Human Centipede 2 director defends movie as art
- Thread starter MetaKnight19
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In that case I apologise, I suppose I'm just hung up on terms more than anything else.Jim Tigwell said:
I'm no artist, and have little ability in those spheres, hell, I struggle with stickmen, I simply find it distasteful that a soup can or a splash on a canvas can be classified with the same terms as a work of magnificent talent.
I could stick a toothbrush into a potato, and if enough people find it suitably contemporary, it's on par with a sculpture by Donatello. That just strikes me as wrong on every level.
"Art" generally being classified as a "work of creativity intending to elicit or eliciting an emotional response from the viewer" I suppose it is indeed art, as is practically any movie, like it or not. Then again, this is one of those perennial discussions people can't seem to stop having.
Remember a few years back, the fellow who took the photos of himself with a bullwhip up his ass and called it 'art'? Same principle.
Remember a few years back, the fellow who took the photos of himself with a bullwhip up his ass and called it 'art'? Same principle.
@Brunt32
I know you said that is that, but I wonder. Let's say your definition of art is true. Art is something which tries to push the genre. Well, Human Centipede 2 does seem to be pushing the genre in the direction of gore, shock and sick thrills. It's pushing in such an avant-garde manner that the British can't handle it. By your definition, it seems a brilliant piece of art.
@FieryTrainwreck
I was kinda with you until the whole "No True Scots" thing. there are certainly a lot of artists, both good and bad, with entitlement issues, but does that make what they do not art? Humans have been working to define art for about two and a half thousand years, so I don't think the issue lies with modern relativism but with the fact that art is diverse, and every time we nail it down, somebody goes and makes something which requires us to bend our criteria, like urinal sculptures or Voice of Fire. I don't really like Voice of Fire, and I certainly wouldn't pay millions for it, but that doesn't mean that it's not art. I know people who don't like Dali because "What's the point? Nothing really looks like that." We can talk about exceeding some kind of median creativity, but who's going to do the polls to see? As people get more creative, will certain things stop being art?
tl;dr
Internal criteria = bad reasoning, but division of "true artists" from true "artists" = No True Scots fallacy = bad reasoning too. Art isn't subjective (beauty is), it's just complicated.
I know you said that is that, but I wonder. Let's say your definition of art is true. Art is something which tries to push the genre. Well, Human Centipede 2 does seem to be pushing the genre in the direction of gore, shock and sick thrills. It's pushing in such an avant-garde manner that the British can't handle it. By your definition, it seems a brilliant piece of art.
@FieryTrainwreck
I was kinda with you until the whole "No True Scots" thing. there are certainly a lot of artists, both good and bad, with entitlement issues, but does that make what they do not art? Humans have been working to define art for about two and a half thousand years, so I don't think the issue lies with modern relativism but with the fact that art is diverse, and every time we nail it down, somebody goes and makes something which requires us to bend our criteria, like urinal sculptures or Voice of Fire. I don't really like Voice of Fire, and I certainly wouldn't pay millions for it, but that doesn't mean that it's not art. I know people who don't like Dali because "What's the point? Nothing really looks like that." We can talk about exceeding some kind of median creativity, but who's going to do the polls to see? As people get more creative, will certain things stop being art?
tl;dr
Internal criteria = bad reasoning, but division of "true artists" from true "artists" = No True Scots fallacy = bad reasoning too. Art isn't subjective (beauty is), it's just complicated.
I don't think that the discussion of 'what is art' is the most appropriate, nor is the 'Does this movie qualify as art'.
I think the most pertinent question is realistically does this film have anything to offer? It sounds like a complete waste of time and money to me, and unfortuantely all 'banning' it has done is reaised awareness to a film that, otherwise, would have probably vanished to the forgotten realm of film where bad movies go with barely a passing nod.
Films like this (gore-porn) are IMO a waste of time and money and this matter with the BBFC is probably the best thing that could have happened to the Director as now it'll attain some kind of 'cult' status. And his sales will probably triple because of it.
I can almost guarantee that you'll see [banned in the UK] on the box.
I think the most pertinent question is realistically does this film have anything to offer? It sounds like a complete waste of time and money to me, and unfortuantely all 'banning' it has done is reaised awareness to a film that, otherwise, would have probably vanished to the forgotten realm of film where bad movies go with barely a passing nod.
Films like this (gore-porn) are IMO a waste of time and money and this matter with the BBFC is probably the best thing that could have happened to the Director as now it'll attain some kind of 'cult' status. And his sales will probably triple because of it.
I can almost guarantee that you'll see [banned in the UK] on the box.
@Ashcrexl
It seems like there are lots of things which aren't art. Even things that are beautiful might not be art, like sunsets. One thing we can agree on about art is that it has to have some kind of maker involved in it. Dogshit on a sidewalk put there by accident? Might be interesting, probably not art. A picture of that same dogshit? Art, because someone tried to represent it. Physics is beautiful, but not art. But representations of whirling atoms? Art. Cats are cute, but they're not art. Lolcats? Art. The list of things that we can agree are not art seems to be pretty long. the issue comes in where something has a maker and we're forced to really wonder if it's art. Riveting is done by people, but is it art? I don't think so, but I could imagine cases where it would be.
It seems like there are lots of things which aren't art. Even things that are beautiful might not be art, like sunsets. One thing we can agree on about art is that it has to have some kind of maker involved in it. Dogshit on a sidewalk put there by accident? Might be interesting, probably not art. A picture of that same dogshit? Art, because someone tried to represent it. Physics is beautiful, but not art. But representations of whirling atoms? Art. Cats are cute, but they're not art. Lolcats? Art. The list of things that we can agree are not art seems to be pretty long. the issue comes in where something has a maker and we're forced to really wonder if it's art. Riveting is done by people, but is it art? I don't think so, but I could imagine cases where it would be.
But there is no artistic value, i cannot see how this would hold any deep meaning. Dude masterbates with sandpaper... Rough childhood? He gets off on the victim's scat, um... He's full of shit? And he abuses the people on the end.... He.needs a hug?
This looks more like glorified gore porn that he's trying to sell at as normal movie
This looks more like glorified gore porn that he's trying to sell at as normal movie
What type of bricks?Daystar Clarion said:
What are the use of the bricks?
Minecraft bricks?
Brickbricks?
LEGO bricks?
On Topic: I suppose if that is how he feels...then it is art to him...it is a form of expression....even if it is creepy...the internet exsists so obviously someone is gleefully claiming this to be the Mona Lisa of the Modern Era
Thank you for making my day with that letter, funniest thing I've read in a while.Bobzer77 said:I think this proves that anything can be art:
While everyone argues that The Human Centipede is not art, a terrible film and is just glorified gore porn, let's not forget another film that was even worse than this said monstrosity...
Hostel part one and two.
Hostel part one and two.
but then as soon as I say "I intend this to be art" by that ridiculous definition it becomes art.Stick Antolini said:
Yep, in fact watching disfigured women being raped by a guy with barbed wire on his penis is pretty central to art. In fact you can say the scene where he masturbates with sandpaper to a DVD of the first film has elements of postmodernism in it.Nickolai77 said:
I can't see why anyone would want to censor this, glorifying sexual violence in a subversive manner is pretty fucking artsy.
What isn't art these days. every piece of scrap metal that has been welded to some massacre of a statue is art, every pompous dick who throws paint at a canvass and calls it "expressionist", a 12 hour looped video of a footballer sleeping is classed as art.
The only thing in the world that isn't art, is games.
I had two ideas for pretentious art, one was a vertical 2 inch wide line the length of the canvass is some random colour, with a white strip of equal dimensions next to it, then a different coloured strip to the first, then white etc ... went to an art museum and it was on the wall next to my other idea. A totally black canvass with a tiny white dot in the middle, I was going to call it "life" or something equally inspiring, I can't remember what the actual guy called it.
It is a stock defense lately, the same goes for the "freedom of speach". A guy shitting into a womans mouth who then shits into a mans mouth isn't art, it is somebody who has a scat fettish and was allowed to make a film.
Shall I make a rip off, "the human catapiller" I will super glue 3 guys together by there members to drink each others urine ... "it's just art!", it's as much art as me dropping a plate of spag bol on the floor then pouring super glue over it so it never changes.
The only thing in the world that isn't art, is games.
I had two ideas for pretentious art, one was a vertical 2 inch wide line the length of the canvass is some random colour, with a white strip of equal dimensions next to it, then a different coloured strip to the first, then white etc ... went to an art museum and it was on the wall next to my other idea. A totally black canvass with a tiny white dot in the middle, I was going to call it "life" or something equally inspiring, I can't remember what the actual guy called it.
It is a stock defense lately, the same goes for the "freedom of speach". A guy shitting into a womans mouth who then shits into a mans mouth isn't art, it is somebody who has a scat fettish and was allowed to make a film.
Shall I make a rip off, "the human catapiller" I will super glue 3 guys together by there members to drink each others urine ... "it's just art!", it's as much art as me dropping a plate of spag bol on the floor then pouring super glue over it so it never changes.
I agree with this, it's not what's actually happening that makes it artistic, it's the purpose behind it, or perhaps the aesthetics in which it was used. Silent Hill 2 was a town version of the darker recesses of the protagonists psyche, Human Centipede 2 is what it is with no truer purpose than to shock people with gore and sexual violence.trollpwner said:
Kudos on your arguement.