Violence & Art

gadzooks

I'd like to open up a discussion to poke at a morbid curiosity of mine, about the connection between violence & art, among general philosophy as well. The question that has been prodding my mind in recent times is whether or whether not violence could be considered an art form? That not so much the act, but the nature itself of it, shares brutality & beauty. Innately, since at least two distinct beings have existed on our planet, there was some form of violence or discord. It is apart of not only our nature, but the nature of our world too. Could wildfires be considered forms of violence? Tsunamis? Whirlwinds? Though terms used to describe these events would be destruction, but there is no destruction without violence, did the violence come before to cause this? Was the spark that ignited the fire the violence?

Or the clashing of faults underneath the water? And so on and so forth, but would these be considered acts of violence? Acting upon a violence that already exists? Would you consider the act of violence more artistic, or the violence itself?

I'd appreciate some fresh opinions on this, even though I know it is an already covered topic on other channels & mediums, it'd be great to learn more on this.

Lionino

but there is no destruction without violence — gadzooks

This statement is not true.

gadzooks

↪Lionino

What do you mean?

Lionino

What do you mean? — gadzooks

There are plenty of examples of destruction without violence, violence without destruction. One word does not imply the other.

gadzooks

↪Lionino

Could you point some of these out to me? I appreciate your feedback, my statement was not to be taken as entirely true nor false, I'm simply prying & prodding.

Lionino

"You suck."
Verbal violence, no destruction.

Planned demolishion of a compromised building. Destruction, no violence.

gadzooks

↪Lionino

I see what you mean, you would consider verbal violence though? It does not align with the act itself, so how could verbal violence be considered proper violence? You commit the act of speaking, and these words are detached, they have no action. Speaking, saying "You suck." I'm not sure could be exactly categorized as violence. If someone had said to you those words, it could pain someone, but not be a violent act.

unenlightened

↪gadzooks

You would do well to distinguish between the art that portrays violence, and the art that contrives violence.

For example, Nero contrived a violent spectacle that was later portrayed thusly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero%27s_Torches

Painting and burning people alive have very different aesthetics. Which is your main interest?

Vera Mont

Some people admire bullfighting as an art form, some serial killers include ritual mutilation of their victims and I've heard of the artistry of a very effective inquisitor. But having been forced to watch "the physicality" of hockey games so anticipated by their fans and boxing matches, I conclude that no matter how artfully violence is employed, I can't regard it as art.

baker

Outlander

Since we're posting videos.

Somewhere in the above video there's a brief synopsis along the lines of "Art is beauty. Beauty takes many forms beyond the stereotypical and expected ie. a flower or a warm summer's day. The greats before us knew this world was full of horror and tragedy, and so as artists wished to redeem these misfortunes and give solace in that which is detestable through beautification, one of the founding concepts of art." Something like that. It's explained much better in the video. Worth the watch, if you have the time and interest in the subject.

Joshs

↪Outlander

"Art is beauty. Beauty takes many forms beyond the stereotypical and expected ie. a flower or a warm summer's day. — Outlander

For a different view of art:

Art critic Sister Wendy Beckett once said that before Picasso, painters took it for granted that their job was to produce works of beauty. What else is art to do, after all? It was only after Picasso—specifically, after 1907's “Les Demoiselles d'Avignon,” with its squatting French prostitutes with faces like grotesque African masks—that painters realized they were not bound to beauty, that beauty was not a fate but, in a way, a limitation. Picasso showed that ugliness too could be the subject of great art, that artists could capture ugliness without rendering it beautiful, and this forever changed the course of culture. Like all truly deep assumptions, this one about beauty had hardly seemed like an assumption at all. It had seemed rather like an unquestionable, inescapable truth—until someone questioned it and thereby escaped it. What had seemed self-evident came to be seen as a self-imposed restriction. How much of the world, how much ugliness, how much mundanity had artists been ignoring? How much more could they now capture? This was perhaps the question of twentieth century art, with its depictions of hideous slaughter, its sliced-up cow carcasses, its snow shovels and urinals and soup cans, paint splotches and blank canvases.
(Lee Braver)

Metaphyzik

Depending on your definition of art, anything can be an art form - if you believe that doing it well is an art.

Serial killers artistic savants? Boxing? MMA? Cruelty? Depravity? Taking it to the level of an art. Mass genocide? Mass extinction? I guess it ends when there is nobody left to appreciate it as a valid thought exercise, which probably defines at least some sort of limit.

Anything can be an art - for psychopaths and for nerdy guitar players like me haha

Corvus

↪gadzooks

Destruction is purely physical, whereas violence is physical plus psychological.
Therefore attributing violence to the natural disasters sounds absurd.
Violence can only be attributed to the agents with psychological motives and sufferings.
Violence can happen without physical destruction e.g. in mental level.

I don't see any possible relevance or link between art and violence.
Likewise, I can't see any link between art and destruction. They are not relevant in any shape of forms.

Violence & Art

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions