Posted: Feb 28, 2009 2:12 am
# 1
Lately there have been a lot of articles about two art students here in sweden. They study at Konstfack (the finest university in art here in sweden) and their final projects have made a massive impact on ppl around the country.
The first student was a girl who tried to commit suicide, they forced her to the hospital where they gave her medical threatment and tried to calm her down. Since she was behaving like she was mad. Later they found out that she had faked it ALL ALONG, that it was all a part of her project in school. And that it was a part of her "work of art".
The other student was a boy who recorded a movie where he (or at least someone with a mask) was in a underground train where he sabotaged the tram tagging with grafittispray and crushed a window. No one got hurt but he sabotaged and it's a crime. But just like with the girl, it was a part of his project and his kind of "art".
The both events have awoken anger and a wild debate about what is art and what is not. Myself I got angry because it cost the goverment when ppl do things like this. Just like alot of weird art, they wanted to make ppl react strongly.
"Art" in swedish is "Konst". And if you make it to a adverb it turns into "Konstigt" which means "weird". I wonder if it's just a coincidence or something but it's pretty ironic....
What do you think is the limit of what is art and what is not? Do you think it was wrong by the two students to do this? Discuss!
Posted: Feb 28, 2009 6:31 am
# 2
The suicide act that girl was faking I would not consider remotely art -- more like a cry for attention. The guy who was doign graffitti and vandalizing -- that's harder. I personally view art as something visual that affects it's surroundings, and is aesthetic appealing. For example a painting, it changes the space it's in -- you put a painting on the wall, it's gets a revered status, and it becomes something to ponder over and gains attention (basically it commands a presence). The same is true of scultpure, landscape art, drawings/sketches and 3-D pieces; they have this aura that commands attention.
But one of the other things a piece of art must do is be appealing. Though it is true that the avant-garde paintings in German were "degenerate" and that in France Monet and the other impressionists were thought of as idiots by the thier Government, but in all cases you couldn't ignore the fact they were pleasing to the eye in their shape or form or colour or made use of one of the other elements of design.
This chick you tried to kill herself -- where's the composition, the line, the form, the colour, the texture? There isn't any! If someone had taken pictures of her when she was doing this, those I would could consider art.
With the guy who was doing vandalism -- we have a similar problem in Canada with graffitti. Most people I know will consider graffitti an art (eg http://imperfectangel88.deviantart.com/art/Graffitti-Le-Bonheur-56433817), but not tagging (eg http://blindedvisions.deviantart.com/art/Stop-Tagging-18409832). If he had stopped at that, I wouldn't be as pissed, but smashing in the windows was a bit much, I find it personally unartisitc not to mention rude.
Free the dream within. The stars are crying: a tear, a sigh, escapes from heaven and worlds end.
Posted: Feb 28, 2009 4:29 pm
# 3
Profile • Send Private Msg • Artwork • Writing • Email • Website • AIM • Y!IM
Posts: 583
Draining the stystem by staging a fake suicide and mental condition is not art. It's stupid. It's criminal. It also can create a stigma for people who really need help. And vice versa. Sad.
Guano smells like a dirty sock full of old cheese and farts! - Gonard
Posted: Feb 28, 2009 7:10 pm
# 4
On Feb 28, 2009 4:29 pm, Sliverbane said:
Draining the stystem by staging a fake suicide and mental condition is not art. It's stupid. It's criminal. It also can create a stigma for people who really need help. And vice versa. Sad.
And that is the reason why I dislike emos -- they cut themselves for whatever messed reason (it's "cool" apparently?) and those members of our society who cut themselves as a coping mechanism get branded as "emos" when they're just people struggling with a problem, and not some punk kids who think thier uber awesome
Free the dream within. The stars are crying: a tear, a sigh, escapes from heaven and worlds end.
Posted: Feb 28, 2009 7:28 pm
# 5
On Feb 28, 2009 7:10 pm, blackwinddragon said:
And that is the reason why I dislike emos -- they cut themselves for whatever messed reason (it's "cool" apparently?) and those members of our society who cut themselves as a coping mechanism get branded as "emos" when they're just people struggling with a problem, and not some punk kids who think thier uber awesome
I used to have a friend that would brag about having scars on the back of her legs, and show them to me telling me that she was having problems with her home life when she wasn't. I was having problems at home, but I wasn't going around cutting myself, talking about it and saying I needed attention.
I had friends that did cut themselves because of problems, too, and they never liked to talk about it, nor did they want any attention brought to themselves.
And as far as being on topic, I think that both went too far. Pretending to commit sucide isn't art because you don't create anything. Yes, acting can be an art. But not when no one knows you're acting about something so serious.
The other one, if he wanted it to be art, should've only done the graffiti on somewhere he wasn't causing too much harm, and had permission to do so. :/
Last edited by Sukaiburu on Feb 28, 2009 7:29 pm. Total edits: 1.
Fry- Noun;
1: A male character in a T.V. series called Futurama.
2: A girl who doesn't know the meaning of "log out" or "get off of the computer". Is in no way related to the T.V. character.
Posted: Mar 1, 2009 12:51 am
# 6
On Feb 28, 2009 7:28 pm, Sukaiburu said:
On Feb 28, 2009 7:10 pm, blackwinddragon said:
And that is the reason why I dislike emos -- they cut themselves for whatever messed reason (it's "cool" apparently?) and those members of our society who cut themselves as a coping mechanism get branded as "emos" when they're just people struggling with a problem, and not some punk kids who think thier uber awesome
The other one, if he wanted it to be art, should've only done the graffiti on somewhere he wasn't causing too much harm, and had permission to do so. :/
Please do not bring up this thing with "emo" and "cutting". I know ppl that cut themselfes because they feel bad for real and do not want ppl to mix them up with emo.
The grafitti-thing wasn't the main purpose with his "artwork". It was sabitaging the tram that was the art, he recorded it in a video. So it's the video that is the "artwork". The title of the art was "Territorial Pissing" I think, and the title says it all.
I can mention another artwork that wasn't that extreme but still really different. It was a woman who took a bus filled with ppl and took them to a field early in the morning to show the morning mist and the beuty nature brings - a temporary artwork that couldn't be recorded or something because it wouldn't keep the smell and the breeze ppl felt being on the field.
the girl who faked the suicide wasn't finished with her project yet, her acting may be a part of a one-man roleplay that took place in real life showing how it is to feel suicidal. That may be the thought of it, but still, it's really frustrating that she fooled so many ppl.
Posted: Mar 1, 2009 4:35 am
# 7
Profile • Send Private Msg • Artwork • Writing • Comics • Email • Website • AIM • MSNM • GTalk
Posts: 2865
You're talking about art as in expression, aren't you? In that case, acting is an art, and so is grafitti, so I see where you are coming from.
Art is so controversial, and it has been over the ages. It's so easy to hide inthe conformist tstyles arts where everything is within a square and everyone agree that it's great, but art is alot broader than that cause it's the conveying of expression.
To me, art goes too far when it hurts people in a non expressive way. When you break someone's heart, when you push someone's moral beliefs without their permission- that is too far to me. If someone wishes to be part of your sucidal drama, or have you tag over their property, then sure- do your art.
If you don't have permission to touch a person's heart in the way you want, then that is too far. That's why Paperdemon has so many filters. Some peopel don't want to feel the discomfort of looking at certain pictures. That person should be given the right not to be exposed to it. Otherwise, it's as cruel as torture, and should be fined accordingly.
![[smiley]](http://www.paperdemon.com/images/forum/mysmilies/15pxyellow_pdwings.gif)
Show your Paper Demon love! Hug a submission and tell it why you love it so much ^^
Posted: Mar 1, 2009 6:22 am
# 8
On Mar 1, 2009 4:35 am, arkillian said:
To me, art goes too far when it hurts people in a non expressive way. When you break someone's heart, when you push someone's moral beliefs without their permission- that is too far to me. If someone wishes to be part of your sucidal drama, or have you tag over their property, then sure- do your art.
If you don't have permission to touch a person's heart in the way you want, then that is too far. That's why Paperdemon has so many filters. Some peopel don't want to feel the discomfort of looking at certain pictures. That person should be given the right not to be exposed to it. Otherwise, it's as cruel as torture, and should be fined accordingly.
It just came to me -- there was an artist by the name of Joeseph Beuys from the 70`s. He did art work called "actions" and one of these actions was "I Like America and It likes Me" which basically consisted of him livign in a room with a coyote for three days.
These two people's art are similiar in that regard in that it was about the "actions" they performed, but with Beuys work there was an intended message -- it was a protest to the original beliefs of the American Natives and also the States involvment in the Vietnam war. What is the intended message for those two individuals?
And I think Arkillian has a point -- if someone doesn't want to see/experience an artwork they dont want to
Last edited by BogusRed on Mar 2, 2009 12:53 am. Total edits: 1.
Free the dream within. The stars are crying: a tear, a sigh, escapes from heaven and worlds end.
Posted: Mar 1, 2009 8:04 pm
# 9
It's all good and well to send a message to the masses, making people think and everything, but being controversial just to be controversial seems a lot like attention-whoring to me. ![[smiley]](http://www.paperdemon.com/images/forum/mysmilies/15pxyellow_hmm.gif)
IMO When it involves vandalizing someone's property or putting other's lives in danger. I stress "others" because of my personal opinion on suicides. This sounds a lot like the girl putting herself through 9 abortions(self-induced) for art's sake. If you want to risk your life, by all means rid the world and gene pool of your stupidity, but destroying public property? I mean really, is it worth getting arrested and huge ass fine? The grafitti idiot did get fined right?
In daylights, in sunsets, in midnights, in cups of coffee.
In inches, in miles, in laughter, in strife.
In 525,600 minutes
How do you measure a year in the life?
Posted: Mar 13, 2009 9:45 am
# 10
On Feb 28, 2009 4:29 pm, Sliverbane said:
Draining the stystem by staging a fake suicide and mental condition is not art. It's stupid. It's criminal. It also can create a stigma for people who really need help. And vice versa. Sad.
I could kiss you.
I don't think that it counts as art when other people or the artist starts to get hurt. Finacially or phsycially. Someone's gonna end up paying for the taxes that the girl abused, and someone's gonna have to pay for that window.
And as for the whole cutting is emo thing; not everyone cuts for attention, some use it as a coping mechanisim. I will outright state that I used to cut, but I have not in the last 4? years. I covered mine, I steralized the implements, stitched the ones that were too deep, and bandaged the ones that bled. I made attempts to hide what I had done and it worked for more than four years, but my secret eventually got out.
Not every self harmer is crying out for attention.
S'cuse me, I should be writing my midterm paper ![[smiley]](http://www.paperdemon.com/images/forum/mysmilies/15pxyellow_smile.gif)
. I'm gonna go back into hiding now.
Last edited by DMoontear on Mar 13, 2009 9:51 am. Total edits: 1.
Posted: Mar 13, 2009 9:28 pm
# 11
Art isn't an excuse to break laws. But I think if the "Art" was making a powerful statement that would change peoples views it would be legit.
I know there were college students that commited themselves to an asylem when there was nothing wrong with them. The idea was see how long it would take for normal people to be released. It took them 3 months! No body asked what was wrong with them, there was just this stigma that if you're then an asylem there must be something wrong with you. Would anyone belive you if you told them you weren't crazy and tried to walk out?
There are artists that do stunts just to get a reaction out of people; like masterbating under a stage while people above them read a sign that says "I'm masterbating under you".
There was this interactive piece with a gun set to go off at a random point in time during a 3 month period and any one who wanted to (and signed a waver) could sit in a chair in front of the gun. I think thats a pretty risky move and I think anyone who sat in front of it was crazy. But the chance of it going off was real, and you were really testing fate. I think the gun went off during the night.
Posted: Mar 15, 2009 5:07 pm
# 12
My Thoughts:
Suicide girl: That’s not art. That’s a social experiment, and even then it’s a very wrong way to go about it; not to mention incredibly insensitive. I agree with Black-Dragon. It’s a pathetic cry for attention.
Movie Boy: Graffiti and tagging are two different things. Sabotage is unnecessary. Many great hiphop and graffiti artists are capable of doing what they do in a more professional manner than that. I don’t care if he was trying to get some sort of “reaction” from sabotaging a train– that’s just stupid. – Though I do agree with BD had to say too, but I still think it’s unnecessary.
I think that artists like this make it more difficult for other artists to be accepted. Though when I say that, I’m thinking of the graffiti artists. Society has been a bit more lenient on the hip hop art society provided that they don’t vandalize the area they’re in and remain appropriate.
The subject of what is art is progressively becoming more broad and expandable. It’s difficult.
Posted: Mar 16, 2009 12:33 pm
# 13
On Mar 15, 2009 5:07 pm, Jei H said:
It'd be much more useful if she did it for a psych class.
Posted: Mar 17, 2009 4:28 pm
# 14
Art has always had a very loose definition, and what is one man's art is another man's garbage. I think they were both trying to think outside of the box on this assignment, and maybe they will even get some credit for that alone, but there are other ways of getting a message across. Last time I checked architects and engineers considered their work an artform. A true artist would never purposely destroy another artist's work. How about if "Kill myself Chick" went out among the homeless and photographed a day in the life, or if "Greedy Graffiti" did a piece in chalk? There are so many more ways to get a moving message across, but of course, they would not make headline news.
Posted: Sep 13, 2009 7:15 pm
# 15
There are stupid people out there that just do shocking things in the name of "art". Nowadays anything can qualify as art. Some of it pisses me off. When I was reading this I was reminded of a guy who stuck a starving dog in a gallery room with a viewing window. People passed by the chained dog watching it slowly starve to death over a few days. At the end of the "show" the dog did die. When I heard about this I was absolutely ENRAGED.
Posted: Sep 14, 2009 3:51 pm
# 16
Profile • Send Private Msg • Artwork • Writing • Comics • Email • Website • AIM • MSNM • GTalk
Posts: 2865
On Sep 13, 2009 7:15 pm, duey said:
There are stupid people out there that just do shocking things in the name of "art". Nowadays anything can qualify as art. Some of it pisses me off. When I was reading this I was reminded of a guy who stuck a starving dog in a gallery room with a viewing window. People passed by the chained dog watching it slowly starve to death over a few days. At the end of the "show" the dog did die. When I heard about this I was absolutely ENRAGED.
People TORTURE and animal for art? IT's one thing if it's to self, but to a helpless dog? I hope they got prosecuted. I think American law treats cruely to animals like a human. I hope that's the case here > ![[smiley]](http://www.paperdemon.com/images/forum/mysmilies/15pxyellow_sad.gif)
Show your Paper Demon love! Hug a submission and tell it why you love it so much ^^
|
|
Online: 2 members, 68 guests
Secret Rendezvous
A forbidden meeting
How to Calm a Friend
If your friend is having a nervous breakdown, then this will surely calm them down quickly.
PaperDemon.com
Login
