Reply With Quote
EDIT: Thank God he added more to his post.
Did any of that art include letting a living creature die, or causing it's death by asking that no one feed said living creature and therefore causing it to die?
EDIT: Thank God he added more to his post.
I have no way of knowing that, but if the answer is no then I have to ask you is art limited to what has been done before? The answer to that is obviously no.
Go think about how you compared the death of a stray dog to the murder of everyone who died in 9/11. Tpark, is that you?
I think your definition of art is too loose and all-encompassing. If this news article had been about a person tying up and starving a dog to death inside his home, it'd be viewed as a crime. Just because the crime was committed inside an art gallery doesn't make it art. Using that definition, one could do just about anything inside an art gallery and call it art. Do you think locking up a person inside an airtight glass cage in an art gallery and watching them die slowly is art as well? Because that would depict a real-life event (death), and evoke strong emotion (horror) from its audience. Is that enough to qualify it as a work of art?
Representing the way you view the world is art.
Letting a living thing die because you're attempting to prove a point is a universe away from being art.
I didn't (nice strawman though), I mocked your assertion that causing a living thing to die can be called art. Dumbass, is that you?
Would it have made you less butthurt if I said Michael Vick was a performance artist instead?
If my defenition is too broad then narrow it for me. Provide me a baseline. Define what makes art.
So art can only involve the good parts of humanity? If the exact opposite had been done and he kept a dog there off the streets and fed it and made it happier would that have qualified it as art?
No, that would mean he has a new pet.
You keep bringing up examples that are completely different in their intention. That makes a fairly large difference.
Art is whatever mode of expression the artist feels like.
I could have a display impaling live African children and I said it was art, it would be. Of course, I also probably would have my body physically ripped into pieces by an angry mob. In a way, that too would part of the act of art. It would complete the art.
The poster who said 9/11 was art was correct. There was deep symbolism involved in the act. It evoked emotion, reflection, thought. The images of 9/11 will endure forever.
I guess sometimes it is appropriate to recognize art, while simultaneously recognizing that the expression itself is immoral, repugant, and/or criminal, and recognizing that when it is criminal, ethics require prosecuting the artist to the fullest extent of the law. We sometimes get so caught up in the worship of self and of self-expression that we make it an excuse for atrocity.
I honestly think that people defending this guy saying its art are way off. Just because he defined his actions as art, doesn't make it right.
Ok, so if representing the way he views the world is art, but he has to do it by your methods? Your statements are completely contradictory. If letting a living thing die is representing how he views the world then woudln't that fit your defention of art?
Not a single person in this thread has said his actions are right.
Thank you.
You agreed that what he did is in fact art. He got away with it because he called it art. You agreed and therefore in a sense are defending what he did.
I am absolutely horrified that someone would do this. I am even more horrified that people would watch without doing anything to help the dog. I think it's completely reprehensible and without excuse or justification.
That being said, it's impossible for us to try to apply our (largely) American values and laws to this situation. That kind of animal cruelty would certainly be punishable by law here, but maybe that's not the case in Honduras.
Furthermore, there's no question in my mind that this is art. I've always been of the opinion that it's the idea that makes something art and not the final product, so I'd be a hypocrite if I changed that definition in this case. However, when I (or Manny, or anyone else) admit the possibility that this may indeed be art, it doesn't mean that we're justifying the act or saying that the art label makes it okay. It doesn't even come close. Sometimes art is crappy, offensive, overly pretentious, and completely misses the mark, but it doesn't stop being art.
But by that definition, everything that expresses something is art. Which means mouthing obscenities is an art. But then again not mouthing obscenities is also an art. Both are expressive of something, right? Creating/destroying anything is an art. Then again, sitting on my ass all day long is also an art.
Self-expression is one side of art. The other side is skill and imagination. If you don't put skill and imagination as necessary conditions for creating a work of art, everything in the universe can be called a work of art, and everybody can be called an artist.
I did agree that what he did was art.
He got away with it because they obviously didn't give a about what he did in Honduras, not because he called it art. I'm fairly certain that if he had tied up an orphan child in place of the dog and called it art it woudln't have been allowed in the least. All that tells me is that people in Hondouras don't give a about stray dogs.
I can agree that its art and not defend his actions. If you can't make the distinction then thats your issue but in no way have I condoned anythign that this man and the people who enabled him have done.
"Letting" implies action, that's not art.
I'm not saying he has to do it by anyones methods. Art can be expressed lyrically, musically, by sculputre, by painting . . .
In the past, there's been contorversial art. Such as, The Rites of Spring by Igor Stravinsky, Edgar Degas' Little Ballarina, Pollack's paintings, etc.
However, "letting" a living thing die can not possibly be considered art. Depicting the death of a living thing, though, can and should be considered art.
There's a difference.
You're making the assumption that because something is art that is therefore inherently good.
Art can be an atrocity.
So every time I jack off in the shower I'm creating art? Bad ass.
I think a lot of it depends on the intents and medium used as well as how it hits. This artist obviously had an intent to make an emotional mark with this and no one can deny he's succeed in doing that.
Tell that to anyone who's ever done performance art.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions