Human Centipede 2 director defends movie as art

[Golden potatoe]

When the light from the sun solidifies a dog turd found on the sidewalk, does that make that Art? Well, to somebody probably. To me, No. Is HC2 Art? Movies are considered art, but to me this movie is a dog turd. Just something that if u look at for a long time, will probably make u feel sick.

 

[GrimHeaper]

The fact we are talking about it proves it is art.

If I took a dump on the sidewalk people would be talking about it. That doesn't make it art.

A urinal is considered art..

 

[KosherKrackers]

It's very obvious that this film wasn't trying to be scary in an intelligent way.

It's just gore porn, and it relies only on the sheer shock factor of its content.

Anybody can make something gross enough if they try.

Can you link me with some good intelligent horror movies I really got get into the horror genre but there aren't many good ones I can find

I think the trouble with the horror genre is directors want to shock more than scare, which results in little more than gorefests or suspense building with a "BOO!" moment here and there.

Event Horizon is the only film I can think of off the cuff that I'd call an intelligent horror film, I'm sure there's a whole host more out there but off the cuff, that's the only one I can think of that stands out.

Food is a broad term for simple reasons, it encompasses edible matter, as expressed in my previous post regarding the difference between art and expression, your analogy is akin to comparing home cooking to the practiced meal of a michelin star winning chef.

Food would be my definition of an expression, art would be defined as fine dining.

All art is an expression, that does not mean all expressions are art.

What I'm trying to get at is that food, whether prepared well or poorly, is still food. Similarly art, whether done well or poorly, is still art. There's good singing (Sarah Brightman), and bad singing (Wesley Willis), but they're still singing, and singing is art. Good writing (Tolstoy) and bad writing (Dan Brown) are still art. Even if we add in the qualifier that art needs to include some kind of sensory, emotional, and intellectual stimulation, Human Centipede 2 still meets those criteria. It's visually vibrant, emotionally visceral, and has caused enough intellectual stimulation to spur this discussion about "But is it art?" Much in the same way that Andy Warhol's soup cans did. In short, some movies embrace high standards of quality (Citizen Kane) and are great art. Others, like Human Centipede 2, are probably bad art. But they're still art. I'd need to see a pretty strong argument to convince me otherwise.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I find it a shambles that anything can be called a masterpiece nowadays based on how many people ooh and ah at it, but there's always the nutters who say that's what defines something, rather than it's actual merit.

 

[shitoutonme]

Ahhh, it's threads like these that bring out the moral and intellectual snobbery in people.

 

[Vibhor]

You know, i've never seen HC1, but i'm tempted to go to the continent and get HC2 just to give two metaphorical fingers to the BBFC ruling.

I see that you don't value your mental stability.
Oh well, good luck from me.

Yes the movie is art. He has the right to make the movie and no one can stop him but censorship on the other hand.....

 

[Jim Tigwell]

We'll have to agree to disagree, I find it a shambles that anything can be called a masterpiece nowadays based on how many people ooh and ah at it, but there's always the nutters who say that's what defines something, rather than it's actual merit.

Woah, woah. I'm not saying it's a masterpiece, or that it's deserving of that title. It looks like a piece of shit movie. I'[m just saying that it's art. If my three year old niece scribbles a purple crayon on a piece of brown construction paper, tells me it's the sun, and asks me to put it on my fridge, it's art. Is it a good representation of the sun? No. Is it a masterpiece? No. Would it be critically acclaimed? No. But it's art. Where I'm getting lost in our conversation is with the idea that all art has to be a Monet or a Matisse, a great work of significant beauty and life-changing power. The best art is, without a doubt. But there's lots of art that isn't, but it's still art. Logos and slogans are art, page layout is art, but rarely do they blow my mind. The only claim I'm making about Human Centipede 2 is that it's art, not that it's good.

 

[sinterklaas]

Art doesn't exist. Everything could be called art, we could just as well call nothing art. It's all completely subjective.

For me, I call a beautiful painting a beautiful painting, not art.
I call a good song a good song, not a work of art.
I call an excellent movie an excellent movie, not art.
I call a turd on the side of the road a turd on the side of the road, not art. Depending on the position of said turd and the angle and color of the light, I could think it's a nice turd or a disgusting turd.

If this movie's only purpose it to shock people, then it's a good movie since it does what it intends to do. I go watch a Rambo movie if I want to see mindless violence, if it delivers just that, it's a good movie. If a Rambo movie would suddenly have a delicate plot and suberb acting and dialogue, I would call it a bad movie.

A ban for general movie theaters would probably be appropriate, but a complete ban would be nonsense. Censorship isn't good.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Okay. I could film myself dropping a deuce on the sidewalk. People would talk about it. Still not art.

Oh, sorry. I forgot you get to decide for others what is and isn't art.

Your apparent definition of art, which amounts to "you can't define art", is a pointless copout. It amounts to "everything = art", which robs the term of any meaning whatsoever. If you want to be highly inclusive while acknowledging the existence of "superior" or "worthwhile" art, why not just assume we mean precisely that when we say "art"?

My favorite definition of art (or "good art"...), roughly paraphrased: a combination of concept and execution that exceeds the average proficiency of man. It's only worth "hanging on a wall" if the idea and the execution combine to create something beyond the creative capacity of the vast majority who will view/experience it. That "combination" part is important; there are definitely ideas clever enough to overcome mediocre or minimalist execution, and some execution is so stunningly advanced and skillful as to render the concept almost completely secondary.

Anyways, fuck modern art's obsession with relativism. It's insultingly simplistic and reductive. If you can keep a straight face while comparing this...

to this...

then I think no one should ever listen to you talk about art.

 

[Hatchet90]

It's very obvious that this film wasn't trying to be scary in an intelligent way.

It's just gore porn, and it relies only on the sheer shock factor of its content.

Anybody can make something gross enough if they try.

Can you link me with some good intelligent horror movies I really got get into the horror genre but there aren't many good ones I can find

Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist, and The Omen are an excellent place to start.

OT: Anything is art. If you have to question on whether or not it IS art, then it is art. What stands to be debated is whether or not something is good art, and as opinions go... it's subjective.

 

[Shio]

Okay. I could film myself dropping a deuce on the sidewalk. People would talk about it. Still not art.

Oh, sorry. I forgot you get to decide for others what is and isn't art.

Your apparent definition of art, which amounts to "you can't define art", is a pointless copout. It amounts to "everything = art", which robs the term of any meaning whatsoever. If you want to be highly inclusive while acknowledging the existence of "superior" or "worthwhile" art, why not just assume we mean precisely that when we say "art"?

My favorite definition of art (or "good art"...), roughly paraphrased: a combination of concept and execution that exceeds the average proficiency of man. It's only worth "hanging on a wall" if the idea and the execution combine to create something beyond the creative capacity of the vast majority who will view/experience it. That "combination" part is important; there are definitely ideas clever enough to overcome mediocre or minimalist execution, and some execution is so stunningly advanced and skillful as to render the concept almost completely secondary.

Anyways, fuck modern art's obsession with relativism. It's insultingly simplistic and reductive. If you can keep a straight face while comparing this...

to this...

then I think no one should ever listen to you talk about art.

Where did you attain the power to define art for others? Was it difficult to gain the ability to tell others what they can and cannot correctly perceive as artistic?

 

[supermariner]

well i doubt any of us are particularly happy about censorship in any context
but this is just a film
sure its probably fucked up and nasty (to use the technical term) but people have the CHOICE of whether or not to watch it
by allowing the film to be shown doesn't mean millions of children are going to lose their innocence or millions of elderly folks are going to puke out their pacemakers
the film/game obsessed youth like most of us on the Escapist are their target market
and even we dont (generally speaking) seem to want to watch it
Come on Britain
stop showing yourself up and just show the damn thing

(that being said i still have no interest in seeing it)

 

[brunt32]

The Human centipede is not art. Not every video game is art. That is that. Art is something that goes forward and attempts to push the genre. All the human centipede tries to do is create money from making the most controversial issue they can and it makes me sick. You cannot defend it by calling it freedom of speech as speech needs to be a clear message all this movie does is incite obvious sick and disgusting images to create money.

 

[BabyRaptor]

Well, he did get one thing right. It's not really a horror movie if there isn't some degree of horror involved.

 

[Crazy_Dude]

H.G Giger the designer of the Alien in the movie "Alien".

Now that is what I call horror art. The Human Centipede is disgusting and this sequel is even worse.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Where did you attain the power to define art for others? Was it difficult to gain the ability to tell others what they can and cannot correctly perceive as artistic?

It was shortly after I grew a fucking brain and discovered common sense.

That was terse. I apologize.

You're allowed to have your opinion. I'm allowed to have mine. I say fuck the vast majority of modern notions concerning "art".

I know several "artists" who are entitled beyond belief because they think they're contributing to their respective mediums when, in reality, they have neither the technical skill nor the conceptual prowess to truly create art. They're not much different from children finger-painting to pass the time.

Naturally, I blame the self-esteem movement for all of this.

If someone is allowed to call everything art based on internal criteria that are not vulnerable to outside scrutiny, why even use the word? Wouldn't we just be talking about "things"? We used to know what the hell art was. Why did that change? Why didn't anyone try to stop it? Sure, there's the idiotic resistance to entirely new mediums of experience (film, games, etc.), but I don't see that as the same thing. Not at all.

 

[Shio]

Where did you attain the power to define art for others? Was it difficult to gain the ability to tell others what they can and cannot correctly perceive as artistic?

It was shortly after I grew a fucking brain and discovered common sense.

That was terse. I apologize.

You're allowed to have your opinion. I'm allowed to have mine. I say fuck the vast majority of modern notions concerning "art".

I know several "artists" who are entitled beyond belief because they think they're contributing to their respective mediums when, in reality, they have neither the technical skill nor the conceptual prowess to truly create art. They're not much different from children finger-painting to pass the time.

Naturally, I blame the self-esteem movement for all of this.

If someone is allowed to call everything art based on internal criteria that are not vulnerable to outside scrutiny, why even use the word? Wouldn't we just be talking about "things"? We used to know what the hell art was. Why did that change? Why didn't anyone try to stop it? Sure, there's the idiotic resistance to entirely new mediums of experience (film, games, etc.), but I don't see that as the same thing. Not at all.

So, if you find it good, then it's art? If you think it required skill to create, it's artistic? If you decide it's conceptual enough, only then is it a medium of art.

Interesting concept. I'm sure those who see video games as toys and not art would agree with you.

 

[CaptainTrilby]

The Human centipede is not art. Not every video game is art. That is that. Art is something that goes forward and attempts to push the genre. All the human centipede tries to do is create money from making the most controversial issue they can and it makes me sick. You cannot defend it by calling it freedom of speech as speech needs to be a clear message all this movie does is incite obvious sick and disgusting images to create money.

I do somewhat agree with this guy, the 'not all things in a genre are art', maybe not the money making point. While the Human Centipede 2 may inspire emotion, mostly disgust and repulsion, that's its only draw for it as a supposed art. There is no substance, story or even a reason for it, it is basically gore for gore's sake. I'm on the side of banning the film for general release, but not for banning it all together. By all means, go out of your way to find this piece of gorn, but don't advertise it on the side of a bus or in trailers. If we are going to allow freedom of speech, things like this are going to crop up, but it doesn't mean we have to put it on display for the whole public as 'art'.