Peiro Manzoni shit in 90 cans and it was art...EXPENSIVE art too!manic_depressive13 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_shit
Human Centipede 2 director defends movie as art
- Thread starter MetaKnight19
- Start date
Recommended Videos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_shit
Im usually the first to back up the don't censor art argument. This is not art. While I don't think the movie should be banned, the art argument is not the right way to go here
I know Tom I did some audio optimizing for the dutch Big Brother serie with him a few years back and kept in touch. He's not actually interested into it being art or not he's in it for 'teh lulz' he enjoyed making the movie and is now just mad about them flagging his movie 'inappropriate' and banning it. He's the 'why the bloody hell even fucking care' kinda guy.
Yes, he's a natural born pervert, not even gonna lie about that.
Yes, he's a natural born pervert, not even gonna lie about that.
So If I filmed a child getting nailed to a cross and put a few filters and slap a story about how his mum watched "The Passion" and thought it was a good idea that would deem it art. You seem a bit tunnel visioned to look at the bigger picture the film was made for pure shock factor there is no subtle agenda or hidden message about the human condition its just a pointless film with its director trying to justify its existancing and coming up with little more than a tantrum.Shio said:
Was it intended to be art initially? No. Considering its nature, it can never be considered art as it is merely about shocking people. If this was an artistic statement from the get-go, maybe.
This film seems slightly too absurd to be genuinely scary. The thing that was unnerving about the first one was like the whole pseudo science aspect. This one seems way too OTT, it's just like, "Yeah, and then like, he rapes them, and then they fuckin' ... EXPLODE. Yeah, we're edgy motherfuckers". But, anyway, nothing should be censored. Nothing whatsoever.
Fiction has to make MORE sense than reality. It also doesn't dwell on reality - as his film does.MetaKnight19 said:
Horrific is one thing. Deliberately targetting people's limits (without trying to expand them) is sensationalism.
Without Human Centipede, Human Centipede 2 has no meaning. Therefore it's simply a self-referential vanity project passing itself off as art, which also fails because it's a directed medium, which makes it propeganda - and shite at that.
Good thing that's never happened before.Internet Kraken said:
And it's GAMES that are ruining kid's minds?
It's torture porn for depraved degenerates. Not art. To borrow from the Escapist news article on this whole thing, I'm judging you if the plot of this movie sounds like something you will enjoy.
Go ahead and calm me a film Nazi, I don't care. Heil Censor!
Go ahead and calm me a film Nazi, I don't care. Heil Censor!
I've just had another thought about this topic, no-one can truly define art, defining art takes out all of the qualities about art that make it art. Art can be anything, so defining it is pointless.
What's even more pointless is defending this film as 'art', if you try to defend a film, video game or whatever as 'art' then you're defining art. Objectifying things as art takes the artistic aesthetics out of art in general and Tom Six making something based around gore and sexual violence and calling it 'art' is just bullshitting his way into trying to be more acceptable.
I think the only exceptions in labelling with art is when someone says "that's very artistic" or maybe "this is a great piece of art" or trying to do something to make whatever it is seem more artistic, because people know the qualities and characteristics of art, without necessarily difining it.
tl;dr: Art is entirely subjective, so objectifying it is pointless.
Feel free to disagree.
What's even more pointless is defending this film as 'art', if you try to defend a film, video game or whatever as 'art' then you're defining art. Objectifying things as art takes the artistic aesthetics out of art in general and Tom Six making something based around gore and sexual violence and calling it 'art' is just bullshitting his way into trying to be more acceptable.
I think the only exceptions in labelling with art is when someone says "that's very artistic" or maybe "this is a great piece of art" or trying to do something to make whatever it is seem more artistic, because people know the qualities and characteristics of art, without necessarily difining it.
tl;dr: Art is entirely subjective, so objectifying it is pointless.
Feel free to disagree.
Art? what i have seen in that movie wasnt art in any way.
When i watched matrix i saw art in it because it holds very close paralells and nods to platons cave philosophy
when i watched FF advent children i saw art in it because of the visuals merely based on an universe that was nothing but prerendered BGs and low polygon characters.
in silent hill i saw art because of the symbolism each entity in the movie possesses
in this movie i only saw a twisted obese man making his sickening fantasy reality without any closer meaning(worst of all in black and white,a filter which only works well in movies like sin city)
When i watched matrix i saw art in it because it holds very close paralells and nods to platons cave philosophy
when i watched FF advent children i saw art in it because of the visuals merely based on an universe that was nothing but prerendered BGs and low polygon characters.
in silent hill i saw art because of the symbolism each entity in the movie possesses
in this movie i only saw a twisted obese man making his sickening fantasy reality without any closer meaning(worst of all in black and white,a filter which only works well in movies like sin city)