Is this art or abuse?

Terralthra · Post by **Terralthra** » 2007-10-22 05:36pm

Knife wrote:
Terralthra wrote:The trouble I see with this thread is that it's trying to create a definition of art that works for what we all generally consider to be art and still manages to exclude what this sadistic dog-killer did, and that's proving problematic.
Not really, I don't see what the guy did as art any more than the I think a smear of shit on a wall is art. I go back to my first post in the thread; why does high end visual art get such a double standard and a vague definition when other genres don't?

So how about this, if it doesn't make sense or if it doesn't translate a message clearly, it's not art. If someone has to explain the message to you, it's bad art.

Fuck face in the OT didn't have art and his apologists are trying their hardest to explain it which would make it at the very best, bad art if indeed it is art.

I didn't say it was good art. I merely said that it meets most, if not all, of the criteria proposed for art, in this thread. It's intentional, framed, exhibited, intended to produce an emotional reaction, does produce an emotional reaction (not the same reaction, but that's not unheard of in art).

The only criterion it fails on is that no skill was involved in its creation, which people here didn't agree on anyway. While it is shitty art, and almost certainly morally wrong by most people's standards (it certainly is by mine), it still meets the definition of art.

Post by **Coyote** » 2007-10-22 05:39pm

General Zod wrote:So you're pulling it out of your ass. Gotcha.

Oh, so when I said "IMO" and neglected to read the research where reaction to art is indeed quantified and measurable, you were just playing along? WTF is your fucking point, then, Zod?

Did you even bother reading the entire thread or did you just want to interject here to spew a long winded tirade? There seems to be an awful lot of that going on in here.

Did you even bother reading the entire thread or did you just want to interject here to spew a pointless "rebuttal"?

Who gives a shit about purpose? If you can't tell that it's supposed to be art just by looking and have to insert bloated rationalizations then it's already failed as a piece of art.

Isn't that essentially what I said?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-10-22 05:42pm

Coyote wrote: Oh, so when I said "IMO" and neglected to read the research where reaction to art is indeed quantified and measurable, you were just playing along? WTF is your fucking point, then, Zod?

That your definition is utterly worthless and laughable?

Did you even bother reading the entire thread or did you just want to interject here to spew a pointless "rebuttal"?

I did. Clearly you're the dumbass who didn't and missed several posts where I've attempted to give a reasonable definition of art.

Isn't that essentially what I said?

If it is it flew over my head. Some of us don't need five paragraphs to explain something that can be said in less than 5 sentences.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-10-22 05:43pm

dictionary.com:

art:
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
11. arts, a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.

12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.

I don't see any definition there where torturing a dog to death would qualify. Even #13 doesn't involve cruelty.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-10-22 05:48pm

Coyote wrote:It's as if I tried to draw for you a picture, but instead of using a piece of paper I use a stylus to inscribe the picture in human feces. It pretty much guarantees that mypicture, no matter how meaningful it may be, will be utterly disregarded by you because (I presume) you'll be so put off by the feces part that the note part will be obscured into meaninglessness.

Drawing in feces wouldn't be art either. Its rather unsanitary and can lead to spreading disease.

Post by **Coyote** » 2007-10-22 05:50pm

This:

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Is entirely subjective. Some people find child porn to be the very definition of beauty in action. It charges them up and they find it to be one of the most stimulating things in the world. I guarantee you that most of the world does not see it that way.

Post by **Coyote** » 2007-10-22 05:52pm

General Zod wrote:
Coyote wrote: Oh, so when I said "IMO" and neglected to read the research where reaction to art is indeed quantified and measurable, you were just playing along? WTF is your fucking point, then, Zod?
That your definition is utterly worthless and laughable?

And yours is so fucking spot on? Maybe I was as unimpressed with your drool as you were with mine, did that possibility ever come to you? If art is not supposed to evoke an emotional reaction, what is it there for then?

If it is it flew over my head. Some of us don't need five paragraphs to explain something that can be said in less than 5 sentences.

Golly gee, got me there, Wilbur! Maybe in my next life I'll be so fucking lucky I can be reborn as General Fucking Zod.

Zwinmar · Post by **Zwinmar** » 2007-10-22 05:53pm

all i need to say is: Put the fuck in a cage and let him rot. That is not art, that is sadistic.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-10-22 05:53pm

From a real dictionary:

Merriam Webster wrote: Main Entry:
2art Listen to the pronunciation of 2art
Pronunciation:
\ˈärt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
Date:
13th century

1: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>2 a: a branch of learning: (1): one of the humanities (2)plural : liberal arts barchaic : learning, scholarship3: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>4 a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1): fine arts (2): one of the fine arts (3): a graphic art5 aarchaic : a skillful plan b: the quality or state of being artful6: decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter

Notice the emphasis on skill. Now, where is the skill in starving a dog? None? I thought so.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-10-22 05:58pm

Coyote wrote:This:

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Is entirely subjective. Some people find child porn to be the very definition of beauty in action. It charges them up and they find it to be one of the most stimulating things in the world. I guarantee you that most of the world does not see it that way.

Child porn isn't art either. There is nothing in aesthetic principles about cruelty to others.

Post by **Coyote** » 2007-10-22 06:49pm

I agree with you, Servo. But as troubling as it is, I know there are people out there who see that sort of thing as "beautiful". I, and I think it safe to assume the rest of us here, do not agree with that assessment, but there is that thriving underground community with enough support for a black-market trade infrastructure such as that recent sicko in Nevada.

But discussing easy-to-categorize extremes is easy. To put in more tame and arguable examples, for some people, a bear-skin rug or a moose trophy head is "art", for others, it is at best "tacky" and at worst, a disgusting display of barbarism.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-10-22 06:53pm

General Zod wrote: Notice the emphasis on skill. Now, where is the skill in starving a dog? None? I thought so.

So when elephants or human children paint a few lines in paper, it's not artistic expression?

As for "beauty" being inherent in art, that's nonsense; the grotesque has long been pictured along with beauty, several times in the same work. This work can probably be considered art in the thinnest, most abstract sense, I mean, nobody has issues with calling concentration camps architecture, do they?

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2007-10-22 07:14pm

Zuul wrote:
General Zod wrote: Notice the emphasis on skill. Now, where is the skill in starving a dog? None? I thought so.
So when elephants or human children paint a few lines in paper, it's not artistic expression?

As for "beauty" being inherent in art, that's nonsense; the grotesque has long been pictured along with beauty, several times in the same work. This work can probably be considered art in the thinnest, most abstract sense, I mean, nobody has issues with calling concentration camps architecture, do they?

This is the basis for the definition I poisted earlier. Honestly, skill is pretty irrelevent. I think that the audience participation aspect and the abstraction of the idea is more important. A bearskin rug doesn't represent anything, and it's not conveying a message.

Scribbles from babies and elephants do! I think. I'm not sure about Elephant Art. ;D

The problem with this piece is that it's just so mundane, and such a cheap-shot. Yeah, you can get people to have a negative reaction if you choke a dog to death, or boil a cat, or make something starve in full view of the public. It's as much art as punching someone is.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-10-22 07:30pm

Personally, I think the entire debate about whether it is "legitimate art" is a complete waste of time. There is no objective definition of "art", therefore this is an unresolvable debate. Moreover, it is totally irrelevant to the question of how one should evaluate this "artist", because that judgment should be made on the basis of his cruelty, not his "art".

The instant people start arguing about whether this is legitimate "art", they imply that if it is legitimate "art", then that would somehow mitigate the actions undertaken to create it. Why humour that presumption? Even if it was considered to be "art", it would still be cruelty. So I say: who gives a fuck whether it's art? It's cruelty, and he's a scumbag, and he should be ass-raped with a reciprocating saw.

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2007-10-22 07:31pm

The man has made an excellent piece of art, but that doesn't make him a good human being. I bet the most exhilarating sport to watch was the original gladiatorial pits -where men were literally fighting for their lives. The fact that it is good does not make it moral, and we should condemn the man for it.

However, remember the man is from Costa Rica, from what little I know of the country I would put a small sum of money on there being many stray dogs who find their death through not being fed. Nobody here is angry about that - he is calling our attention to something, he's just not doing it in a particularly impressive way.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2007-10-22 07:34pm

Honduras, the Gallery exhibition was in Costa Rica.

still no end to human or canine suffering in that region.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2007-10-22 08:03pm

The Guid wrote:The man has made an excellent piece of art, but that doesn't make him a good human being. I bet the most exhilarating sport to watch was the original gladiatorial pits -where men were literally fighting for their lives. The fact that it is good does not make it moral, and we should condemn the man for it.

However, remember the man is from Costa Rica, from what little I know of the country I would put a small sum of money on there being many stray dogs who find their death through not being fed. Nobody here is angry about that - he is calling our attention to something, he's just not doing it in a particularly impressive way.

Well, that does it. I'm gonna get me one of those Ethiopian, bloated kids I see Sally Struthers crying about, and starve him in a corner. I've always wanted to make "good" art, and call attention to the world's hunger problem.

Remember to vote for my piece!

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2007-10-22 08:13pm

Darth Wong wrote:The instant people start arguing about whether this is legitimate "art", they imply that if it is legitimate "art", then that would somehow mitigate the actions undertaken to create it. Why humour that presumption? Even if it was considered to be "art", it would still be cruelty. So I say: who gives a fuck whether it's art?

Something being art doesn't give it additional protections that other forms of speech don't have. But there's a lot of people who are tired of being lumped in with lunatics just because they self-label themselves artists. Art should have a definition so we can kick people like that out of it. When you expose a false scientist, you don't only say he's wrong, but you also attack his method and his qualifications. I do believe there can be either an objective or at least a strongly defined subjective basis for defining types of Art, so debating if or if not this guy's shit IS art (even if it is cruelty regardless, and should be treated as such) is not a bad way to define the boundaries of the term.

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2007-10-22 08:49pm

Covenant wrote:But there's a lot of people who are tired of being lumped in with lunatics just because they self-label themselves artists. Art should have a definition so we can kick people like that out of it. When you expose a false scientist, you don't only say he's wrong, but you also attack his method and his qualifications.

The problem is that science is based on hard, easily quantifiable criteria whereas "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance" is totally subjective. Each person has a different definition of what is beautiful, appealing, or significant.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2007-10-22 09:19pm

Junghalli wrote:
Covenant wrote:But there's a lot of people who are tired of being lumped in with lunatics just because they self-label themselves artists. Art should have a definition so we can kick people like that out of it. When you expose a false scientist, you don't only say he's wrong, but you also attack his method and his qualifications.
The problem is that science is based on hard, easily quantifiable criteria whereas "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance" is totally subjective. Each person has a different definition of what is beautiful, appealing, or significant.

Just because someone wrote an asinine definition for Art doesn't mean it's the fucking be-all end-all definition for it. Since when is beauty, appealing, and signifiance key to art? You're right in saying it's a little flakey. The very fact that those definitions are so loose and so subjective makes them examples of a bad definition. We can do better, and it's a circular logic to say that art can be defined as anything because our definition of art is too broad.

Asking for an objective, or at least sterner, definition of art is not asking too much. Not all expression or action is art, nor should it be called art. We don't need to define it based on someone's reaction to it, but it does cause a reaction--that right there is something you could try to define. Why haven't we looked into the biological roots of art? It's possible that art and music are as old or older than speech. I say we give it a free ride by saying it's a product of some unique, non-biological process, and completely unquantifiable.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2007-10-23 10:01am

Junghalli wrote: The problem is that science is based on hard, easily quantifiable criteria whereas "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance" is totally subjective. Each person has a different definition of what is beautiful, appealing, or significant.

Remember that Dictionaries are not an authoritative source on "what words mean" only what those words are currently used for in the society in which the dictionary is being released.

You can't answer "what is art?" by looking in a dictionary, only find out what people use the word "art" for.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-10-23 11:55am

Lord Poe wrote: Well, that does it. I'm gonna get me one of those Ethiopian, bloated kids I see Sally Struthers crying about, and starve him in a corner. I've always wanted to make "good" art, and call attention to the world's hunger problem.

Remember to vote for my piece!

You clearly deserve £100,000! *applauds*

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2007-10-23 02:12pm

Lord Poe wrote:
The Guid wrote:The man has made an excellent piece of art, but that doesn't make him a good human being. I bet the most exhilarating sport to watch was the original gladiatorial pits -where men were literally fighting for their lives. The fact that it is good does not make it moral, and we should condemn the man for it.

However, remember the man is from Costa Rica, from what little I know of the country I would put a small sum of money on there being many stray dogs who find their death through not being fed. Nobody here is angry about that - he is calling our attention to something, he's just not doing it in a particularly impressive way.
Well, that does it. I'm gonna get me one of those Ethiopian, bloated kids I see Sally Struthers crying about, and starve him in a corner. I've always wanted to make "good" art, and call attention to the world's hunger problem.

Remember to vote for my piece!

Hey! Look it's a dickweed who can't seperate art from morality! Of course a good upstanding person like you wouldn't do that because of course you give all of your money to the poor and never buy luxury items or anything like that. You are morally immune to any criticism and are free to judge others for the wrong they do.

ass

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-10-23 02:34pm

The Guid wrote:
Lord Poe wrote:
The Guid wrote:The man has made an excellent piece of art, but that doesn't make him a good human being. I bet the most exhilarating sport to watch was the original gladiatorial pits -where men were literally fighting for their lives. The fact that it is good does not make it moral, and we should condemn the man for it.

However, remember the man is from Costa Rica, from what little I know of the country I would put a small sum of money on there being many stray dogs who find their death through not being fed. Nobody here is angry about that - he is calling our attention to something, he's just not doing it in a particularly impressive way.
Well, that does it. I'm gonna get me one of those Ethiopian, bloated kids I see Sally Struthers crying about, and starve him in a corner. I've always wanted to make "good" art, and call attention to the world's hunger problem.

Remember to vote for my piece!
Hey! Look it's a dickweed who can't seperate art from morality! Of course a good upstanding person like you wouldn't do that because of course you give all of your money to the poor and never buy luxury items or anything like that. You are morally immune to any criticism and are free to judge others for the wrong they do.

ass

Ah, the old "you aren't perfect either so you have no right to criticize" excuse.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-10-23 02:44pm

The Guid wrote: Hey! Look it's a dickweed who can't seperate art from morality! Of course a good upstanding person like you wouldn't do that because of course you give all of your money to the poor and never buy luxury items or anything like that. You are morally immune to any criticism and are free to judge others for the wrong they do.

ass

I don't think I've ever seen a more perfect example of an Ad Hominem on the boards before.