Poll: Bloodstained Art

[AceAngel]

That's not art, that's BS. They only call it art to get away with a nice label instead of calling it what it's supposed to be called "Crap".

With reminds me, there are "artist" out there which make pictures out of human feces. There was an exhibition in Brazil not to long ago when I went there, and my brother asked me if I wanted to go. Being somewhat paranoid, I told him, and explained how in a show of CSI, people got sick because of this.

He naturally called me chicken, and next day, on the local news, several people were hospitalized (at least that what he told me) and that most of them were workers there, and the painting got pulled out.

Just shows what my mother always said, never put an E-Col-I on your Paint-Ings-Sigh.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Seriously?

First pic, she's still good looking. The rest are comical.

From all your complaining, I thought it was something bad.

There's much much worse, but I'd frankly rather not look it up.

If your not going to link it, I'm just going to assume you're being ridiculous.

Unless it's sexual, in which case I have to take your word for it, forum rules and all.

 

[Rayne870]

I can go as far as the fake blood, once it gets into the gouging stuff it's a bit of a turnoff but since I know it is fake it has little effect on me.

What I would worry about is a case of the person becoming overly fascinated with this sort of thing that they start cutting into themselves or something. It is very unlikely but I have heard of cases where people have essentially wanted to become handicapped so they cut off a leg or something to achieve that goal.

As long as the person is "psychologically healthy" I see no problem in them indulging in these arts and even going so far as to pursue work in special effects or something.

 

[lacktheknack]

Seriously?

First pic, she's still good looking. The rest are comical.

From all your complaining, I thought it was something bad.

There's much much worse, but I'd frankly rather not look it up.

If your not going to link it, I'm just going to assume you're being ridiculous.

Unless it's sexual, in which case I have to take your word for it, forum rules and all.

Well, that can be accurate... but maybe I just get sick upon seeing pus dribbling out of a torn up eye. ON MY FACEBOOK WALL.

 

[Eldarion]

That's not art, that's BS. They only call it art to get away with a nice label instead of calling it what it's supposed to be called "Crap".

Art is subjective to the individual. Arbitrarily deciding that something isn't art because you don't understand it just shows your ignorance.

 

[Unesh52]

Because you guys asked...

Thanks. And don't worry, I don't think the mods will be to irked about it.

The eye thing was pretty glib, but even that last thing has a surreal, cynical quality about it. I mean, it's still ugly and I don't like it, but I think it's a bit silly to dismiss things like this out of hand just because you don't relate to the subjects or the theme. And aren't you hearing this second hand from your mom? How do you know the photos were vulgar?

 

[Unesh52]

...but maybe I just get sick upon seeing pus dribbling out of a torn up eye. ON MY FACEBOOK WALL.

Hmmm... now that is actually a different story. What is the appropriate context for this sort of display? I think it's safe to assume that certain things should not be posted on FB, and that what you're describing qualifies. That point I give you.

 

[lacktheknack]

Because you guys asked...

Thanks. And don't worry, I don't think the mods will be to irked about it.

The eye thing was pretty glib, but even that last thing has a surreal, cynical quality about it. I mean, it's still ugly and I don't like it, but I think it's a bit silly to dismiss things like this out of hand just because you don't relate to the subjects or the theme. And aren't you hearing this second hand from your mom? How do you know the photos were vulgar?

The photos Mom saw weren't "vulgar", per se, just gross. I saw some borderline-pornographic ones on that website I mentioned, though. And no, I will not link it, because A. that would get him traffic, and I personally do not want him to have it, and B. I'm on probation already, thanks.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Art isnt about beauty, but hte emotion it inspires in the person viewing it.

As proved by things like <url=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ROMAEyxg8x0/TVnStLlQY_I/AAAAAAAAB0I/YtLJwxrDZdM/s1600/goya-saturn-devouring-his-children-11.jpg>Saturn Devouring his Children by Goya.

Point being, it doesnt matter if you dont like it. There's ton of art tons of people dont like, but that doesnt make not art.

 

[x-machina]

It's art, I really can't see why anyone with have a problem with it. I mean I thought people on a website dedicated to VIDEOGAMES, would understand art could take any shape or form. Not dismiss it on a simple guteral re-action.

Personally, I really dont feel strongly about one way or the other. I don't find it attractive, but I am certainly not "horrified".

 

[lacktheknack]

Art isnt about beauty, but hte emotion it inspires in the person viewing it.

As proved by things like <url=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ROMAEyxg8x0/TVnStLlQY_I/AAAAAAAAB0I/YtLJwxrDZdM/s1600/goya-saturn-devouring-his-children-11.jpg>Saturn Devouring his Children by Goya.

Point being, it doesnt matter if you dont like it. There's ton of art tons of people dont like, but that doesnt make not art.

I never said it wasn't. The title is "Bloodstained Art", not "Bloodstained Not-Art".

My question is, do people actually find this stuff attractive (morbidly or otherwise) to look at?

Most don't, apparently, but I was kind of hoping that no one would choose the "Fetish" option.

 

[lacktheknack]

It's art I really can see why anyone with have a problem with it. I mean I thought people on a website dedicated to VIDEOGAMES, would understand art could take any shape or form. Not dismiss it on a simple guteral re-action.

I never dismissed it. Reread the poll's question.

By the way, this site has a growing "games are not art" movement, so many would disagree with you.

 

[Blair Bennett]

I don't know about the website, but the girl at the family reunion sure seemed to think her models looked better afterward...

Hmm...I don't know, I feel like I might just be being difficult here, but I still have some difficulty believing she meant this in a purely aesthetic sense.

And even if she did, the fact of the matter is that it evoked a response, which is really what people typically classify as art; something that invites an emotional response.

I don't know, I'd really have to see the rest of the set to be able to say anything seriously, but seeing as I have no idea where to start looking and that you are currently on probation, I don't see there being any way either of us can comfortably solve that problem.

I stand by my previous statement that there is most likely additional reasoning for her creation of these images, however, in the event that there wasn't, which is not impossible, I'm far more likely to side with you, at least in regards to the more gratuitous of these photos.

I will say right here and right now, however, that simply because these images and their content is not "beautiful" (in whatever sense of the word) to you personally, does not mean that it is not art. Both historically and in the anecdotal, art has proven itself to be the complete opposite on many occasions. Obviously there are exceptions, and these exceptions are many. However, I consider it very close minded to outright say that something isn't art simply because one individual cannot find merit in it or cannot relate to it. Please note that this statement isn't directed at anyone in particular, but is a general statement.

Additionally, you've mentioned the fact that people can find these things morbidly attractive. This is sort of what I was referring to previously. A fascination with gore and such is by no means uncommon. To refer to it as beautiful or attractive could refer to this fascination rather than any sort of physical attraction, and even then, it could refer to precisely that, as was exemplified by someone (I'm sorry, I can't remember who) stating "blood on girls is sexy" or some other thing that I have done a heinous job of paraphrasing. This is also true. Blood is, in a sense primal, and so is, by extension, other forms of gore. They invoke thoughts and feelings that would not otherwise be experienced.

In a way, my entire point can be summarized by the following statement: These images can be beautiful in the same way watching a star die and then implode can be beautiful. Both thematically highlight destruction or decay, and both can be viewed subjectively as "attractive", though not necessarily in the most common sense of the word.

 

[Rayne870]

victory I think I found the website!

 

[emeraldrafael]

With reminds me, there are "artist" out there which make pictures out of human feces.

Gee thats funny, There was an British man born in Africa who made the Virgin Mary out of paint and elephant dung, and its called art.
I present <url=http://blog.shoemetro.com/images/virgin-mary.jpg>Holy Virgin Mary by Christopher Ofili

 

[theravensclaw]

i honestly thought you meant pictures that the artist smeared with real blood and pus. this stuff is tame. its just photoshop and sfx makeup. its art! I'd love to see your reaction to menstrual blood art, you'd probably explode in horror

 

[lacktheknack]

victory I think I found the website!

Excuse me while I don't cheer.

 

[AceAngel]

That's not art, that's BS. They only call it art to get away with a nice label instead of calling it what it's supposed to be called "Crap".

Art is subjective to the individual. Arbitrarily deciding that something isn't art because you don't understand it just shows your ignorance.

Not really...sigh, listen, we can argue about ignorance what should be art and not, but the issues still remains that many of these people do this stuff for shock value, hipsters-like message and/or inorder to get a name withing a cult like status.

I'm not against something that is trying to be new, but why is that artwork for games, which took a lead industry artist about 40 hours to create easily dismissed and forgotten as opposed to a black and white picture, taken in a small room with window, of a girl with blues eyes and has blood all over her neck, which doesn't respresent anything, and personally speaking, doesn't have any value of effort in it.

One is for eye candy and concept (the game artwork) and the latter is for shock value or a fetish. Until 'controversial' art stops trying to pull our strings and be a niche setting while trying to get as much audience hog as possible, then I'll keep on calling art of such nature crap.

Sorry if you don't agree with me, that is my opinion, and even if I'm being ignorant you cannot deny that at best those types of arts are a fetish. I mean really, making art with your feces? That's fine if you're making a political statement when you were a political prisoner in Latin America, but making canvas artwork out of it? Really?

 

[emeraldrafael]

Snip

Who are you to judge what people like? Or any of us? I dont find that attractive personally, but there's a chan board where people would flip their crap. The people in the pciture arent ugly, and some of them arent even with the added blood. Would you tell a soldier fighting for his country after he got his arm blown off and turned into a bloody stump that he's ugly?

 

[Rayne870]

i honestly thought you meant pictures that the artist smeared with real blood and pus. this stuff is tame. its just photoshop and sfx makeup. its art! I'd love to see your reaction to menstrual blood art, you'd probably explode in horror

lol I just stumbled on some of that stuff...interesting to say the least, not my cup of tea but w/e and all that.

victory I think I found the website!

Excuse me while I don't cheer.

I took it as you issuing a challenge. I won't be posting it in the forum though.