Why not? Two men in a gallery intentionally have a violent fight. Performance could be art, the blood and sweat left could be art, a video installation of fight could be art. Why not? — Malcolm Parry

Did you read my entire thing?

And to follow up, having something in a gallery does not automatically make it art as that is not any form of definition of art. And as I said, a single brush stroke isn't really art.

To define art in any form of objective manner there has to be a creator who has an intention of communication, even abstractly so, with the goal of a receiver (audience) to experience it. Even when an artist creates something that isn't meant to be seen or experienced, it's the act of not letting people see or experience it that becomes part of the artwork.

If you have two people intentionally having a fight in a gallery, the violence itself isn't the artwork. That's my point. A single brush stroke isn't a piece of art until it has an intention of being the whole artwork, and thus the reluctant to paint more than a single brush stroke becomes the actual work of art rather than the single brush stroke.

Two men fighting becomes something else entirely; who are these men, in what way do they fight? In what clothes? Nude?

If a woman birth a child under much pain, and this is shown as a piece of art, does the violence in the violent nature of giving birth then become the artwork or just one brush stroke of the whole?

That is my point. Violence is a component of something else, you cannot have an artwork of violence that isn't about something else when counting all components of that artwork.

Otherwise, you need to point out a piece of art that only consist of the component "violence" without anything else in relation to that violence.

Violence is a component of something else — Christoffer

But the violence would be part of the piece.

But the violence would be part of the piece. — Malcolm Parry

Yes, but how is that different from violence in stories? From acts of love, compassion etc. in stories? If that is what you mean, that violence is part of a piece of art, then I think history has already shown violence being part of art. Almost any piece of art has some form of balance between destruction and creation, between violence and compassion. It's everywhere in art because it's part of the human condition.

But that would mean there's no real point to the discussion as the evidence is in the pudding so to speak.

What I interpreted of this discussion is that it's about violence itself. The violence being the artwork. And in that way, I'd say it's impossible to disconnect it as a component of a greater context. The ones doing violence and why superseeds the violence itself and the violence becomes merely the craft and brush stroke than existing as the entirety of the artwork.

Depicting violence or recording violence can be art. I was thinking more of deliberate violence being part of a piece of work. Would it be deemed art? I’m no expert and I will defer to people who are.

I was thinking more of deliberate violence being part of a piece of work. Would it be deemed art? I’m no expert and I will defer to people who are. — Malcolm Parry

I think you need to expand on what you mean here. There's lots of performance art that has components of violence. But regardless, all uses violence as a component, a part of something. The intention and reason for violence is usually what the artwork is about.

Is hydraulic press videos art about violence itself?

I think you need to expand on what you mean here. — Christoffer

using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

Mainly someone.

using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

Mainly someone. — Malcolm Parry

How is that art and not just some kind of gladiator blood sport for the blood lust of the audience? Where's the art angle?

His performances were much more meaningful than the shock that they induced. Something deeper was being communicated than mere spectacle. But, even if it was just spectacle, is there a reason why that can’t be considered art? If instead of communicating through performance he had simply written or painted the experiences, I don’t think there would be any question of its validity as art.

Because it debases the performer as well as the audience and every generation of notoriety-seekers becomes more brutal and the audience, more callous.

So what? Is being debased somehow an automatic disqualification for art? If so, why?

How is that art and not just some kind of gladiator blood sport for the blood lust of the audience?

How is it that a gladiator blood sport to satisfy the blood lust of the audience not art? It seems to fit your definition of intentionally attempting to communicate something to an audience.

If instead of communicating through performance he had simply written or painted the experiences, I don’t think there would be any question of its validity as art. — Pinprick

Of course there would. Biography is not art; it is reportage. Both have their place: one is creative, the other is informative. Painting would have been more like it; interpreting experience to a different medium offers the audience a chance to understand the dimensions of that experience, rather than just to witness it as they might a car crash. I don't know about his poems; they could be art.

Is being debased somehow an automatic disqualification for art? If so, why? — Pinprick

Yes. Because it is the opposite result of what art is for.

If combat is art and butchery is art and degradation is art, then what is not art? Why bother even having a specific word for it?
We have very different notions of culture and language.

interpreting experience to a different medium offers the audience a chance to understand the dimensions of that experience, rather than just to witness it as they might a car crash.

Or, one could argue that eliminating the medium creates a more direct experience and understanding without the need for interpretation. It’s more pure in a way. Either way though, the performances were created with intention, and some had symbolic significance which differentiates it from something you may see out your window. But regardless, the content of the work remains the same whether it’s performed, painted, filmed, etc. The medium shouldn’t make a difference in classifying it as art or not.

Because it is the opposite result of what art is for.

It’s up to the artist to decide any intended result. Art in general is multi-faceted; it creates reactions along the entire spectrum of human experience.

If combat is art and butchery is art and degradation is art, then what is not art?

Well, I would say that how something is presented matters. It’s not the only thing that matters, but it does make a difference because it provides context for whatever is being presented. A butcher butchering a pig, for example, could be interpreted as making a statement about how animals are treated, eating meat, etc. if presented in a gallery instead of a slaughterhouse. In the same way that a urinal hung in a gallery and titled is art, but not one in the men’s restroom.

Also, the other thing to keep in mind is art is intentional. Every movement potentially has purpose and is completed in order to achieve a desired result. Bob Flanagan chose to mutilate himself in certain ways, with specific utensils and settings and order of events. The same way a painter chooses certain paint types, colors, canvases, etc.

We have very different notions of culture and language.

Perhaps, but different doesn’t automatically mean wrong.

Some pro wrestlers view their 'sport' as 'art'. I just watched a doc on Vince McMahon and Brett Hart said exactly this - to him, pro wrestling is an art form.

The interesting thing to me, philosophically, is that wrestling is a scripted performance, but actual (safe, supposedly) violence is a part of it. So they do literally 'chop' each other to make the loudest sound possible without causing actual damage - just pain.

(And, if the moves go wrong, actual damage).

Punk rock fans slam danced, grunge rockers moshed, the violent 'dancing' was a response to a 'violent' music.

Horror films are another artistic genre that relies on violence as part of the art form. Film is an art form. Not all horror films aspire to 'artistic' violence, either in representation or aesthetic intent, but some do.

"Martyrs" is one of a handful of films that I, giant horror fan, repeat viewer of "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" and "Cannibal Holocaust", found too violent, but that film is entirely about violence, and some horror fans consider it a philosophical masterpiece.

Me, I never need see it again, nor anything by Bob Flanagan.

No. He was making a spectacle out of physical and mental illness. — Vera Mont

Bob Flanagan disagrees with you - he saw his 'spectacle' as an artistic response to a horrible illness, as did I. Did you see the documentary on him?

I think violent art/spectacle is an entirely legitimate artistic response to actual violence, a 'violent' state, or, even in the case of Flanagan, a 'violent' illness.

Fine. I think differently.

If combat is art and butchery is art and degradation is art, then what is not art?

Well, I would say that how something is presented matters. It’s not the only thing that matters, but it does make a difference because it provides context for whatever is being presented. A butcher butchering a pig, for example, could be interpreted as making a statement about how animals are treated, eating meat, etc. if presented in a gallery instead of a slaughterhouse. In the same way that a urinal hung in a gallery and titled is art, but not one in the men’s restroom. — Pinprick

You would say that? I wouldn't.

We have very different notions of culture and language.


Perhaps, but different doesn’t automatically mean wrong. — Pinprick

It means wrong for me.
The determination of what is and is not art, who is or is not an artist, is entirely subjective.

Also, the other thing to keep in mind is art is intentional. Every movement potentially has purpose and is completed in order to achieve a desired result. Bob Flanagan chose to mutilate himself in certain ways, with specific utensils and settings and order of events. The same way a painter chooses certain paint types, colors, canvases, etc. — Pinprick

I agree with you on Flanagan, Pinprick. I found him in the documentary, as a fan of documentary. But he is, to his mind, making art. Is that not perhaps the best practical definition of art? You point to his choices, the choices all artists make, but perhaps you could be making random choices and still intend 'art', and have it be art?

For the life of me, I can't understand why you would tell someone dying with a horrifying illness that his 'shock art' is not art at all. Personally, I like art that makes me feel, and uncomfortable is a feeling communicated via violence in some of the 'art forms' I mentioned in an earlier post. Are horror films art? Is popular culture, like pro wrestling? I am happy to agree with Brett Hart that his career in WWE was 'art'. I don't think it's 'great' art, or even 'good' most of the time, but the wrestlers themselves view it as storytelling.

Is storytelling art?

Is there a class element involved in dismissing such works as art? "Silence of the Lambs" was marketed as a 'thriller' because of that bias.

Is documentary an 'art form'? I think of "Exit Through the Gift Shop" as an artistic meditation on art. "My Kid Could Paint That" is another fantastic doc on what is art, and it too changes midway through when the documentary filmmaker turns the camera on himself to wrestle with something he has learned.

Does his journalism become art when he chooses to participate midfilm?

Violence, to me, is art when it is intended as such and presented as such. In order to do so, the 'violence' must somehow be safe, as much as possible. So pro-wrestling, sure, why not. MMA? The 'martial arts'? There is a sense of artistry involved, but do they see it so?

But my insistence on 'safety', even for the consenting, is perhaps where my philosophy falls apart?

But my insistence on 'safety', even for the consenting, is perhaps where my philosophy falls apart? — Jeremy Murray

If there is built-in safety, is it violence? For the matador, what he does may be art, certainly not for the bull, nor for the subject of an inquisitor's art, or the cow in formaldehyde. Without those involuntary participants, the 'artists' would be nothing.

Of course I wouldn't tell it to their faces: I'm not sure of the safety. Nor would I tell a dying man or aging wrestler or any self-styled artist (except perhaps the guy selling the fake vials of excrement - I have no sympathy to spare for that grifter), because it would be unkind. But internally, I could not be convinced that their oeuvre is art. If designating oneself an artist makes it legitimate, so does designating oneself an art critic.

If there is built-in safety, is it violence? — Vera Mont

Good question. Pro wrestling is weird, I cannot think of another example of 'scripted' violence that involves some real violence in human history.

They do hit each other, throw each other off of things, etc. These actions cause pain - the goal is say, a loud slapping sound, or a big 'bump' - but they can be done relatively safely. Japanese wrestling has a particularly brutal reputation, but some of their veterans age just fine, because they are more likely to perform the theatrical, painful but relatively safe moves like a chest slap (chop, they call it).

If done incorrectly or carelessly, wrestling moves can cause devastating harm. There are some wrestling fans who no longer watch older matches with a 'chair shot' - for some reason, in pro wrestling, there a loads of metal folding chairs around for the wrestlers to hit each other with.

Now they hit the opponent's back, but prior to our understanding of concussions, they used to hit each other in the head. Many of these guys died young.

I think it is a kind of violent art? Does it land that way for you?

I know my theory may fall apart with, say, a matador - he might think it art, but the bull won't, and I do attribute the 'safety' value to non human animals. Was the cow in formaldehyde killed for the purpose of the art? That seems critical to me.

The movie "Cannibal Holocaust" I mentioned is an interesting test - it really is a devastatingly powerful work of art, overall, to me and other weirdos, but they actually killed several animals in the shooting (sadly, not rare 40 years ago). How does that rate?

The reason I can personally call that film art overall is simply the values of the era - they made a point of eating the animals afterwords, except for the poor snake. (I'm not condoning this, and it worsens the film for me).

Inquisitors don't belong in the ambiguous category. I can't think of any argument to call that an art form. Perhaps it again comes down to purpose? The inquisitor's primary purpose is to find answers, any 'artistry' in their vile work is secondary.

If designating oneself an artist makes it legitimate, so does designating oneself an art critic. — Vera Mont

Another good point, but I think to designate yourself an artist you must produce 'art', which seems different, harder, than just having opinions about it?

I don't really know excrement man, but I could see a case for that being art. Just, ahem, shitty art.

As I was replying to you, I kept thinking of the film quote "He's an artist. He does it with imagination". I couldn't place it till now - Zardoz, barbarian Sean Connery in a loincloth killing the 'immortals' who wish for death. Terrible, terrible movie, but so bad it's great, if you like that sort of thing.

Clearly, I have a soft spot for 'trash', and rambling responses. Hope it was worth your reading!

Good question. Pro wrestling is weird, I cannot think of another example of 'scripted' violence that involves some real violence in human history. — Jeremy Murray

Ritual mutilation? I wonder whether scarification, piercings and other forms of painful body modification are considered art? They usually have religious or tribal significance, to show solidarity, rather than intended to communicate anything personal.... Then, there is tattooing, which requires skill to do well, but the tattoo artist is usually working from a template, rather creating something original. The subject, however, endures the pain in order to make a unique personal statement with the illustrations on her body, and she's not called an artist.

I think it is a kind of violent art? Does it land that way for you? — Jeremy Murray

Well, it's performance. I don't think wrestling has any significance. It's a traditional sporting contest modified for mass entertainment. While some mass entertainments are art, involving creativity, originality, the addition of something meaningful to a culture, the vast majority is industrial: assembled from fragments of existing material glued together with whatever cliches are in fashion. In our age (as it was in medieval Europe and ancient Rome) violence is a staple component. I'm sure if capital punishment were performed on stage, the public would lap it up, just like they did in 1790.

Inquisitors don't belong in the ambiguous category. I can't think of any argument to call that an art form. Perhaps it again comes down to purpose? The inquisitor's primary purpose is to find answers, any 'artistry' in their vile work is secondary. — Jeremy Murray

There may be several reasons for torture. One is to extract information; others are to force a confession or recantation or conversion; there is also punitive torture, as in the concept of hell. Then, there is torture for the pleasure of the torturer or an audience. Does one count as perversion and the other as art? It would seem so, in bullfighting. Professional inquisitors learn the skill of inflicting maximum pain while keeping the subject alive, aware and lucid for as long as possible - not unlike the skills of a professional wrestler, or matador.

Another good point, but I think to designate yourself an artist you must produce 'art', which seems different, harder, than just having opinions about it? — Jeremy Murray

You may have to produce or perform something to call yourself an artist - and you think it doesn't matter what? Then, if a brickmaker calls himself an artists, bricks automatically become works of art? Or just the ones made by that guy? That's much harder work than than this, which is easier than this and welding steel beams is harder than any of those. Level of difficulty rarely determines the category of the endeavor or the esteem in which it is held. Cooking is often considered an art, but only if the artist calls himself a chef and then only if the eaters who get paid for calling themselves food critics agree. Otherwise, it's a decent occupation, a menial job, a hobby or an unpaid service and the food thus produced is mere sustenance.

This may be a good point at which to inquire whether there is a difference between art and craft, between craft and skilled labour, between artistry in the operating theater and artistry in a concert hall.
Another question: Is art restricted in its function to communication and entertainment? Is it forbidden to be functional?

I don't really know excrement man, but I could see a case for that being art — Jeremy Murray

I'd like to see you make it. Blowing up a balloon is a deliberate act; excretion is unavoidable, even for pigeons who don't call themselves artists when they decorate your windshield. Is everyone an artist? Or only the ones who label cans as shit and substitute plaster? If an 8-year-old did that, he'd be upbraided for a prank in bad taste; a toddler smearing it on the wall is reprimanded, though he's probably communicating something original via something personal.... yet nobody would pay either of them thousands of pounds for a sample.
Are you sure art is not in the mind of the beholder? If it's blue and has a frame around it, it's art. If it doesn't have a frame, it's just a blue wall. Would it be art if I hung an empty frame on a blue wall, or do I need a matte? A urinal in a washroom is simply a fixture; on a gallery wall, it becomes a famous work of art. Is something more significant than the weather report being communicated? Or is the weather report also art? It would be if the tv set were part of an installation piece. Sometimes I think the message is: "Suckers!!"

Clearly, I have a soft spot for 'trash', and rambling responses. Hope it was worth your reading! — Jeremy Murray

Sure. Not only does the subject interest me (having dabbled in art and craft myself, with much effort and little reward) but this singularly non-artistic activity is keeping me from an eminently procrastination-worthy piece of creative writing.

I'm not well versed in the critique of cinema. I was a fan ofElwy Yostwho found some merit in pretty much every film ever made. I do appreciate a well-designed set, effective lighting, a clever camera angle, talented actors and appropriate musical score (only, it's too loud!) but they're nothing without a good story. And even then, they're not art until somebody's watching who does appreciate them.

Can we maybe conclude that art, like humour, is situational, provisional and contextual?

... as well as, of course, subjective....

Verbal violence, no destruction. — Lionino

This is nonsense, as far as I'm concerned. What do you think "verbal violence" consists in?

The director Nicholas Winding Refn has made a career trying to use violence as part of his art. But I'm still thinking violence itself just becomes the means to tell something, rather than embodying the art itself. Violence itself becomes an aesthetic, a paint stroke of craft rather than the artwork itself. You cannot have violence as art, but violence is a part of the paintbrush just like love or compassion is not art, but part of the paintbrush. — Christoffer

Bang on, imo.

I agree with you on Flanagan, Pinprick. I found him in the documentary, as a fan of documentary. But he is, to his mind, making art. Is that not perhaps the best practical definition of art? You point to his choices, the choices all artists make, but perhaps you could be making random choices and still intend 'art', and have it be art? — Jeremy Murray

I think that would probably work..maybe. Because what if someone is just trolling? Or if someone misunderstands the definition of art entirely? Could we tell the difference between sincerity and insincerity? Also, choosing randomness is still a choice, and a meaningful one I think.

Are horror films art? — Jeremy Murray

Yes.

Is popular culture, like pro wrestling? — Jeremy Murray

I haven’t considered it as art, because it seems to primarily be about entertainment. I don’t see much storytelling in it typically. But, I see how it could be viewed as a sort of loosely choreographed interpretative dance.

Is storytelling art? — Jeremy Murray

I think it can be. Listening to your grandfather’s war stories probably aren’t, but on a stage to an audience, sure. Because then there are other things to consider than simply recalling events: posture, volume, audience capacity, titles, etc.

I haven’t considered it as art, because it seems to primarily be about entertainment. — Pinprick

Isn't bullfighting? Isn't gladiatorial combat? How about cinema?

Is storytelling art? — Jeremy Murray
I think it can be. Listening to your grandfather’s war stories probably aren’t, but on a stage to an audience, sure. — Pinprick

Hemingway's is; grandfather's isn't; Charles Dickens, yes; the Ojibway elder, no. If Chekov, yes, what about Roddenberry? Situational, comparative and subjective.

Yes, I think violence can be an art. Case in point: martial arts. Although I think there is some semantic shenanigans here. While violence caused by nature and humans are both violence, I think violence that is done by non-thinking "actors" should possibly be considered something different for the purposes of this discussion.

Hemingway's is; grandfather's isn't; Charles Dickens, yes; the Ojibway elder, no. If Chekov, yes, what about Roddenberry? Situational, comparative and subjective. — Vera Mont

But if situational, comparative and subjective, how can you dole out the 'yes' and the 'no'?

I do agree that 'art' is 'situational, comparative and subjective', but the process, not the product, is what I define as art. So, for me, yes to Hemingway (even though I've never read him), yes to Dickens (thousands of pages read), yes to Chekov and Roddenberry (though I dislike much Star Trek), and perhaps yes to both the grandpa and the elder.

Grandpa here is least likely to have aspired towards 'art', and to have taken any actions towards making his output 'art'. Most likely to agree that it is not art.

But since we both agree that art is 'situational, comparative and subjective', I am confused by your determinations.

I think art can suck. But I can't think that some sort of 'subjective' suckiness matters in defining it as art in the first place.

there is tattooing, which requires skill to do well, but the tattoo artist is usually working from a template, rather creating something original — Vera Mont

I've jumped into this 'art' form late in lifer, but this charge is no more true of tattooing today than of any art form that uses references. I consider my artists' best work highly 'original', but I also asked her to transcribe specific song lyrics. In my first session, I chose 'flash' art that she had completed earlier from her portfolio.

So, how do I evaluate different 'degrees' of art from someone I consider an artist in their best work?

But again, we are getting into whether or not it is good art, not whether or not it is art at all.

I would agree with you that the tribal tattooing rituals serve(d) a different function.

what if someone is just trolling? Or if someone misunderstands the definition of art entirely? Could we tell the difference between sincerity and insincerity? Also, choosing randomness is still a choice, and a meaningful one I think. — Pinprick

If someone is trolling, they are trolling themselves, perhaps? I mean, suckers might think a troll serious and value said trolls art. But the troll knows they are trolling. I guess I'm putting the concept of art into the hands of the artist, rather than than patron?

I don't think it matters if 'we' consumers of art can tell the difference between sincerity and insincerity in the artist, even though personally I very much value 'sincerity' in art.

Is popular culture, like pro wrestling? — Jeremy Murray

I haven’t considered it as art, because it seems to primarily be about entertainment. I don’t see much storytelling in it typically. But, I see how it could be viewed as a sort of loosely choreographed interpretative dance. — Pinprick

I don't really see it as art most of the time either, I got this idea from a Brett Hart soundbite in a documentary. But right after I saw the doc, I joined this discussion, and Hart, objectively one of the 'great' wrestlers of my lifetime, had described it as an art form. When I reflected on it, I did recall a match that I could see as 'art'.

So, I guess my primary question is, does it only become 'art' when it is done well?

Yes, I think violence can be an art. Case in point: martial arts — MrLiminal

What is the art here, aside from the semantic? Is it the outcomes or the life of the practitioner?

But if situational, comparative and subjective, how can you dole out the 'yes' and the 'no'? — Jeremy Murray

Subjectively.

the process, not the product, is what I define as art — Jeremy Murray

Okay. Which processes are art and which are industry or mundane life?

So, for me, yes to Hemingway (even though I've never read him), yes to Dickens (thousands of pages read), yes to Chekov and Roddenberry (though I dislike much Star Trek), and perhaps yes to both the grandpa and the elder. — Jeremy Murray

So, basically everybody who tells a story, whether you know what stories they told or not. Fine; that's your prerogative. It may be more difficult with installations.

Grandpa here is least likely to have aspired towards 'art', and to have taken any actions towards making his output 'art'. — Jeremy Murray

How do you know? If you're not judging the product, it doesn't seem fair to judge the likelihood of their aspiration.

So, how do I evaluate different 'degrees' of art from someone I consider an artist in their best work? — Jeremy Murray

What about Piero Manzoni's best work? What about Picasso's second-best work, or Rembrandt on an off day? A lot of people seem quite taken with that stuff. You have little alternative to using your own judgment, unless you simply go along with what the majority likes or what critics like.

I would argue in the case of martial arts, the "art" usually comes in the mastery of form, technique, understanding and body/mind alignment. Iirc, "Kung fu" does not specifically refer to martial arts per se, but denotes mastery of a skill. Violence can be a skill, and a skill can become an art in the hands of a master.

Violence can be a skill, and a skill can become an art in the hands of a master. — MrLiminal

Without original content and a message, it can only become a craft. I'm not putting crafts down: an excellent brick wall or well-made violin, a beautiful amphora or graceful basket are admirable object and the skill of their makers should be appreciated. But they are not creative and tell us nothing new.

I would argue violence often has an implicit message, it's just usually a destructive or restrictive one. Violence is often a physical "No." And again gesturing to martial arts, they create martial forms that blend the beauty and skill of art with usually violent physicality.

Aha. But nobody's told me yet: if "Do what I want!" is art and "No!" is art, butchering a pig is art, brawling is art, feces is art - exactly what isn't art?
And if everything is art, why bother having a word for it or displaying it in galleries?

Tbh, that is a question I think philosophy has still never answered in a satisfying way.

I doubt it's a philosophical question. It's a cultural one. Every age, in every culture, has beliefs, values, norms, taboos and moods. These are not universally shared in the society: there is also corruption and creativity, stagnation and resurgence, complacency and unrest; an undertone or undertow of differentness awaiting its chance for dominance. Not every new style or mood seeks to create beauty or admires skill: some embody anger and destruction; some revere nature or the supernatural or technology; some welcome chaos; some try to show harmony; some depict the nobility of man or his depravity. Each succeeding fashion is seen by the admirers of the established as ugly and worthless; yet the examples of each wave that survive their novelty add more texture to the culture.