Ethical question about art.

Started by Ghostboy, April 28, 2005, 05:51:06 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ravi

Quote from: NEON MERCURY
the posers who want to be disturbing and passs their shit off as art should learn how to do it right.  learn from lynch/kubrick - thats art

The art world is filled with people who use shock to gain quick attention.  If its done just purely for attention I don't consider it art.  Piero Manzoni filled 90 cans with his own feces and called it "art," but I call it "90 cans of shit."

Are there any examples of acclaimed art (film, photography, whatever) where the artists killed something to make it?

NEON MERCURY

Quote from: cowboykurtiswhat do you think about passolini's salo?

i havent seen it :( ....yet

meatball

Quote from: RaviThe art world is filled with people who use shock to gain quick attention.  If its done just purely for attention I don't consider it art.  Piero Manzoni filled 90 cans with his own feces and called it "art," but I call it "90 cans of shit."

Paris Hilton is not art. She's "90 cans of shit."

NEON MERCURY

Quote from: Ghostboy


now what would be cool would be if the "artist" took skins from several different animals and replaced everything but her head with various animal skins.  like zebra, green tree python, fish scales, etc.  and then patched them all together.

Ghostboy

Quote from: Ravi
Are there any examples of acclaimed art (film, photography, whatever) where the artists killed something to make it?

I don't know how 'acclaimed' it actually is, but Oldboy is pretty popular right now. Granted, that's just one scene out of the whole film.

meatball

Quote from: Ghostboy
Quote from: Ravi
Are there any examples of acclaimed art (film, photography, whatever) where the artists killed something to make it?

I don't know how 'acclaimed' it actually is, but Oldboy is pretty popular right now. Granted, that's just one scene out of the whole film.

The octopus?

cron

ghostboy do you like damien hirst?
context, context, context.

Ghostboy

The sheep image I included in my first post was a Hirst piece. I 'like' his artwork in the sense that I appreciate the concept of it but don't condone it (he is a great artist, though and I'm more than happy to embrace his cruelty-free artwork, which there's lots of). I love the aesthetic idea of the cow vivisection, but (unless it's being ripped off in a J.Lo movie via harmless CGI) I'm against the work itself.

mogwai

i make art everyday... in the shitter.

cron

Quote from: GhostboyThe sheep image I included in my first post was a Hirst piece.
i know, and it was my avatar once, remeber? no?

that's cool that you like his  harmless work, although he's been producing crap lately from what i've seen.
context, context, context.

cowboykurtis

have you seen the hirst image of the man's head with the shotgun wound?
...your excuses are your own...

Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: cowboykurtiswere they specifically killed for the peices or aquired after their death and used as art? theres obviously a large difference, but in essence, that difference should not be taken into consideration when discussing the content in and of itself . . .

I don't think moralitly really has a place in art. If one finds out that a film they embrace and respect was created by an "immoral" person using "immoral" practices to create that said film, it doesn't and shouldn't change or discredit their innitial response to that work.
I completely disagree with all of that. To judge art in a void removed from its creative context is simply ignorant. It's an artificial barrier.

And the "is it art?" discussion is always a dead end. If a person thinks it's art, it's art to that person.
Living life big time

Ghostboy

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
I completely disagree with all of that. To judge art in a void removed from its creative context is simply ignorant.

I think the only thing that's disagreeable is saying that morality doesn't have a place in art. I think it does.

But he's right about how no change in moral perception will ever change one's initial response to a work of art. He's right, too, in suggesting that if one is strictly and simply discussing the content of a work of art, creative context is really pretty irrelevant.

That's partially why, when I presented the images in my first post, I included no information on the artists or the method in which they created the artwork (although I did, in my 'thesis query,' weigh the scales, so to speak).

cowboykurtis

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
I completely disagree with all of that. To judge art in a void removed from its creative context is simply ignorant. It's an artificial barrier.

you do it every day. film's usually don't have an "artists statement", yet you judge them. you do not know the artists intention. just your subjective opinion to the experience.

its like looking at a breathtaking painting - loving the painting for the text of the image and then finding out that hitler painted it and hating it for the context of the creator.
...your excuses are your own...

cowboykurtis

Quote from: Ghostboy

I think the only thing that's disagreeable is saying that morality doesn't have a place in art. I think it does.

i think morality as a subject has a place in art - however not as a tool for judgement
...your excuses are your own...