomfortable. They required creativity and discipline to produce and express an idea and convey a philosophy based on her personal experiences about an unpleasant reality that many, if not most of us, would rather not face–that cruelty continues to exist despite our domestication and gentrification, and that we are, in fact, culpable for it.