Criminart

[apple]

I got INFJ/INFP.

"they would sacrifice acceptance for freedom of thought"

Now, this description of INFP does capture me (even if it is a bit glorifying :blush:)


Would you sacrifice acceptance for freedom of thought then?

Say your view destroyed the status quo and was REALLY REALLY unpopular.

[apple]

.

For example, this Finnish artist made a video in which he killed a live cat with an axe and then masturbated on it. Now, that's disgusting in most people's opinion, and it made people declare that it's not art. But my *definition* of art is that anything that is made in the purpose of it being an aesthetic experience is art, so even if killing a cat is wrong, killing a cat can be considered *art*.

You see, that's a typical INFP perspective that I find problematic. You have no sense of objective morality when it comes to the actions of others- and then when crime is committed under an act of "art" even false, manipulative art, you deem it as correct and valid.

You see the tangible action- act of documentation of murder- not unlike a snuff film- under the context of "art" acceptable- whereas I do not, because it betrays my innate sense of right and wrong.

Under your same argument, Nazi- Germany could've made films depicting live actions of burning, crucified Jews as "art" and you would've defended their position.

Under your same argument, a rapist-murderer can document his homocidal spree on a video- and consider it "art" and you would've defended their position.

I find fault with this.

[ryan_m_parr]

I will say this: killing anything does not constitute justification, for any reason of experiment or "art (????!)"

Nazi Germany disassociated with the Jews by looking at them as animals. Even still, does the physical pain of any creature/animal/human differ on the basis of classification? Especially when, brought under the question of self-interest (as the "artist" derived in motivation.) A serial killer acts on self-motivation; likewise.

[apple]

I will say this: killing anything does not constitute justification, for any reason of experiment or "art (????!)"

Nazi Germany disassociated with the Jews by looking at them as animals. Even still, does the physical pain of any creature/animal/human differ on the basis of classification? Especially when, brought under the question of self-interest (as the "artist" derived in motivation.) A serial killer acts on self-motivation; likewise.

Nazis said they were "experimenting" on the Jews to further scientific progress to cure people of diseases.

[ryan_m_parr]

Nazis said they were "experimenting" on the Jews to further scientific progress to cure people of diseases.

The entire foundation for Nazi propoganda and government derived itself in mediocre-egotism. They envied and despised the Jews, and enacted despotism replete with superficial logic that enamored to benefit with nothing more than twisted (and ultimately useless) results.

[apple]

The entire foundation for Nazi propoganda and government derived itself in mediocre-egotism. They envied and despised the Jews, and enacted despotism replete with superficial logic that enamored to benefit with nothing more than twisted (and ultimately useless) results.

Why did they envy the Jews?

[ryan_m_parr]

Rhetorical question: Under the same guise: Mother Theresa claims to have done good, ONLY because it guaranteed her acceptance into heaven. Would she have done otherwise, and does it make her any less of a person?

[ryan_m_parr]

Why did they envy the Jews?

wealth and affluance of the Jews fueled a lot of greed amongst the Reich. Not all jews were wealthy, obviously, though Hitler makes direct statements of his jealousy of their wealth.

And despite the high probability of them being prevented from entering the military, Hitler used the example of Jews involved in the medical field, where he was cared for during WWI following the war. He claimed to desire Jews to die when many "germans" (whites) were dying. Medical establishments have always demanded mental prowess and determination to succeed. The drop-out Hitler achieved nothing. I only suspect envy amongst the man's timid disiquilibrium.

[Kaveri]

You see, that's a typical INFP perspective that I find problematic. You have no sense of objective morality when it comes to the actions of others- and then when crime is committed under an act of "art" even false, manipulative art, you deem it as correct and valid.

You see the tangible action- act of documentation of murder- not unlike a snuff film- under the context of "art" acceptable- whereas I do not, because it betrays my innate sense of right and wrong.

Under your same argument, Nazi- Germany could've made films depicting live actions of burning, crucified Jews as "art" and you would've defended their position.

Under your same argument, a rapist-murderer can document his homocidal spree on a video- and consider it "art" and you would've defended their position.

I find fault with this.

You misunderstood me (just like the person who thought that I shouldn't have voiced my opinion).

I didn't say that it was correct to kill a cat, I only said that it doesn't make it any less *art* that it was wrong. I reckon that those who think it can't be considered *art* have trouble separating feelings from thought processes.

Actually my ideological point is that being or making a piece of art is not a valid justification for cruelty/immorality. People who think that immoral things such as killing a cat can't be considered art, have made the presumption that art is always good or at least morally neutral. These people seem to glorify art in some way.

I don't want to glorify art.

I don't want to include any moral statements in the *definition* of art.

That's why I think that immoral things can be considered art. When concluding whether something is art or not, all that matters is the purpose in which it has been made. Therefore, no one can say that something is too unskillful, too popular, too unpopular or too unethical to be art, because those are dubious excuses for making subjective preferences objective.

The stereotypical F trap, I guess. I don't fall in it.

*

But on the other hand, this Teemu M?ki did not only make art, he also made a point. He wrote a lengthy essay on the subject in which he defended his choice to kill the cat. In the essay he wrote that his purpose was to shock people into thinking about their lifestyles, their choices, and about things like good, evil, and morality. In his essay he pointed out that every day most people who were shocked by his piece of art eat meat and altogether approve of meat industry. (Note that it is not *necessary* for people to eat meat today.) In his essay he asked: why is it more ok to kill in order to have a culinary pleasure than it is to kill in order to have an aesthetic pleasure?

In the end I think that his point was valid and thought-provoking, but his method of getting his point across was wrong. I wouldn't completely crucify his video and I think there's something sympathetic about this artist's passionate views.

I think it's right, though, that he was punished (in court) for killing the cat.

[apple]

You misunderstood me (just like the person who thought that I shouldn't have voiced my opinion).

I didn't say that it was correct to kill a cat, I only said that it doesn't make it any less *art* that it was wrong. I reckon that those who think it can't be considered *art* have trouble separating feelings from thought processes.

It depends upon your definition of art- and you don't need to re-iterate the tired age old of question What Is Art? As I'm certain all art students had to suffer through those discussions in their first year of courses.

However, it appeared from your original post- that you were defending the artist's position based upon the artist's motivation in creating such work- which is a faulty rationalization because the premise indicates that killing a live domesticated animal is parallel to eating wild animals for food in which his analogy is inherently a false one but the underlying structure of his argument makes the assumption that killing for aesthetic pleasure should be considered art . Self-mutilation and violent acts against one's self have always been accepted as a subject of discourse in art, however attempting to define art simply by the exhibition of crime indicates that the condition of crime is a necessary element which applies to Art.


Actually my ideological point is that being or making a piece of art is not a valid justification for cruelty/immorality.

No, that was my point. Your original position entailed that cruelty/immorality does not negate what is considered art.


People who think that immoral things such as killing a cat can't be considered art, have made the presumption that art is always good or at least morally neutral. These people seem to glorify art in some way.

That is a false assumption on your part. The rational argument is concommittant on two factors being present together. It is not merely that immorality negates art- but that the condition in which the artist's motivations for creating the work (which is faulty logic/rationale) along with the act of murder in exhibitionistic display used for the purpose of shock value immediately questions the validity of performance in relation to the created object. One can narrow down that the act itself was intended to be considered if artistic intent is attached to it- however, in this case, the act itself
was a documentation of a crime. If crime is to be equated with art, then that raises a question as to the nature of art in relation to the treatment of criminals in society.


I don't want to glorify art. That is your prerogative, however whether or not one is glorifying art is not the subject here.


I don't want to include any moral statements in the *definition* of art.

Again, your definition of art is not a universal indicator of art.


That's why I think that immoral things can be considered art. When concluding whether something is art or not, all that matters is the purpose in which it has been made.

Again, your position is that immorality does not negate Art. However, you have previously stated that you did not find validity in the motivations of the "artist" to use acts of cruelty convincing for it be considered "art" by using "art" as an excuse for committing cruelty.


Therefore, no one can say that something is too unskillful, too popular, too unpopular or too unethical to be art, because those are dubious excuses for making subjective preferences objective.

You are confusing the issue here. Technical gradations of a work is not the subject here nor is the popularity of a work. The subject is: Can crime be justified under the pretense of artistic intent?


The stereotypical F trap, I guess. I don't fall in it.

F has nothing to do with it. You are not considering some objective factors in the source of knowledge- and how morality is derived in society. By applying theories in descriptive ethics would be more convincing than making false comparisons in which you incorrectly deduce that Feelings are the result of society's values of morality. If that was the case, then you are making the argument that there is no objective criteria in which to judge the morality of a society, which is limiting your perspective to a very narrow subjective viewpoint.


But on the other hand, this Teemu M?ki did not only make art, he also made a point. He wrote a lengthy essay on the subject in which he defended his choice to kill the cat. In the essay he wrote that his purpose was to shock people into thinking about their lifestyles, their choices, and about things like good, evil, and morality. In his essay he pointed out that every day most people who were shocked by his piece of art eat meat and altogether approve of meat industry. (Note that it is not *necessary* for people to eat meat today.) In his essay he asked: why is it more ok to kill in order to have a culinary pleasure than it is to kill in order to have an aesthetic pleasure?

Again, the slaughter of domesticated animals in an exhibitionistic display is not parallel to the killing of animals for food.


In the end I think that his point was valid and thought-provoking, but his method of getting his point across was wrong. I wouldn't completely crucify his video and I think there's something sympathetic about this artist's passionate views.

According to you however, the method has to be valid for his work to be defined as Art. In your argument, then following your logic, his work would not be considered Art.

If you find logical inconsistencies "passionate," well then, I can't argue.


I think it's right, though, that he was punished (in court) for killing the cat.

[panda]

Again, the slaughter of domesticated animals in an exhibitionistic display is not parallel to the killing of animals for food.
Repeatedly stating an opinion does not make it fact. One could easily argue that both acts fulfill an innate need and are thus morally equal. Of course, one could also argue that all such discussions of morality are without merit, as morality is not an intrinsic property of reality. Nor is art. Art is whatever people (which ultimately boils down to the individual) desire it to be. All acts are potentially Art. The valuation is subjective.

[apple]

Repeatedly stating an opinion does not make it fact.

I was using repetition to stress an important point of difference between two ideals.


One could easily argue that both acts fulfill an innate need and are thus morally equal.

That's an unusual perspective because most people don't consider murder an innate need- unless one was a psychopath. As far as hunting for food- there is too long of a history of homo sapiens to argue against hunting for food as a natural biological process.


Of course, one could also argue that all such discussions of morality are without merit, as morality is not an intrinsic property of reality.

Morality is a part of "reality". But then again, it depends upon how you define reality- if you mean by the practical application of theory- then morality is very much "real".


Nor is art. Art is whatever people (which ultimately boils down to the individual) desire it to be. All acts are potentially Art. The valuation is subjective.

That is essentially your definition based on your own feelings of what you consider Art- a characteristic of Fi. However, we must take into consideration the opinions and judgements of others to make an evaluative and constructive basis for why Art cannot merely be limited to the narrow tunnel vision of one's subjective viewpoint.

[panda]

That's an unusual perspective because most people don't consider murder an innate need- unless one was a psychopath.
People often assume that all psychopaths experience bloodlust: this is not the case. Many of us do, but we are in the minority.


As far as hunting for food- there is too long of a history of homo sapiens to argue against hunting for food as a natural biological process.
This is a curiously ambiguous statement.


Morality is a part of "reality". But then again, it depends upon how you define reality- if you mean by the practical application of theory- then morality is very much "real".
Not everyone shares your Theory.


However, we must take into consideration the opinions and judgements of others to make an evaluative and constructive basis for why Art cannot merely be limited to the narrow tunnel vision of one's subjective viewpoint.
Again, this is a common misunderstanding. In reality, we in fact do not need to consider the opinions and judgements of others. Without delving into pragmatism and all that other unnecessary rubbish, I'll just reiterate that ideas of Art are subjective. You cannot tell me what Art is. I cannot properly tell you what Art is. Art is whatever the individual fucking deems it to be. It is not mysterious, it is not objective, it does not possess an independent reality.

[Ferrus]

I'll just reiterate that ideas of Art are subjective. You cannot tell me what Art is. I cannot properly tell you what Art is. Art is whatever the individual fucking deems it to be. It is not mysterious, it is not objective, it does not possess an independent reality.
Actually, in reality isn't it intersubjective rather than subjective? Whilst there is not an objective quality that is 'art', nonetheless through socialisation and being integrated into the linguistic discourse of a culture we actually adopt a definition of what art is. Art is whatever society deems art, and society will not deem these pieces of artwork randomly, their artistic property will in a sense be creativity sanctioned by civil society for display. The very fact that it is sanctioned, I think, means that art is as much entwined in a moral reality as everything else.

that killing for aesthetic pleasure should be considered art ... define art simply by the exhibition of crime indicates that the condition of crime is a necessary element which applies to Art.
But, surely there is a difference between certain criminal acts 'should be considered art under certain circumstances' and 'crime is necessary for art?' There seem two issues at stake: firstly, whether the action was in any sense 'art', which would have been dubious some time past but would now probably be accepted. The second problem is whether immorality strips a work of its title of 'art'. Why should art necessarily be moral? This is not to say 'immoral art' should not be punished, but rather to ask if it should not be titled 'art'. Now, the negative statement is that that which is immoral or criminal is not art - but there has to be either one of two positive affirmations, that either art must be moral or lawful, or that art must be amoral or without reference to the law.

That is a false assumption on your part. The rational argument is concommittant on two factors being present together. It is not merely that immorality negates art- but that the condition in which the artist's motivations for creating the work (which is faulty logic/rationale) along with the act of murder in exhibitionistic display used for the purpose of shock value immediately questions the validity of performance in relation to the created object. One can narrow down that the act itself was intended to be considered if artistic intent is attached to it- however, in this case, the act itself
was a documentation of a crime. If crime is to be equated with art, then that raises a question as to the nature of art in relation to the treatment of criminals in society.
Perhaps - although can there not be acts that are solely criminal, and acts that are both criminal and artistic? Graffiti could well be a case in which this line is straddled. The intent in both would be considered artistic and criminal.

Now societal definitions of art will probably exclude this sort of action - and indeed I think it is on the intersubjective level that art, much as is the case with morality, power, language and a variety of other aspects of society, exist. That is that although there are individual subjects, they all tend to correspond with each other because of a shared social existence. Even here there can be ambiguity. Think of a fur coat - to some a work of art, to others immoral. And what of architecture built by slavery or the money earned from slavery (as many 18th century British buildings were), or literature with racialist tones no longer accepted in modern society - are these to be demoted from the rank of 'art'? Ultimately this particular incident I feel would probably not be considered art, not so much because of the morality associated with it, but because it is an essentially uncreative action - but one has to wonder if it is any less creative than much conceptual art that is propounded by the artistic elite at present.

[Kaveri]

Apple,

according to your post it seems that you have further misunderstood me. I don't expect us to reach mutual understanding but will reply anyway.

I haven't read the other posts that have commented our discussion but will after I have posted this. It took me a while to choose my wordings for this post; am exhausted now. I even took the time to bold and italicize some of my most important points. Hope I managed to communicate more clearly this time and I also hope that didn't forget anything crucial.


It depends upon your definition of art- and you don't need to re-iterate the tired age old of question What Is Art? As I'm certain all art students had to suffer through those discussions in their first year of courses.

What is the statement "killing a cat is not / cannot be art" if not a statement of What Art Is? Surely it is not a definition of what killing a cat is, nor it is a description of what killing a cat is. I am pretty sure that it is a statement of what Art covers or doesn't cover.

If someone claims that something ISN'T art, they should be prepared to define what they mean by art so as to ground their opinion. Defining concepts is crucial-- it helps us to reach mutual understanding (ie in case it occurs that we have simply talked about two separate things).

How do you define art? I would like to hear your full definition 1) because it interests me 2) to see if you have one in the first place.


However, it appeared from your original post- that you were defending the artist's position based upon the artist's motivation in creating such work

Yes, it seems that it has appeared to you like that, but as I already clarified, you misunderstood me (which didn't surprise me). I did not defend crime. I defended my definition of art.


however attempting to define art simply by the exhibition of crime indicates that the condition of crime is a necessary element which applies to Art.

Wtf? Who has attempted to define art by the exhibition of crime?

Here's my definition: Art occurs when someone creates or experiences something in the purpose of creating an aesthetic experience for someone. Anything can be art, which doesn't implicate that everything is art.

This definition doesn't have anything to do with crime. Sure, crime can be art in case it fulfills said requirements, but it most often doesn't. And even if it is art, it is still a crime.


No, that was my point. Your original position entailed that cruelty/immorality does not negate what is considered art.

Yes, I already understood that you misunderstood me.


If crime is to be equated with art, then that raises a question as to the nature of art in relation to the treatment of criminals in society.

Unbelievable. Irrelevant.


Again, your definition of art is not a universal indicator of art.

I am aware that not everyone shares my open-minded definition of art. However, I believe that the definition that I use is the best and the most useful (of course-- why else would I have chosen it?) and I am prepared to defend it.

But my definition is not subjective in the sense yours seems to be (although you have yet to share your definition); I don't define art by what I personally value-- I define it by its purpose, and the same standard goes for everything. If it is made in the purpose of creating an aesthetic experience, it is art. From then on, it is left for individuals to decide whether they personally *value* the particual piece of art.

To acknowledge something as art is not to make a value judgment.

That is my point.

And it has an ideology behind it: this definition is as nonauthoritarian as possible.


The subject is: Can crime be justified under the pretense of artistic intent?

No, that has never been the subject. That's what you have continuously misunderstood and I have tried to explain it. It must be the F. (Your F, that is.) I am sorry.


F has nothing to do with it. You are not considering some objective factors in the source of knowledge- and how morality is derived in society. By applying theories in descriptive ethics would be more convincing than making false comparisons in which you incorrectly deduce that Feelings are the result of society's values of morality. If that was the case, then you are making the argument that there is no objective criteria in which to judge the morality of a society, which is limiting your perspective to a very narrow subjective viewpoint.

:banghead: Irrelevant. Completely irrelevant.


Again, the slaughter of domesticated animals in an exhibitionistic display is not parallel to the killing of animals for food.

Groundings, please?


According to you however, the method has to be valid for his work to be defined as Art. In your argument, then following your logic, his work would not be considered Art.

No, the method doesn't have to be valid for something to be considered art. In fact, when I said that his point was valid but that his method was wrong, I was making a value judgment, it had nothing to do with whether it was art or not. Maybe I didn't emphasize the change of viewpoint enough. Sorry.

[Kaveri]

This is how defining concepts can help two people to share their thoughts peacefully and pleasantly:

"Killing a cat can't be art."
"I disagree. How do you define art?"
"My definition of art is what I personally find beautiful and acceptable."
"Ok, seems that we define art differently. My definition of art is anything that is made or experienced in the purpose of creating an aesthetic experience."
"Oh, well. If I used the same definition, I would agree with you. But my definition is different. :)"
":)"

But if we refuse to define what we mean, the discussion may go along these lines:

"Killing a cat can't be art."
"I disagree. How do you define art?"
"DON'T YOU START WITH THE DEFINITION CRAP"
"Why isn't killing a cat art?"
"BECAUSE IT DOESN'T REACH THE STANDARDS OF ART"
"Why?"
"YOU CAN'T JUSTIFY DISGUSTING AND IMMORAL THINGS BY SAYING THAT IT IS ART"
"I didn't say that."
"YES YOU DID"

[Zero Angel]

The second argument sounds almost like the King on the Mountain argument style. One side presents a challenge and then expects the opponent to answer based on their own criteria (the king is using the word 'crap' as criteria, not 'art')

http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exegesis/King_on_the_Mountain

That article always amuses me.

[apple]

This is how defining concepts can help two people to share their thoughts peacefully and pleasantly:

"Killing a cat can't be art."
"I disagree. How do you define art?"
"My definition of art is what I personally find beautiful and acceptable."
"Ok, seems that we define art differently. My definition of art is anything that is made or experienced in the purpose of creating an aesthetic experience."
"Oh, well. If I used the same definition, I would agree with you. But my definition is different. :)"
":)"

But if we refuse to define what we mean, the discussion may go along these lines:

"Killing a cat can't be art."
"I disagree. How do you define art?"
"DON'T YOU START WITH THE DEFINITION CRAP"
"Why isn't killing a cat art?"
"BECAUSE IT DOESN'T REACH THE STANDARDS OF ART"
"Why?"
"YOU CAN'T JUSTIFY DISGUSTING AND IMMORAL THINGS BY SAYING THAT IT IS ART"
"I didn't say that."
"YES YOU DID"

Perhaps if you didn't take logical arguments personally as an attack on your feelings, then you might think that discourse is part of clarifying views and positions and not everyone is going to agree with you.

And I'm saying that in the nicest way possible. :)

[apple]

People often assume that all psychopaths experience bloodlust: this is not the case. Many of us do, but we are in the minority.

Oh, dear! :ph34r:




Again, this is a common misunderstanding. In reality, we in fact do not need to consider the opinions and judgements of others. Without delving into pragmatism and all that other unnecessary rubbish, I'll just reiterate that ideas of Art are subjective. You cannot tell me what Art is. I cannot properly tell you what Art is. Art is whatever the individual fucking deems it to be. It is not mysterious, it is not objective, it does not possess an independent reality.

Well if you define art as a purely subjective experience, then aren't you limiting its possibilities by discounting that there might be some objective qualities that applies to all?

[venerationOFrabbits]

Oh, dear! :ph34r:

the only thing to :ph34r: is :ph34r: itself

[apple]

Apple,

according to your post it seems that you have further misunderstood me. I don't expect us to reach mutual understanding but will reply anyway.

Well, I will say that your thoughts do seem to be a bit confusing as you contradict yourself quite frequently-

For instance your definition of Art is based on an Artist's Intent, so therefore, you would then consider the cat-killing-performance Art based on the Artist's Intent, then yet argue that you think it is morally wrong.

Therefore, I suggested that according to you, Immorality does not negate Art- which you say wasn't accurate and that I had misinterpreted you and that you were not advocating crime as a feature of Art. However, according to your definition once again- your definition of Art has now changed so that it is simply Aesthetic Pleasure which defines Art.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but according to you, as long as Aesthetic Pleasure is present, then Aesthetic Pleasure + Crime can be considered Art.


What is the statement "killing a cat is not / cannot be art" if not a statement of What Art Is? Surely it is not a definition of what killing a cat is, nor it is a description of what killing a cat is. I am pretty sure that it is a statement of what Art covers or doesn't cover.

If someone claims that something ISN'T art, they should be prepared to define what they mean by art so as to ground their opinion. Defining concepts is crucial-- it helps us to reach mutual understanding (ie in case it occurs that we have simply talked about two separate things).

How do you define art? I would like to hear your full definition 1) because it interests me 2) to see if you have one in the first place.

I did not define what is Art- but rather questioning the validity of the intent of the work- which seemed to justify his position. If then, raping and murdering women were aesthetically pleasing to one, then under your definition, that would be considered Art is that correct?

I remind you that your definition must apply to all, and not merely to one.

My definition of Art does not solely depend upon the condition in which Aesthetic Pleasure must be apparent. In fact, I think some works in which Aesthetic Pleasure are apparent are simply not what I consider Art.



Yes, it seems that it has appeared to you like that, but as I already clarified, you misunderstood me (which didn't surprise me). I did not defend crime. I defended my definition of art.



Wtf? Who has attempted to define art by the exhibition of crime?

My position was- can the intent of Aesthetic Pleasure justify the act of crime? In my opinion, I do not think crime is a feature of Art necessarily. Rather, I think Crime- used as a commentary on the social condition of an era can be Art- but that the simple act of crime itself does not rationalize Art.

To clarify, the act of killing a woman or cat on-stage, I would not consider Art necessarily whatever the intent was. However, if an Artist used that event to document some features of that society- then I would consider Art. Otherwise, I think your personal definition of Art then would also potentially apply to all the serial killers and rapists, and other criminals who kill for Aesthetic pleasure, would it not?


Here's my definition: Art occurs when someone creates or experiences something in the purpose of creating an aesthetic experience for someone. Anything can be art, which doesn't implicate that everything is art.

Yes, your definition is dependent on a subjective condition- and I find it unconvincing because you are, in essence, limiting Art to One Single Factor- that it is made with the intent of being aesthetically pleasing/aesthetic experience.


This definition doesn't have anything to do with crime. Sure, crime can be art in case it fulfills said requirements, but it most often doesn't. And even if it is art, it is still a crime.



Yes, I already understood that you misunderstood me.

Actually I understood you the first time around- in that your position was that- "Crime does not negate Art"




Unbelievable. Irrelevant.



I am aware that not everyone shares my open-minded definition of art. However, I believe that the definition that I use is the best and the most useful (of course-- why else would I have chosen it?) and I am prepared to defend it.

Actually, your definition is very narrow and depends upon one condition being present.


But my definition is not subjective in the sense yours seems to be (although you have yet to share your definition); I don't define art by what I personally value-- I define it by its purpose, and the same standard goes for everything. If it is made in the purpose of creating an aesthetic experience, it is art. From then on, it is left for individuals to decide whether they personally *value* the particual piece of art.

Well that's what I said you said- for you The Intent is what defines Art. I do not agree.


To acknowledge something as art is not to make a value judgment.

That is my point.

However, one must factor in morality/immorality then as a feature. Judgements are made in that way.


And it has an ideology behind it: this definition is as nonauthoritarian as possible.

Perhaps you are confusing non-authoritarian with "uninstitutionalized" Art. Killing a cat on stage- seems rather- authoritarian, wouldn't you say?



No, that has never been the subject. That's what you have continuously misunderstood and I have tried to explain it. It must be the F. (Your F, that is.) I am sorry.

Well it was the subject- The subject was not limited to your defintion of Art, but how Crime factors into what is perceived as Art.




:banghead: Irrelevant. Completely irrelevant.



Groundings, please?



No, the method doesn't have to be valid for something to be considered art. In fact, when I said that his point was valid but that his method was wrong, I was making a value judgment, it had nothing to do with whether it was art or not. Maybe I didn't emphasize the change of viewpoint enough. Sorry.


You have contradicted yourself again. If you didn't think his method was wrong- that implies that you did not think his intent valid. Therefore, according to your own definition, his work is not Art then.

[apple]

Actually, in reality isn't it intersubjective rather than subjective? Whilst there is not an objective quality that is 'art', nonetheless through socialisation and being integrated into the linguistic discourse of a culture we actually adopt a definition of what art is. Art is whatever society deems art, and society will not deem these pieces of artwork randomly, their artistic property will in a sense be creativity sanctioned by civil society for display. The very fact that it is sanctioned, I think, means that art is as much entwined in a moral reality as everything else.

Well, yes, I think you are absolutely correct in that assertion. Art has very much been entwined with the Institution of Art. and as long as there exists a platform- whether exhibited at a museum or gallery or performed on stage- then immediately it is sanctioned as Art. Those institutions will always exist, however, now, I think Art isn't necessarily limited to institutionalized Art and sometimes can often negate what Art is.


But, surely there is a difference between certain criminal acts 'should be considered art under certain circumstances' and 'crime is necessary for art?' There seem two issues at stake: firstly, whether the action was in any sense 'art', which would have been dubious some time past but would now probably be accepted. The second problem is whether immorality strips a work of its title of 'art'. Why should art necessarily be moral? This is not to say 'immoral art' should not be punished, but rather to ask if it should not be titled 'art'. Now, the negative statement is that that which is immoral or criminal is not art - but there has to be either one of two positive affirmations, that either art must be moral or lawful, or that art must be amoral or without reference to the law.

Well, according to Oscar Wilde, "All Art is Amoral" in that it veers away from the rigid uprightness of a society's accepted morals by carefully making a commentary on the interconnectivity of society and the artist. However, we must also remember that at one time, homosexuality was considered immoral as was becoming divorced from one's spouse- under those rigid moral codes, a lot of beautiful art and literature had been derived in order to catalogue the human condition. However, I don't necessarily think the simple act of crime- for instance murdering a woman- fulfills the definition of Art. If Crime were to be a feature, then I think it necessary to make a comment on the human condition which lead up to its act. With this particular work of the cat-killing, I think it crudely depends upon Art as an Institution to account for its act, and then the intent seems rather dodgy to me if it was only done for shock value while some vegetarian dogma is slapped onto it on top in a rather messy way.


Perhaps - although can there not be acts that are solely criminal, and acts that are both criminal and artistic? Graffiti could well be a case in which this line is straddled. The intent in both would be considered artistic and criminal.

I think what's effective about graffti- is not necessarily the graffiti itself- but the act of using a public space by a certain socio-economic group that defines it as Art. Therefore, it is a movement outside of Institutionalized Art- by using these spaces- that act itself which makes an interesting commentary on the nature of the Artists themselves, that defines their work.


Now societal definitions of art will probably exclude this sort of action - and indeed I think it is on the intersubjective level that art, much as is the case with morality, power, language and a variety of other aspects of society, exist. That is that although there are individual subjects, they all tend to correspond with each other because of a shared social existence. Even here there can be ambiguity. Think of a fur coat - to some a work of art, to others immoral. And what of architecture built by slavery or the money earned from slavery (as many 18th century British buildings were), or literature with racialist tones no longer accepted in modern society - are these to be demoted from the rank of 'art'? Ultimately this particular incident I feel would probably not be considered art, not so much because of the morality associated with it, but because it is an essentially uncreative action - but one has to wonder if it is any less creative than much conceptual art that is propounded by the artistic elite at present.

I think the underlying commonality between all those events is that moral codes change within an era within societies. For instance, in the States, it used to be considered immoral to have relationships with African-Americans. Similarly, up until the last 30 years, homosexuality used to be considered immoral. I think the factor that is universal within these groups however, is that there exists an objective morality- in which the human condition is clearly documented which makes their interconnectivity between seemingly different times and groups of people all the more interesting.

[vulcan]

stop fighting who the fuck cares

i have to keep scrolling through these books

[Kaveri]

Apple,

My F might get in the way of me keeping my cool, but to me it really seems that your F is getting in the way of your thought processes, which is worse.

This time I won't quote your post and reply to every section separately, because you would probably only misinterpret me again. This will (hopefully) remain my last attempt at clarifying what I have meant.

I have said that crime can be art. That is no JUSTIFICATION (or advocation? not sure of the definition/correct use of that word) for crime.

At this point I have concluded that it is YOU who thinks that art is a JUSTIFICATION because you continuously interpret my saying that crime CAN (!) be ART as crime being JUSTIFIED.

WHEN I SAY THAT CRIME CAN BE ART I MEAN THAT CRIME CAN BE ART, NOT THAT CRIME CAN BE JUSTIFIED.

My definition of art is not "an aesthetic pleasure". It is "what has been created in the intent of creating an aesthetic experience". (Experiencing) an aesthetic pleasure is not the same as knowingly creating an aesthetic experience. (However, experiencing CAN be creating.)

Aesthetic pleasure, if it involves crime, does not equate art.

Intent to create an aesthetic experience, if it involves crime, on the other hand, does equate art.

Yes, rape and murder CAN be art. They are POTENTIALLY art, just like EVERYTHING ELSE. This does not JUSTIFY rape and murder, because art doesn't justify anything.

There are also certain benefits in thinking that rape/murder CAN be art: if we ackowledge that it can be art, no one can try and "shock" us by raping/murdering and then saying that it is art, because we already know that it is (potentially) art and thus we are not fooled or shocked by the (potentially) artistic aspect of crime. We can still see it as CRIME. That's right. WRONG.

In the defense of Teemu M?ki the truth I must tell that the killing of the cat wasn't the only clipping in his video. It was merely the finale. The way I have understood it, the video was meant as thought-provoking material, as a commentary on society. So. ("I think Crime- used as a commentary on the social condition of an era can be Art") Do you consider Teemu M?ki's video art now?

Edit. *already feels ashamed of the aggressive capitalizations*

[ryan_m_parr]

I always consider art to be a conception and not an act. Therefore, the representation of something people act upon has a much higher succession for the merit of art. Thereby the subjective assessment of art becomes merited as something significant, and the society looks upon it's merits. Art can have different applications of assessment. For some it is merely a personal aesthetic, as it is something which gives personal meaning to themselves. It doesn't mean to say that another person cannot value it in a similar way, as surely even the greatest art has similar vagueness.

So, art as a whole is purely a product of human creativity: not an act.

Once it becomes an ACT, it either becomes activism or obscure drama that borders on something else.

And the same form of criminal act becomes justified to an individual, whom yet opposes it? Doesn't an act of behavior cease to become justified in the same way, that people use cognitive dissonance through an act; sometimes through fantasizing about an act, or forming their own logic to something which "permits" them to do something?

If in what way does a depiction represent a person's willingness to accept or deny an act, unless that depiction enables the viewer to not only recognize the act, but to form a conscious aversion to something which enables them to reason with the artist, themselves? In what way does the artist allow for people to agree with him, if he permitted himself to do something even more obscene and vulgar, not to mention decrepid to an animal. In some ways he only bolsters support for the killing of animals humanely, even if someone happens to oppose the killing of animals (not just for the sake of eating one, though for nutritional and logistical understanding of the practice, some might form better reasons to do so; not to mention the saving of an animal life.)

There is a reason that slaughtering of humans draws such aversions, because people are much more able to empathise with a human. The metacognitive understanding and approach to "knowing" what someone or something feels/thinks/responds is what drives human understanding and relations (whether they be conceived in art or in our approach to understanding the world.) However in this case the individual caused people to not relate to his mindset and way of thinking, and were clearly turned off by it.

[ApeTheDog]

I agree with Kaveri. You don't understand what he is saying, apple. He isn't saying that it's okay to kill cats and masturbate all over them. He isn't defending it.

It seems to be that you think that anything that happens in the name of art is, by definition, correct. That all things are allowed in the name of art. And that anything that is not alloweable, then, also, cannot be called art anymore. Kaveri has a different definition. I would agree with his position, personally, but, frankly - it doesn't matter. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion when it comes to art.

Including artists who kill cats. If they think what they are doing is art - then they are welcome to hold that position. That doesn't mean they can do anything illegal. If you wanted, you could smuggle drugs across the border, and call it performance art for all I care. That doesn't mean you shouldn't get brought to justice. The two are simply unrelated.

It also isn't because the artist thinks what he does is art, that everybody necesarily has to agree with it. They're welcome to ignore it. People are welcome to think what he does is not art, as well. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion in this. I think that is pretty much at the whole core of the art/not art thing. Nobody can dictate what is, and is not, artistic. It is personal for, and to, everybody. Otherwise... what is the purpose and point of it in the first place?

[apple]

Apple,

My F might get in the way of me keeping my cool, but to me it really seems that your F is getting in the way of your thought processes, which is worse.

This time I won't quote your post and reply to every section separately, because you would probably only misinterpret me again. This will (hopefully) remain my last attempt at clarifying what I have meant.

I have said that crime can be art. That is no JUSTIFICATION (or advocation? not sure of the definition/correct use of that word) for crime.

At this point I have concluded that it is YOU who thinks that art is a JUSTIFICATION because you continuously interpret my saying that crime CAN (!) be ART as crime being JUSTIFIED.

WHEN I SAY THAT CRIME CAN BE ART I MEAN THAT CRIME CAN BE ART, NOT THAT CRIME CAN BE JUSTIFIED.

My definition of art is not "an aesthetic pleasure". It is "what has been created in the intent of creating an aesthetic experience". (Experiencing) an aesthetic pleasure is not the same as knowingly creating an aesthetic experience. (However, experiencing CAN be creating.)

Aesthetic pleasure, if it involves crime, does not equate art.

Intent to create an aesthetic experience, if it involves crime, on the other hand, does equate art.

Yes, rape and murder CAN be art. They are POTENTIALLY art, just like EVERYTHING ELSE. This does not JUSTIFY rape and murder, because art doesn't justify anything.

There are also certain benefits in thinking that rape/murder CAN be art: if we ackowledge that it can be art, no one can try and "shock" us by raping/murdering and then saying that it is art, because we already know that it is (potentially) art and thus we are not fooled or shocked by the (potentially) artistic aspect of crime. We can still see it as CRIME. That's right. WRONG.

In the defense of Teemu M?ki the truth I must tell that the killing of the cat wasn't the only clipping in his video. It was merely the finale. The way I have understood it, the video was meant as thought-provoking material, as a commentary on society. So. ("I think Crime- used as a commentary on the social condition of an era can be Art") Do you consider Teemu M?ki's video art now?

Edit. *already feels ashamed of the aggressive capitalizations*

You have a very interesting way of changing the definitions of terms to surreptitiously change your position and then accusing other people who call you on it as "misinterpreting" you.

Frankly, I find your style of argument illogical and compounded by your blinded feelings to be of any insight aside from the fact that you seem like the type who needs everyone to agree with you, else they are "misinterpreting" you.

Perhaps you should read over your own words and sentences and find where you have contradicted yourself 15 times- as I've counted and then if you come up with a rational argument, I might think you have a point.

"That's right. WRONG." :lol: OK.

[EL84]

...accusing other people who call you on it as "misinterpreting" you.

You have misinterpreted her. Your replies have little connection with her posts. Whether you agree with her hasn't become relevant, as you haven't yet parsed her sentences, it looks increasingly unlikely that you are able to.

[apple]

I agree with Kaveri. You don't understand what he is saying, apple. He isn't saying that it's okay to kill cats and masturbate all over them. He isn't defending it.

Actually, he was defending the intent as he explicitly has written in his last three posts. According to him, he calls it Art. Even if he didn't agree with the criminal aspect of it, he thinks that we should all be desensitized to crime so that we won't be shocked by it. It seems there is a lacking of human understanding and intuition here.


It seems to be that you think that anything that happens in the name of art is, by definition, correct. That all things are allowed in the name of art. And that anything that is not alloweable, then, also, cannot be called art anymore.

That is not my position actually. I do not think that anything that is allowable is necessarily art based on artistic intention.


Kaveri has a different definition. I would agree with his position, personally, but, frankly - it doesn't matter. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion when it comes to art.

That is a given, however, some people get angry over other people's opinions, it appears for no good reason other than one's inability to express himself and his position clearly.



Including artists who kill cats. If they think what they are doing is art - then they are welcome to hold that position. That doesn't mean they can do anything illegal. If you wanted, you could smuggle drugs across the border, and call it performance art for all I care. That doesn't mean you shouldn't get brought to justice. The two are simply unrelated.

I think though that particular artists who commit crime in the name of Art are attempting to rationalize a position simply based on intent. Intent should not be confused with what is.


It also isn't because the artist thinks what he does is art, that everybody necesarily has to agree with it. They're welcome to ignore it. People are welcome to think what he does is not art, as well. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion in this. I think that is pretty much at the whole core of the art/not art thing. Nobody can dictate what is, and is not, artistic. It is personal for, and to, everybody. Otherwise... what is the purpose and point of it in the first place?

Well, most Art Institutions would disagree with you. After all, they dicate what IS art, don't they?

[In...TP]

One day, the sun will revolve around earth.

[ApeTheDog]

Actually, he was defending the intent as he explicitly has written in his last three posts. According to him, he calls it Art. Even if he didn't agree with the criminal aspect of it, he thinks that we should all be desensitized to crime so that we won't be shocked by it. It seems there is a lacking of human understanding and intuition here.

I don't know what he is doing. I just know that he wrote:
"so even if killing a cat is wrong, killing a cat can be considered *art*"

Meaning he doesn't necesarily have to agree with what an artist is doing in order to acknowledge that it can be considered as art. Perhaps he could have removed the ambiguous "if", though, and made his position more clear.


That is not my position actually. I do not think that anything that is allowable is necessarily art based on artistic intention.

Of course. Not everything that is alloweable is art. It is alloweable to eat a cookie, for example - I would not call it art (although Andy Warhol might have disagreed with me on this if he were alive. And reading this, of course).

But what about the reverse? Can art be something that is not "alloweable". Are acts such as killing a cat, because you disapprove of them, by defenition, not allowed to be labeled artistic?

What of artists who cut a horse in half and put it on terpentine? Artists who take a picture of the virgin Mary and put it in a giant tub of goats blood?

These things challenge our perceptions. Is that not what it's all about in the first place (with modern art, anyway)?


I think though that particular artists who commit crime in the name of Art are attempting to rationalize a position simply based on intent. Intent should not be confused with what is.

So you think this guy likes to kill cats, and masturbate over them - and is disguising being able to do that as art? Perhaps. But why would he publicise the fact? Unless he also got a kick out of people watching it.

I don't know. I guess if he kept on doing it, over and over, I would say that, yes, he was probably rationalising his behavior - if this is a one-shot thing, I'm not so sure.


Well, most Art Institutions would disagree with you. After all, they dicate what IS art, don't they?

They dictate what gets sponsored, who gets paid, who gets publicity. They control the flow of money. Just like rich families and the church did in medieval times (back when art consisted out of two categories: 1. Paintings of God and 2. Paintings of God with some rich member of the nobility in the background).

This has fuck all to do with art, though.

Vincent Van Gogh never getting paid has not stopped him from making his stuff. He made brilliant paintings.

They can dictate where the money goes. But not what art is, and what happens with the whole field.

[ryan_m_parr]

. . . Kaveri is a she

[ApeTheDog]

You have disproven the most fundamental, critical part of my argument. I lose. Everything I said tumbles to pieces now, and I am humbled for it. Well done, ryan_m_parr.

I might as well not even bother arguing further.

[ryan_m_parr]

You have disproven the most fundamental, critical part of my argument. I lose. Everything I said tumbles to pieces now, and I am humbled for it. Well done, ryan_m_parr.

I might as well not even bother arguing further.

It still applies, as a man is being described having done the purported act, whereby the statement you and Apple have just made may still be addressed.

[ApeTheDog]

It still applies, as a man is being described having done the purported act, whereby the statement you and Apple have just made may still be addressed.

Eh?

It doesn't apply - it's irrelevant. An opinion is an opinion, whether or not it comes from a male or a female. It changes nothing about the validity of it.

I really can't understand what your point is here.

[ryan_m_parr]

Eh?

It doesn't apply - it's irrelevant. An opinion is an opinion, whether or not it comes from a male or a female. It changes nothing about the validity of it.

I really can't understand what your point is here.

You are confusing the statment adressed to Kaveri as being a man, when in fact Kaveri is a she. What you then replied to in my above statement was that the statements you made were then contradictory to the fact of her being a she, when it seemed as if the act being addressed was related to that fact. In other words, don't worry I assume, unless I happen to not know what you are addressing in your statements.

[apple]

Of course. Not everything that is alloweable is art. It is alloweable to eat a cookie, for example - I would not call it art (although Andy Warhol might have disagreed with me on this if he were alive. And reading this, of course).

I suppose all acts of non-criminal criminal behavior doesn't necessitate that it would automatically be part of the Art. Warhol probably would have disagreed with you in that one area he was interested in was documenting mundane acts, so if eating a cookie was a part of a larger picture, then why not?


But what about the reverse? Can art be something that is not "alloweable". Are acts such as killing a cat, because you disapprove of them, by defenition, not allowed to be labeled artistic?

Actually I was attempting to narrow and specify actions that would exclude criminals who engage in violent criminal acts from the definition of art. I think crime, like all subjects although being in the realm of art- however the act of committing a crime is separate from the study of crime as a subject.

Although quite recently I came across a work in which the Artist used recordings of people's cell phone conversations that were illegally attained and uploaded on the internet as a subject of study making a commentary on the technocratic era in which actions of society's laws on privacy are not observed in order to satisfy the online network of people who engage in voyeurism such as this.
In this circumstance, I would consider it Art as long as the intent of voyeurism was absent and subject of study were the people who were engaged in this act, and not necessarily the conversations that were recorded.


What of artists who cut a horse in half and put it on terpentine? Artists who take a picture of the virgin Mary and put it in a giant tub of goats blood?

I think the legacy of YBAs- in which manufactured controversy and sensationalism of the ArtStar although has its place in Institutional Art is not a subject that deems prolonged analysis. If the Saatchi gallery primarily only chooses Artists who generate negative reviews, then it appears that the notoriety of the Artist precedes the work.


These things challenge our perceptions. Is that not what it's all about in the first place (with modern art, anyway)?



So you think this guy likes to kill cats, and masturbate over them - and is disguising being able to do that as art? Perhaps. But why would he publicise the fact? Unless he also got a kick out of people watching it.



I don't know. I guess if he kept on doing it, over and over, I would say that, yes, he was probably rationalising his behavior - if this is a one-shot thing, I'm not so sure.

So in your estimation, if a man murdered a woman, then he should be given the benefit of the doubt in case his act of crime was a one-off? Unfortunately, in the States, that probably happens more often than not.


They dictate what gets sponsored, who gets paid, who gets publicity. They control the flow of money. Just like rich families and the church did in medieval times (back when art consisted out of two categories: 1. Paintings of God and 2. Paintings of God with some rich member of the nobility in the background).

Perhaps art resembles politics in this way. Lobbyists really decide who become the main candidates, don't they? Although I think in the art world, it could possibly be also about who sleeps with whom to put it crudely.



This has fuck all to do with art, though.

Vincent Van Gogh never getting paid has not stopped him from making his stuff. He made brilliant paintings.

They can dictate where the money goes. But not what art is, and what happens with the whole field.

There are always artists of that nature sprinkled throughout history who did not live to see the fruits of their labor become immortalized through commercial replication, but they are rare indeed.