Violence & Art
I'd like to open up a discussion to poke at a morbid curiosity of mine, about the connection between violence & art, among general philosophy as well. The question that has been prodding my mind in recent times is whether or whether not violence could be considered an art form? That not so much the act, but the nature itself of it, shares brutality & beauty. Innately, since at least two distinct beings have existed on our planet, there was some form of violence or discord. It is apart of not only our nature, but the nature of our world too. Could wildfires be considered forms of violence? Tsunamis? Whirlwinds? Though terms used to describe these events would be destruction, but there is no destruction without violence, did the violence come before to cause this? Was the spark that ignited the fire the violence?
Or the clashing of faults underneath the water? And so on and so forth, but would these be considered acts of violence? Acting upon a violence that already exists? Would you consider the act of violence more artistic, or the violence itself?
I'd appreciate some fresh opinions on this, even though I know it is an already covered topic on other channels & mediums, it'd be great to learn more on this.
Or the clashing of faults underneath the water? And so on and so forth, but would these be considered acts of violence? Acting upon a violence that already exists? Would you consider the act of violence more artistic, or the violence itself?
I'd appreciate some fresh opinions on this, even though I know it is an already covered topic on other channels & mediums, it'd be great to learn more on this.
Comments (62)
This statement is not true.
What do you mean?
There are plenty of examples of destruction without violence, violence without destruction. One word does not imply the other.
Could you point some of these out to me? I appreciate your feedback, my statement was not to be taken as entirely true nor false, I'm simply prying & prodding.
Verbal violence, no destruction.
Planned demolishion of a compromised building. Destruction, no violence.
I see what you mean, you would consider verbal violence though? It does not align with the act itself, so how could verbal violence be considered proper violence? You commit the act of speaking, and these words are detached, they have no action. Speaking, saying "You suck." I'm not sure could be exactly categorized as violence. If someone had said to you those words, it could pain someone, but not be a violent act.
You would do well to distinguish between the art that portrays violence, and the art that contrives violence.
For example, Nero contrived a violent spectacle that was later portrayed thusly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero%27s_Torches
Painting and burning people alive have very different aesthetics. Which is your main interest?
Somewhere in the above video there's a brief synopsis along the lines of "Art is beauty. Beauty takes many forms beyond the stereotypical and expected ie. a flower or a warm summer's day. The greats before us knew this world was full of horror and tragedy, and so as artists wished to redeem these misfortunes and give solace in that which is detestable through beautification, one of the founding concepts of art." Something like that. It's explained much better in the video. Worth the watch, if you have the time and interest in the subject.
Quoting Outlander
For a different view of art:
Serial killers artistic savants? Boxing? MMA? Cruelty? Depravity? Taking it to the level of an art. Mass genocide? Mass extinction? I guess it ends when there is nobody left to appreciate it as a valid thought exercise, which probably defines at least some sort of limit.
Anything can be an art - for psychopaths and for nerdy guitar players like me haha
Destruction is purely physical, whereas violence is physical plus psychological.
Therefore attributing violence to the natural disasters sounds absurd.
Violence can only be attributed to the agents with psychological motives and sufferings.
Violence can happen without physical destruction e.g. in mental level.
I don't see any possible relevance or link between art and violence.
Likewise, I can't see any link between art and destruction. They are not relevant in any shape of forms.
I feel that violence is inherently loaded with intent, so I don't see any way you could plausibly liken natural disasters (sporadic, physical events not dictated by a consciousness) to interpersonal violence. It's think we have all, at some point, accidentally injured, however minorly, a friend or family member whilst excited, or preoccupied, or perhaps just not aware of their presence when turning a corner or opening a door, etc.
Is this a violent act or mere unfortunate happenstance?
Conflating physical destruction with violence wholly is a little nonsensical, because in reality, they only really solidly and consistently overlap in very [I]human[/I] environments. I suppose it depends on how you really define 'destruction', but in most other animals, I'd argue the extent to which they 'destroy' in order to enact 'violence' is minimal, or better yet, strategically minimised. That is, animals that kill others tend to aim to do so as efficiently as possible; jaguars incise the skull, lions incise the jugular, owls decapitate. Hunters do not use machine-guns or C-4 to kill deers because they aren't aiming to 'destroy'.
So I think there is a line to be drawn there between violence and obliquely [i]destructive violence[/I], and the two are not synonymous at all. Nor are they inherently synonymous with destruction itself. As is exemplified above, most violence that happens on earth is done in a way that the victim is preserved; there is a purpose, it is not indiscriminate. There has to be an element in nuance in how you treat violence and destruction in relation to one another.
You said that:
Quoting gadzooks
But that doesn't necessarily hold true. Can bacteria really be violent to one another? Again, there is no intent there. Is a rotting fruit being violently destroyed by fungi/bacteria?
Violence and destruction are neither mutually exclusive, nor mutually inclusive, so your question is flawed.
As for art: it isn't a question anyone else can answer for you. Do you consider it as art? What is art? I see where you're coming from on the beauty x brutality dyad, but I think that stems a lot more from human psychology than your physical environment. I trust the brutality you find beautiful is not meted out on houses, or lampposts, or motor vehicles, but on living things that want to resist it, or existing 'beautiful' things you enjoy seeing ruined.
Many philosophers have written on this very [i]transgressive[/I] desire of people to see beautiful systems (including other people, unfortunately) destroyed. It could link back to your typical [i]l'appel du vide[/I] or some variation of it. I suppose many people probably do consider destruction/violence art/beauty.
If you've got the stomach for it, and are still interested in the question, maybe try reading some transgressive lit to form a personal psychological basis for your views on violence and their artistic connotations: Bataille, de Sade, Ballard, even Anaïs Nin to some degree, though keep in mind, these are very macabre and intentionally disturbing.
A clean left hook can be as admired as ballet by some. Ballet is art.
Art engenders a reaction, so can a brutal knockdown.
As someone said earlier, there is performance and an art in bullfighting.
Of course there is. You can admire explosions, executions, arson; you can call anything done with skill an art-form, if you want to. To me, art is creative, rather than destructive. That's the line I draw.
Is Damien Hursts cow in formaldehyde art?
I assume the cow didnt die of natural causes.
No more than the microscope slides, organs and bones I worked on in Pathology. The 'artist' didn't make a cow (These are art) ; he merely used her body to achieve yet another novelty. Those patients died, in some cases and their deaths were their own, not mine to use. We preserved parts of them for diagnosis, scientific study and teaching. We didn't make a public spectacle of them. While not violent, hurtful or destructive, this isn't art, either,.
The idea that art does not have to be beautiful actually predates Picasso. Tolstoy spent an entire chapter of his work What is Art? https://www.gutenberg.org/files/64908/64908-h/64908-h.htm#chap02 - first published in English in 1898 - and you can read it for free on Gutenberg at the link - dispelling this notion.
For Tolstoy - art consisted in the connection between artist and the receiver of the art. The receiver must experience some emotion the artist felt in creating the art - and only then could it be considered art.
According to Tolstoy:
[i]A real work of art destroys, in the consciousness of the receiver, the separation between himself and the artist...
If only the spectators or auditors are infected by the feelings which the author has felt, it is art.
To evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced, and having evoked it in oneself, then, by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others may experience the same feeling this is the activity of art.
Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings and also experience them.[/i]
Many people considered it art. I wasnt a fan but I saw them in a very posh gallery in London.
That's not my problem. Some gullible folk will buy anything..
Bob Flanagan was certainly doing art, violently, no?
@gadzooks
Art, I would say, exists in a relationship between the subject and the social whereby the art emerges from a subjective affective / intuitive salience (personal expression of meaning) in combination with a social salience that includes the feelings it provokes in others (personal resonance of meaning) and its social situatedness (social reception and consequence). So, to break it down using your example: whether or not Damien Hurst's cow is art has nothing to do with whether you, I or Vera Mont like it or consider people who go to see it, gullible etc. It comes down to whether a) the experience of creating it was artistically salient for the artist b) the experience of viewing it is artistically salient for the viewer in a way that reflects the intentions of the artist (so far we're with Tolstoy on this) and c) where the art ends up socioculturally situated, what its social effects are.
It's the strength of this total triadic relationship that determines whether something is art. No individual opinion matters outside that. What matters is the emergent social reality, which is, by definition, not something that one person can meaningfully confirm or deny---it's just there or not or to a degree whether there is debate about it or not. The Mona Lisa's artistic strength in terms of this triadic view is beyond question. The relationships have been established beyond debate. Damien Hurst's cow is the subject of some debate, but, for me, it comes down to a relationship I haven't established with the work but other's clearly have, as well as the artist's intentions which are beyond my knowledge, and so I'll maintain a modest neutrality.
As for violence, the best art is that which ruptures the social sphere in a positive way. I'm thinking Picasso, the impressionists, etc. That's a kind of positive symbolic violence. As for the literal or symbolic depiction of violence in a supposed artwork itself, it's no different than any other depiction of anything else as it comes down again to that triadic relationship. What was the intention? How do people relate to that intention? And what, if any, is the social effect?
In the end, discussions about the value or appeal of a work should not be mistaken for conclusions about its status as art. The ontology of art - what makes something art - demands a different kind of attention than questions of taste or judgment. I personally avoid violent art work or themes, but that's entirely on me.
You need to define violence. If it is merely one conscious being acting destructively against someone else, then there's no inherent art to violence than someone expressing love. In itself an expression of love is not art, but mere communication of a certain intent and emotion.
Art is when there's a form of universalization of communication, often through abstractions that pulls in a broader context and philosophy around something specific.
If violence is more general in its destructive nature, even childbirth becomes violence. The destruction of the human body to birth a new. A woman screaming in pain as she suffers violence done to herself or the unborn doing violence onto her; yet we portray childbirth as beauty in art.
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.
I 100% agree. I used it as something that I thought was of little merit but needed the slaughter of an animal to complete. I stopped replying because there was little point
:up: What strikes me is that there are certain presumptions built into saying this or that is or isn't art, which are easy to miss, and which often include knowledge of the artist's intention, and the apprehension or misapprehension of the artwork's viewers, and the validity or lack thereof of particular institutions of art. When it comes down to it, for anything beyond the obvious, only the hypothetical cultural "person", society personified, can and does validly make the judgement.
Im more and more open minded as I get older, which isnt usually the way! Im confident enough to not care if I dont get it or think someone is bullshitting. Im happy to say it is a piece of work that does nothing for me but dont dismiss it. The most artistic thing Hirst did was amass millions. I was quite impressed.
As for violence as art. Why not?
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?
Why not?
Because it debases the performer as well as the audience and every generation of notoriety-seekers becomes more brutal and the audience, more callous. We're fast approaching the Middle Ages in public entertainment, as well as politics.
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.
But the violence would be part of the piece.
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? Im no expert and I will defer to people who are.
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?
using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something
Mainly someone.
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 cant be considered art? If instead of communicating through performance he had simply written or painted the experiences, I dont think there would be any question of its validity as art.
So what? Is being debased somehow an automatic disqualification for art? If so, why?
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.
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.
Quoting 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.
Or, one could argue that eliminating the medium creates a more direct experience and understanding without the need for interpretation. Its 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 its performed, painted, filmed, etc. The medium shouldnt make a difference in classifying it as art or not.
Its 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.
Well, I would say that how something is presented matters. Its 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 mens 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.
Perhaps, but different doesnt automatically mean wrong.
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.
Quoting 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.
You would say that? I wouldn't.
Quoting 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.
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?
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.
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.
Quoting 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!
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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?
Quoting 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!!"
Quoting 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 of
Can we maybe conclude that art, like humour, is situational, provisional and contextual?
... as well as, of course, subjective....
This is nonsense, as far as I'm concerned. What do you think "verbal violence" consists in?
Quoting Christoffer
Bang on, imo.
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.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Yes.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I havent considered it as art, because it seems to primarily be about entertainment. I dont see much storytelling in it typically. But, I see how it could be viewed as a sort of loosely choreographed interpretative dance.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I think it can be. Listening to your grandfathers war stories probably arent, 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.
Isn't bullfighting? Isn't gladiatorial combat? How about cinema?
Quoting 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.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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?
Quoting MrLiminal
What is the art here, aside from the semantic? Is it the outcomes or the life of the practitioner?
Subjectively.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Okay. Which processes are art and which are industry or mundane life?
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
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.
So, to you, art is simply in the eyes of the consumer?
I don't mean to imply that intent is the only element that matters in art.
Quoting Vera Mont
It seems clear to me that intent is a necessary condition. Do people 'accidentally' create art? Per your subjective stance, perhaps you think yes? If enough people subjectively agree?
It feels like skill / authenticity / voice / intent are all likely candidates for 'artistry', and that all of these criteria are 'subjective', but when society after society settles on similar criteria for 'art' that we might be getting closer to the issue.
Quoting Vera Mont
That's an uncharitable take. I am going by probabilities. Grandpa is definitely least likely, unless you think art is simply a product of chance.
You think grandpa is going to land on art when he is likely not to even think that what he is doing could be art? Please point to examples of this tradition of grandpa storytelling as artform?
Actually, I can't really tell what your stance is? That it is pointless to discuss art?
Quoting Vera Mont
Personally, I use my own judgement, and am influenced by people I consider worth listening to, be they critics or the masses. You?
Not simply; it's quite a complicated process. Some new thing gets into the culture if many people admire it. Christo wrapping bridges in silk, to me is just ridiculous; to many others, it's madly original and worthy of applause. In this instance, I was in the minority, along with many art critics, but the public ate up his exploits. One possible of its quality is whether it's still admire 20, 50, 100 years after. Rembrandt still is, while most of his contemporary painters are forgotten. A work that survives its maker, may be assumed to have some deeper message than "Love me!" "Die!" or "Lookie here!"
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Okay. Cooking dinner is done intentionally; so it tearing down a condemned building, crossing the street, holding up a bank, going to the dairy Queen for ice cream. Hardly a sufficient condition for art.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Maybe. I know that some artists incorporate chance and randomness in their work, and some people admire their work. Quoting Jeremy Murray
Then it become part of popular culture, and may even survive.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I'm inclined to agree that they're prerequisites. Whether the criteria have been adequately met in any given artistic endeavour is what each beholder decides according to their standards, discernment and taste.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Based on what data? Why do you think there is causal link between reproduction, age and art? You seem to be judging unknown people blindly.
A grandfather has the sameintent as Hemingway: to tell a story and convey a message; no chance involved. You don't think an old man cannot have talent and originality and craft? Why? Shakespeare and Chaucer had grandchildren, and they did okay.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
No. That the function of art is to add value to, to enhance, enlighten and enrich culture. Violence doesn't.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Own judgment, formed over time and through learning. I have no reverence for critics, since they so often seem to follow fads.