Human Centipede 2 director defends movie as art

[nbamaniac]

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.
I can't see why anyone would want to censor this, glorifying sexual violence in a subversive manner is pretty fucking artsy.

^Haha. Now this is art! The sheer and brilliant sarcastic value of this statement has plunged me deep and thoroughly onto the depths of my illusive thoughts.

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

Well, he's right. I guess horror movies have to be horrifying.
I walked out of Splice not really knowing what I'd just seen. I felt dirty, and horrified, but not in the way I expected- but does that make it a bad horror movie?

More to the point, art is subjective, but personally I don't think Human Centipede is any more than cheap shock material.

 

[RMcAvoy]

You have to question a society that goes to such trouble to make sure nobody gets to watch actors acting horrific stuff yet you can go online and watch real people actually getting horrific stuff done to them and nobody gives a hoot.

I bet it's not even that bad... how much worse can it be than the SAW series?

 

[ChocoFace]

Where were these guys when the horrible "[insert word] Movie" parodies were being made?

This movie may be bad and shocking, but there's no reason to ban it, really.

 

[Exterminas]

No because if you actually read the definition you would have seen that "Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance" and thus your suggestions do not fit under the banner of art.

If you had any understanding of this subject you would know that there is no such thing as "the definition", when it comes for art. What you posted was a definition.

For about fourthousand years there have been a lot of art-definitions and none of them was able to cover the object completely. That is the reason why we are even having this discussion, for if we just could look "art" up on wikipedia it would be damn easy to say if HC2 would fall within that range.

Your definition for example has two major problems:

1. deliberately
With that the whole branch of modern painting seizes to be art, since it has a highly randomized part. Yet that stuff hangs inside art galleries.

It also makes it madatory for the artist to have the intention of creating a piece of art. Which is not the chase all the time. Franz Kafka for example wrote for himself and never intended for most of his writings to see public. Yet here we are, seeing it as art.

2. meaningful way / significance
Really?
What is meaning? What is meaningful? Is the Mona Lisa meaningful?
Yes?
What does it mean then?
That chicks can look like dudes?
That Da Vinci was gay?

If you include the necesserity of meaning into your definition of art, you create the need to find meaning in a work, even though there is none and there has to be none. The whole Art-Branch of Dada defines it's artsyness by the fact that it has no meaning.

In fact the self-purpose, the utter uselessness of most art pieces is another popular part in art-definitions, which your version completely ignores.

 

[Wilko316]

After having thought more about what he's written, he seems to be making a decent point, but not a good enough point to be taken all that seriously, he's claiming that it shouldn't be banned based on the fact that it's fictional but just because it isn't real doesn't mean it won't affect people (see Christianity, the messages and morals are good but you see what I'm getting at, people just blow stories out of proportion).

The point is that subjectively people may like it, people may not, objectively it doesn't represent anything or stand for anything more than glorifying gorey sexual violence and if something exists simply for the sake of existence then it isn't really art.

Ofcourse this was all an opinion, feel free to disagree and point me out if you think I'm stupid or whatever, also apologies for bringing in my religious views where they weren't needed, I just needed a reference point.

 

[DAPLR]

A movie guy saying a movie is art?
Thats as crazy as a gamer saying a game is art -_-

How about some perspective? So many people think what I just said is very right, and you people aren't helping

 

[Nickolai77]

Is HC2 art? Well most things are considered art these days, and anyway, how can i judge if i can't see it?

As a principle i oppose censorship, so i'm pissed that they banned it in my country- the state doesn't have a right to tell mature adults what they can and can not see, so long as the act of seeing does not cause harm.

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.

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.
I can't see why anyone would want to censor this, glorifying sexual violence in a subversive manner is pretty fucking artsy.

If you are trying to put me off watching the film then your doing a good job of it that's for sure.

If you are arguing that it should be censored, well, no matter how sick or deprived a film may be, so long as it did not unconsentially harm anyone in making it then i should be legal.

If you're arguing that it isn't art...well, frankly i am not sure if it is art or not because i don't know what art is.

 

[Serving UpSmiles]

What people need to realize that there is good art and bad art. Not every painting from the renaissance was a masterpiece, I'm guessing the awful ones were destroyed, but they were still art. Likewise all games are art, just a lot of them are bad art. Graffiti is art, but most of it is shitty and not pleasing to look at. Human Centipede 2 is art, its just probably going to be really bad art.

I hate it when people say that every artpeice is good, if you make a TV show thats not entertaining or paint a picture with horrible form, then its bad art.

 

[thetruefallen]

I saw the first one, it was pretty messed up. Kinda wishing i couldn't remember it in as much detail as i do. If the second one ever get released i think i might give it a skip.

 

[Pearwood]

It's art. It serves as a perfect reminder that just because something is art it doesn't mean it has value, isn't shit or should exist. Same way the Twilight novels are art.

 

[manic_depressive13]

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

What?

No it doesn't. I could start a thread about bricks. Does that make bricks art?

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.

Because both of those things are creative endeavors the same as film?

Way to miss the point. I didn't think it could be done so well.

I'm sorry, but taking a crap is a creative endeavour now? Ridiculous as that is, I'm definitely using that line in the future.

"I'll be right back, I'm going on a creative endeavour."

 

[BoredDragon]

He says his movie is horror? I've said it about Dead Space and I'll say it about this movie:

gore or something that's grotesque != horror

Things like this are sometimes used in horror, but that's not what its supposed to be about. As an example I will put up my favorite movie of all time Albert Hitchcock's Psycho[\u]. The movie creates an atmosphere so tense you can carve it with a knife. You are scared not because of seeing something disgusting, but because of things like camera angles and a perfectly executed musical score making you wonder and fear for the fate of the character.

This movie, from what I've read of the plot, has no thought put into it and just seems like it wants to use grotesque visuals and pass them off as horror. That, quite frankly, just seems like its trying to insult the intelligence of its target audience. It's basically saying, "You don't need a deeply developed atmosphere or developed characters to care about. All you need is 3 people eating each other's shit, now give us you money."

I'm a nerd of the gamer variety, so I don't claim movies as my domain. However, if you disagree with me, please explain to me your interpretation.

 

[Matt-the-twat]

It's a cash cow, he didn't make it for the art, who is he kidding. Like most sequels it's there to be sold, the first one did well, let's just rehash it and sell it again. Only describing it as art as a desperate way to get publicity and because he's pissed he may have lost a large part of his audience. I'm not saying it isn't art, but I don't think that's why he's defending it as art to rigorously.

 

[BoredDragon]

I'm sorry, but taking a crap is a creative endeavour now? Ridiculous as that is, I'm definitely using that line in the future.

"I'll be right back, I'm going on a creative endeavour."

you're off to help make the next Uwe Boll movie?

 

[Shio]

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

What?

No it doesn't. I could start a thread about bricks. Does that make bricks art?

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.

Because both of those things are creative endeavors the same as film?

Way to miss the point. I didn't think it could be done so well.

I'm sorry, but taking a crap is a creative endeavour now? Ridiculous as that is, I'm definitely using that line in the future.

"I'll be right back, I'm going on a creative endeavour."

Yeeeaaahhh... You didn't understand the post. I sardonically said it wasn't an artistic endeavor.

Nice try?

He says his movie is horror? I've said it about Dead Space and I'll say it about this movie:

gore or something that's grotesque != horror

Things like this are sometimes used in horror, but that's not what its supposed to be about. As an example I will put up my favorite movie of all time Albert Hitchcock's Psycho[\u]. The movie creates an atmosphere so tense you can carve it with a knife. You are scared not because of seeing something disgusting, but because of things like camera angles and a perfectly executed musical score making you wonder and fear for the fate of the character.

This movie, from what I've read of the plot, has no thought put into it and just seems like it wants to use grotesque visuals and pass them off as horror. That, quite frankly, just seems like its trying to insult the intelligence of its target audience. It's basically saying, "You don't need a deeply developed atmosphere or developed characters to care about. All you need is 3 people eating each other's shit, now give us you money."

I'm a nerd of the gamer variety, so I don't claim movies as my domain. However, if you disagree with me, please explain to me your interpretation.

Well, horror as a genre is just misguiding. See, horror itself is normally used to denote fear and repulsion from seeing something. Terror is the fear and apprehension leading up to the horror.

 

[Iron Mal]

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

I know you probably already faced responses criticsing this point but all the same I just have to point out how something's mere existance doesn't automatically qualify it as art.

Us talking about it proves that it exists, not that it in fact has any artistic merit or other redeeming qualities.

I really have no love for this recent opinion that's come about that 'everything is art' because 'who defines art?'. We all defeine what art is for ourselves, so it's just as valid for me to say that something like this isn't art based on it's lack of any apparant motivation or authorial intent besides 'one-upping the Saw movies' as it is for you to say it is art because...everything is art, there is no solid qualification for what art is so therefore everything can be art.

 

[FamoFunk]

The first Human Centipede had me in stitches it was so funny.

I'll watch this one, and you know, if I don't like what happening in the film, I'll turn it off rather than sit through it then complain later.

 

[manic_depressive13]

snip

You're right. I see now that I misunderstood your extremely ambiguous post, the reason being that I would have expected you to concede defeat when those other posters proved you wrong, rather than arrogantly claiming they "missed the point." You made an extremely broad and false statement implying that if people talk about something, it qualifies as art. You never said "the fact that this is a creative endeavour that has gotten us to talk about it proves it is art." How many people have quoted you to contradict you so far? Maybe you should take that as a hint to write more clearly.