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
Violence is a component of something else — Christoffer
But the violence would be part of the piece. — Malcolm Parry
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. — Christoffer
using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something
Mainly someone. — Malcolm Parry
Because it debases the performer as well as the audience and every generation of notoriety-seekers becomes more brutal and the audience, more callous.
How is that art and not just some kind of gladiator blood sport for the blood lust of the audience?
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.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
Yes. Because it is the opposite result of what art is for.Is being debased somehow an automatic disqualification for art? If so, why? — Pinprick
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.
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?
We have very different notions of culture and language.
No. He was making a spectacle out of physical and mental illness. — Vera Mont
You would say that? I wouldn't.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
It means wrong for me.We have very different notions of culture and language.
Perhaps, but different doesn’t automatically mean wrong. — Pinprick
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
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? — Vera Mont
If designating oneself an artist makes it legitimate, so does designating oneself an art critic. — Vera Mont
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.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
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.I think it is a kind of violent art? Does it land that way for you? — 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.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
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.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
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.I don't really know excrement man, but I could see a case for that being art — 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.Clearly, I have a soft spot for 'trash', and rambling responses. Hope it was worth your reading! — Jeremy Murray
Verbal violence, no destruction. — Lionino
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
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
Are horror films art? — Jeremy Murray
Is popular culture, like pro wrestling? — Jeremy Murray
Is storytelling art? — Jeremy Murray
Isn't bullfighting? Isn't gladiatorial combat? How about cinema?I haven’t considered it as art, because it seems to primarily be about entertainment. — 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.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. — Vera Mont
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
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
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
Yes, I think violence can be an art. Case in point: martial arts — MrLiminal
Subjectively.But if situational, comparative and subjective, how can you dole out the 'yes' and the 'no'? — Jeremy Murray
Okay. Which processes are art and which are industry or mundane life?the process, not the product, is what I define as art — 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.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
How do you know? If you're not judging the product, it doesn't seem fair to judge the likelihood of their aspiration.Grandpa here is least likely to have aspired towards 'art', and to have taken any actions towards making his output 'art'. — 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.So, how do I evaluate different 'degrees' of art from someone I consider an artist in their best work? — Jeremy Murray
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.Violence can be a skill, and a skill can become an art in the hands of a master. — MrLiminal
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.