Human Centipede 2 director defends movie as art

[Fetzenfisch]

its a movie, therefor an artistic expression. It may not be deep, nor appealing to many people. But making a movie is always an artistic process. So yes Human Centipede is art. Some Pictures and designs indeed have some gruesome but minimalistic fascination.as a movie its crap, boring and bad. BUt art doesnt need a storyline, visit a filmfestival, the artsier a movie gets the less interesting or storybased it gets for most people.

 

[awmperry]

Speaking of bricks as art, look up David Mach's "brick train". O'course, he did something rather more interesting with his bricks that turned it *into* art.

As for defecating on the pavement, I was a school trip to the US. As our coach trundled into New York, heading down Manhattan, those of us sitting on the right-hand side of the coach were treated to a view of a chap doing just that. An interesting welcome to NYC, perhaps, but not art.

As for that film, I shall simply deny it the dignity of discussing it.

 

[Griffolion]

Didn't one of the commentators like Moviebob say this: "Is it their right to make it? Absolutely. Is it their right to have it liked by us simply because it's "art"? Absolutely not."

 

[DefunctTheory]

Oh my.

Art requires intent of the creator. And, seriously, if this guy considers what he makes art...

Well, that makes it art. But it also makes him loony bin crazy.

And a horrible artist.

 

[KosherKrackers]

@KosherKrackers
I'm not sure how that definition undermines skill, talent, ability, or practice. Let's look at an analogous definition. "Food". If we're each making food, and we use the same ingredients, but I measure mine improperly and burn the crap out of my finished product, my finished product is still food. It's edible, it won't kill you, but it probably tastes terrible. If you, using years of practice and a flair for cooking, combine all of your ingredients in perfect proportions and heat it at the proper temperature for the proper time, you have also made food. But your food is better than mine. Similarly, a painting by Dali is going to be better than Human Centipede 2, but qualifying the latter as art doesn't ruin anything about the former. We have standards by which we can judge good and bad art, and while we can review and dispute those standards, at the end of the day we'll probably still want to have standards of some kind so that we can differentiate a Dali from a movie made by Tom Six in terms of which is better (which is not the same as which we like more).

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.

 

[Findlebob]

I fail to see how a movie where a guy jacks off with sandpaper is artistic. Maybe its just me.

 

[Speakercone]

Anytime a conversation like this takes place, I find that at least a few people will assert that the thing in question isn't art while failing to indicate by what standard they're making that assertion.

To my mind, for something to be art, it must be a crafted thing and the thing itself must provoke thought and/or emotional reactions from at least one person who is not the artist.

By this standard, HC2 is clearly art.
How good is it? Probably not very. It's a movie based on a gimmick.

 

[Kintarius]

The guy obviously has a fetish. It's not art, sorry. He's jerking off on the camera lens.

If this gets accepted as art it's an insult to real movies...and horror movies in particular.

 

[Ogargd]

From my brief skim I've only really seen arguments about what is art, and really isn't art something that is serial and changes your view on life? I know that's at least my own personal interpretation of art.

Anyone has music, movies, games and paintings that they've not only enjoyed but felt differently after enjoying them. While what is junk to one person may be art to another I disagree this is an art form, it's a movie that's a cheap rip off of the originals name, a cash grab and I doubt it would add anything to those whom interpreted the original as art. A clone isn't art (unless it's like a real clone cause that's cool) it's just a copy.

 

[Bandvagn]

A dude took a shit in a can and displayed it at the london museum of modern art. This was apparently high art, me being stupid as a shit in a can didnt get the point. If thats art then the human centipede 2 must be considered the modern movie Mona Lisa.

 

[Stick Antolini]

@Stick Antolini
Your definition says that they often have symbolic meaning. That means that there are cases in which the arrangement of objects may not have symbolic meaning (say, in the classic still life painting of a bowl of fruit), and it would still be art. Often is not always.

But the bowl was painted to show a bowl of fruit as art, its very circular logic as in art is art because it is art, if the artist states it is art, then it is art. I know it doesn't make any logical sense but to me that's the definition of art.

 

[Jim Tigwell]

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.

@Stick_Antolini
Then Human Centipede 2 satisfies your definition, and is art, because the creator declares it so.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

can someone please explain to me how a guy jacking off with sandpaper is art? really, i'd love to know.

 

[Phishfood]

I think a few people have nailed the key point here. The question is not "is this art?" the question is "why did such an awful film get a sequel?"

Staying OT I would say its a film. Its art. No-one said you had to LIKE art for it to be art. There were some really crappy "sculptures" on campus when I was at uni. They were art. One of them was recycled industrial power line insulators that made the place look like a junk yard but its still art.

 

[katsumoto03]

One could also argue that Rebecca Black's Friday is art. I had the same reaction when I experienced both of them.

 

[Jim Tigwell]

Sure, EMFCRACKSHOT. In this context, jacking off with sandpaper displays certain degrees of obsession and a self-destructive desire. The act of jacking off with sandpaper in a room alone? Probably not art, closer to some kind of ritual, like scourging. Depicting it on a screen, in a painting, or on a stage? Art by virtue of the medium, but it can also expose useful thematic elements. It's more extreme than other examples of self-mutilation used in literature or movies, but seems designed to get the point across that the character is brutally damaged psychologically while satisfying the director's goal of including visceral gore. It provokes a reaction, getting people to cringe, wince, and look away, and creating real disgust toward the character.

 

[Zac Smith]

Yes the film is art, every film is art. I just think that some forms of art should be discussed in more depth then others.

Is the cover of Lamb Of Gods 1st albumn Burn the Priest considered not art just because the guy who draw it made it graphic? And a little offensive (which at release it was)

Doesn't make him not an artist though, He has done all the album covers for LoG and had a portfolio of his work

Another with more of an anti-war message used for the album ashes of the wake

Another example I will give is street art

Many consider the first work by Banksy to have more artistic merit then the 2nd, just plain graffiti, but once are one in the same medium so technically both art, but do we need to discuss meanings behind the 2nd?

In short if other films can be considered art, why not Human Centipede?

 

[brunothepig]

By the whole technical definition of art I suppose he's probably right.
Honestly, I'm just laughing at all those people on the news thread about it being denied classification, saying the director wasn't trying to make "art" or anything, he just wanted to shock people.