 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)recycle ...and 282 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614106 Today 3 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but when did things that are shocking divorce themselves from what is human? -is it possible for a film to portray a rape scene without: a)not doing the event justice, by cutting past all the uglliness of it or b)being too shocking and sensational.... there is a distinction to be made between aesthetic pieces that are shocking for the sake of being shocking, and works that portray something TRULY shocking, violent, ugly, etc. if we dismissed everything we found shocking, artistic culture would never have progressed in any meaningful direction... and not only would there be no Whitehouses or Throbbing Gristles... there'd also be no Aphex Twins or Autehcres... their'd be no David Lynch, no Jean Luc Godard, no David Cronenberg, no Pablo Picasso, no Charlie Parker... there'd be a very sterile ugly shell in the place of what humanity truly is... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you jack off to shit like this, marlowe? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thats why the term "portray" - i mean it can be art if its just acting - but if they really violated human for purpose of doing a film - that wouldnt be art imo |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
:P :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think that everyone already has some ideas or impressions about things they'll consider shocking - they at least know the definitions of them or the implications that can result. If they've never thought about something before, or never even knew of it, then they won't be able to relate and any impression formed from experiencing the work will be solely of the work - there's really no personal connection, or any connection to anything else other than what the work presents to them. I think that art should most likely be a little deeper than simply showing what is meant. For instance, if you're creating a movie where someone's head is forceibly removed, it's a bit more artistic to imply that the head is being removed instead of graphically depicting it - everyone has an idea of what happens when a head is removed, they really don't need to see it in graphic detail to get any more out of it... anymore would be shock value. Likewise for the rape scene. Everyone knows about rape. What would be the point of graphically depicting it when there are so many other things you can do to play with the viewers current perceptions of the topic - something that would be much more powerful than simply showing it to them. ...also, everything committed to film is not art. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I was watching Traces of Death the other day... Prolly some of the darkest things you're likely to see (and all 100% real unlike Faces of Death) although I've heard of worse things coming out of Japan lately... Anyway, yeah, I guess anything that stimulates you emotionally can have a certain artistic quality applied to it... I'd definetly say it's more in the viewer than the creator with things like this. The image of the plane sticking out the trade centre is very strikeing to me - It is definetly art in my opinion... A symbol of our times - You can see a lot of things in it... You can see capitalism, the fragility of human life, terrorism, a whole load of emotions I guess... Definetly art. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Why wouldn't it be? It'd be morally reprehensible and unpleasant to watch, but aesthetically it would still have value... if the creator determines what is art, and presents rape, violence, terrorism etc as that art (whether they are commenting on it or participating in it) then it IS art. Whether it is good or bad is the choice for the viewer. oh... "imo" ;-) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there you go...up to every individual :) hurting others is no art for me |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
or yourself for that mater |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
how about - art is everyting you can find some sense in |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
here's another view on this... existance of art depends on theories: without a theory a black color is just black color and nothing more. the world of art can not exist without a theory; thats why it is essential to understand the essence of the theory of art, which is so strong that divorces subjects from the real world and made them a part of another world, world of art, world of interpreted things. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'd say that the best art exists (mostly) independantly of critical theory or interpretation... it's meaning is self-contained. Whether you mean human theories about who we are, why we HAVE meaning, the big questions... then art can't exist without that. It can't exist without us, our thoughts and feelings, our interpretation of reality. Whether we divorce art from life is up to the viewer, but it can provide an emotional distance and heightened visual / conceptual clarity from simply living day-to-day (hence some of us here considering 9/11 a kind of art). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
somehow i dont think the 9/11 attacks were committed with artistic integrity in mind.....i think they just wanted to kill people. sad but true.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'd think differently... maybe not "artistic integrity" as such but definitely for visual impact. You don't exactly get much more spectacular. Visual impact = aesthetic sensibility = at least pseudo-art. again... IMO |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok, i give up :) it cant be determined to what level things can be percepted as art - it is totally up to every individual |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think it would be more challenging to knock down two large buildings without having it be visually spectacular. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So true :-) -V- > also so true :-) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it would be art if the person or persons or thing or things doing or had done it wanted it to be shown or art, or knew it was more than just an act or something like that. ...... art has almost no limits, but there are things that arent really art ,i mean come on we cant stretch everything so fuckin far........ |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
art is everything, everything is art. as long as someone is appreciating it artistically or calling it art. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If I call you an Arse and appreciate you , in a way, as an Arse, are you an Arse? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, i would be, to you. but what really makes someone an actual arse? it is really subjective. it is just an opinion/belief.. the same can be said for art.. someone might find a hulking pile of rusty trash to be art, but the majority of everyone else on the planet would consider it to be actual rubbish. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so you agree with tolstoyed then. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i suppose i do.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
third base, at least |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
As far as you want to take it, whoever doesn't want to hear it, doesn't have to. But there will always be pushy parents and pansies that will try to make our listening decisions for us, so beware. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
