Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Contemporary artists!
a pack of wolves:
--- Quote from: RedLion on 17 Apr 2008, 15:46 ---I think artists should be given nearly unmitigated freedom, but when it comes to something like this, there's no point that can be made in that fashion that can't be made in a less horrendous way. It's akin to that guy starving a dog to death for the purposes of "art. "
Sorry, but when your "art" causes the death of another living being, that's where the line is drawn--and I'm vehemently pro-choice, by the way.
--- End quote ---
We've already discussed the dog thing, the evidence that the artist actually starved the dog to death is highly dubious. How do you feel her point should have been made then? Although I haven't seen the finished work of art I think it sounds like a good way to go about it to me (although admittedly I do feel no death was involved, I understand that if you feel differently about abortion this would seem different but to me it's a bunch of cells). I can't see how some of the issues raised by this work could have been brought up without effecting your own body in a serious fashion.
As for the artist failing to give due regard to health and safety, there's nothing wrong with risking your health to do something you think is important. Graffiti artists do it all the time. Just because something isn't safe doesn't mean it's a bad idea, it just means you should give it some serious thought before you embark on it.
Edit: I just checked out that blog that suggests the art piece was the press release (and presumably the debate it resulted in). That's a fascinating idea, if that is the case I'll be interested to see how she develops it into something for exhibit. I suppose it also partially answers the question I asked of how to raise these issues without actually effecting the body. Nicely done, if this is the case, although if the act has actually taken place it will probably be a more lasting work, raising certain questions in a more visceral, uncomfortable fashion. However, this other concept brings in other issues about the new ways in which culture is debated after the advent of the internet. Either way, this is an artist I'm going to keep an eye on.
Narr:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/17/yale-student-artificially_n_97194.html
It was a hoax.
I feel terrible for fueling the fire.
RedLion:
Yeah, read that on Yale's website. I'm glad.
I find it ironic that the university's spokesperson says that the very reason that this wasn't real--that it would cause serious health concerns, etc--were brushed off by people on here: (paraphrase) "Sometimes you have to suffer for art."
jhocking:
I assume you are referring to my post, and/or this one right below it:
--- Quote from: Noct on 17 Apr 2008, 12:53 ---Yes, whatever happened to suffering for ones art?
--- End quote ---
Yeah, how callous. Oh wait, there's more below that:
--- Quote from: Noct on 17 Apr 2008, 12:53 ---On a more serious note
--- End quote ---
golly!
---
Incidentally, while I thought this idea was very disturbing, I thought it plausible because I have known art students who've done crazy dangerous things with their own body. For example, another student in my department when I was in grad school did a performance where he injected a tube into his arm and then painted with the blood squirting out. jeezus
thegreatbuddha:
I like Jake Von Slatt. He mods modern technology to a steampunk decor. It is neat.
Here is a keyboard.
Here is an LCD computer monitor.
He also does guitars, buses, iPods, and other stuff
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version