Ethical question about art.

[meatball]

Artists highlight certain aspects of life and then take credit for the observation.

[cowboykurtis]

If that first photo with the mice was taken with one of those instant cameras, where the pictures pops out in a few seconds and you have to shake the picture (what are those called?) by a couple of kids in the suburbs trying to imitate mtv's jackass, would that photo be considered art?

the point of your rebuddle is not about switching the variable of the aquisition format( if you change the camera, you innevitably change the image) however, I believe the point your trying to make is, if this picture was taken by "whitetrash teenagers" who were abusing animals in their backyard and wanted a picture to remind them of their afternoon of male bonding would it still be art? -- yes, it would still be art. as I expressed previously, the context or process of aquiring the image should not affect one's response or opinion to that image.
I think some of the most beautiful images i've seen are those created by children, who are not trying to conciously create art. they have no grasp of art and the ideas behind it. regardless, are these children's paintings art? absolutely.
so, in response to your question; yes I'd love to see the result of some hicks playing around with a 3D camera. sign me up.

[Ghostboy]

They're called polaroids. And no, I don't think that would be considered art, because the crux of the situation you describe seems to be the kids killing the mice just get a kick out of it, with the picture being an arbitrary point.

That picture, for the record, is by a Russian artist named Nathalia Edmonton. All of her artwork feature animals that she's killed, and, beyond shock value, it's meant to be symbolic of her upbringing in the Soviet Union.

As I explained in my essay, I don't condone this art at all (I am vegan, after all) - but I can't deny that it is, indeed, art. The conflict of feelings there is what troubles (and interests) me.

There are things that I very much dislike calling art - things that disgust me, that annoy me, that are morally upsetting - but are still art. A helpful question in these circumstance is: does a given work have artistic integrity?

[meatball]

Since absolutely aything can be considered art, what is artistic integrity?

[Stefen]

They're called polaroids. And no, I don't think that would be considered art, because the crux of the situation you describe seems to be the kids killing the mice just get a kick out of it, with the picture being an arbitrary point.

That picture, for the record, is by a Russian artist named Nathalia Edmonton. All of her artwork feature animals that she's killed, and, beyond shock value, it's meant to be symbolic of her upbringing in the Soviet Union.

As I explained in my essay, I don't condone this art at all (I am vegan, after all) - but I can't deny that it is, indeed, art. The conflict of feelings there is what troubles (and interests) me.

There are things that I very much dislike calling art - things that disgust me, that annoy me, that are morally upsetting - but are still art. A helpful question in these circumstance is: does a given work have artistic integrity?

There is no doubt that it is art. Because that particular picture does have a certain beauty to it. But the picture taken out of context is misleading. I didn't read the essay nor did I know who the photographer was. The picture viewed on it's own is ART, but to me, only shock value art. If I had viewed the piece at an exhibit, knowing the story behind the photo my views would possibly change, but viewing the photo on it's own with nothing else in mind, it is shock value, plain and simple. That is my fault for jumping to conclusions without knowing the whole story, but the situation I was presented with most likely happens more often than the situation I discussed I might have been in happens. The picture on it's own is passed around the internet as an attachment only and it's shock value.

[cowboykurtis]

Artists highlight certain aspects of life and then take credit for the observation.

i think warhol is the perfect example of this -  one of the most respected and heralded artist is best known for printing a soup can on a canvas - a seemingly inconsequential image seen on a daily basis by everyone of us. did he design the initial can? no. did he take credit for making people stop and observe something that they usually overlook? yes.

do you consider this art? or going even further - art with integrity? or was your previous statement said in contempt. as if an artist should not get credit or be considered an artist for simply highlighting an aspect of life and forcing us to observe?

[Pozer]

it is not art. art is a reflection. a moment. an emotion and all that.

I would argue that those photographs are all of the above. You two seem to be disgusted, one might even say angry, about those images - those are two strong emotional reactions to these images which are both relflective, momentary and emotive...hence, they are art, whether you like them or not.

 but I am disgusted by the process of creating those pieces. the initial thought of creating them. I can say the act of killing those animals makes me angry and gives me a strong emotional reaction. Is that process art? my quote from above is what is put into the piece. the reflection, the moment, the emotion...
is a fur coat art? is 'faces of death' art? is a snuff film art just cause it strikes an emotional reaction? how far do we go with the word art?

[meatball]

Artists highlight certain aspects of life and then take credit for the observation.

i think warhol is the perfect example of this -  one of the most respected and heralded artist is best known for printing a soup can on a canvas - an seemingly inconsequential image seen on a daily basis by everyone of us. did he design the initial can? no. did he take credit for making people stop and observe something that they usually overlook? yes.

do you consider this art? or going even further - art with integrity? or was your previous statement said in contempt. as if an artist should not get credit or be considered an artist for simply highlighting an aspect of life and forcing us to observe?

I hold no contempt for artists. I find it amusing how others often raise artists up on their shoulders and speak of them like demigods. I do view art as simply taking a marker and circling something on "the page of life", calling attention to it. Everyone is capable of doing that. I guess, some do it better than others -- to other people's liking, too. But, no, I have no problem with it.

[Ghostboy]

how far do we go with the word art?

I think it's dependant on two subjective concepts: the intent of the artist, and the intent (although perhaps not conscious intent) of the audience.

That these concepts frequently converge makes the definition of art seem relatively exclusive (exclusive, but with wide margins). But again, it's entirely subjective.

[cowboykurtis]

it is not art. art is a reflection. a moment. an emotion and all that.

I would argue that those photographs are all of the above. You two seem to be disgusted, one might even say angry, about those images - those are two strong emotional reactions to these images which are both relflective, momentary and emotive...hence, they are art, whether you like them or not.

 but I am disgusted by the process of creating those pieces. the initial thought of creating them. I can say the act of killing those animals makes me angry and gives me a strong emotional reaction. Is that process art? my quote from above is what is put into the piece. the reflection, the moment, the emotion...
is a fur coat art? is 'faces of death' art? is a snuff film art just cause it strikes an emotional reaction? how far do we go with the word art?

again, i think all is relative. but the one variable that needs to remain constant is the act of art being purposely displayed. i think the key element with all these scenarios is an artist is consciously capturing an image or creating something with the intention of actively providing a venue for people to observe that work. objectively viewing something as art, has to be in an enviornment that has been purposely displayed to be that.  The point being, a fur coat made to keep someone warm is not art. A fur coat made to be displayed as an observation is art. in essence, art is and should be about the intended context in which we were meant to OBSERVE, not in the intended context/circumstance in which it  was CREATED.  

For instance, with faces of death, the act of actively/purposely capturing someone shooting themselves in the face, with the knowledge that the person they are filming is going to pull the trigger is different than a security camera capturing a poor woman being impaled by a saw in a hardware store. the first is art, the second is not.

[xerxes]

despite the fact that what is depicted within those images is disgusting, it is still art, whatever that term means.

I am still completely appalled by it though.

[SHAFTR]

This brings up an interesting debate surrounding War Photography.  Is it wrong to photograph death and tragedy with an artistic point of view?  Meaning, is it ok to make such tragedy look beautiful?

[Ravi]

I don't know if its okay to kill an animal for art.  I don't believe that the life of an animal is less important than the needs of the artist to express himself.  However, I believe I have the ability to find such a work aesthetically pleasing, even if the circumstances of its creation disgust me.

This brings up an interesting debate surrounding War Photography.  Is it wrong to photograph death and tragedy with an artistic point of view?  Meaning, is it ok to make such tragedy look beautiful?

A great photo/movie of real death and misery can be beautiful and haunting at the same time.  There is a difference between shooting a beautiful photograph of something horrid and shooting something that glamorizes it.

This is a beautiful photograph, and yet it is disturbing at the same time.

[NEON MERCURY]

great thread.

IMHO  the picture of  ratfinger is technically "art".  but i think it sucks. its not my style.  i know some of this goes into "whats art?"  but if someone thinks that the ratfinger picture is art.  then would taking an aborted fetus and chopping it up and then freezing the many chunks into small ice cubes then puttign the cubes into a glass of bubbling champagne be considered art?  thats why when i look at ratfinger i think.  "thats fucking gross"  and then to know the fact that the rats  were killed for that!?!?
thats fucked up.  and classless.  fake artistry IMO.

as for  miss frankestein, i feel awful lookign at that.  i guess its considered art.  but i think its tasteless.  its fucked up takin greal humans and animals and manipulating their bodies into pseudo-art.  i think its sick of the lady's parents to let someone photograph her like that.  

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

[cowboykurtis]

what do you think about passolini's salo?