Poll: Bloodstained Art

[lacktheknack]

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?

Why so hostile? I don't remember typing any of that.

No, I wouldn't tell a soldier with his arm blown off that he was ugly. Because he wouldn't be. If he didn't wash the blood off, however, let it infect over several days, smeared himself with it then did a photo shoot, THEN YES, I WOULD FIND HIM ABSOLUTELY VILE.

And judge? Just because I was hoping no one would select "fetish" doesn't mean I'm judging them. I don't recall being hostile to anyone who says they find it attractive, I just strongly stated that I didn't.

 

[lacktheknack]

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

I saw it during the Google search. I didn't explode.

 

[SilentCom]

That first image of the girl with green eyes, she's pretty hot even with blood on her... I DON'T HAVE A BLOOD FETISH!
On a more serious note, the art looks sort of like vampire/zombie fetish. The blood and stuff don't really attract me but doesn't really repel me either curiously. Maybe I'm so used to seeing gore that it doesn't affect me that much. As to why people are attracted to it besides fetish, the people being photographed are posing in ways that seems rather bestial or untamed that create a sense of bizarre intrigue. Just my two cents.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Snip

You said who would find this attractive. Thats judgemental.

I dunno, I guess I'm just a believe in art of any kind, and the need for expression, but hten again, I'm conservatively liberal. Sorry, if I over reacted.

 

[Scabadus]

That first picture, the girl looks like she was involved in an accident in a paint factory. The blood doesn't look realistic at all. The second, well hey I think that looks cool but I'm wierd like that. The third picture, of the eye, I'm not even sure if I could class it as art; sure I can appreciate the skill of the makeup and some people would define art as the application of that creative skill, but there's something about the picture that makes me say 'no'. Maybe it's the background; it doesn't look like it focuses attention on the eye.

As for the clown, I will kill it with fire with extreme prejudice. As soon as I stop printing off pictures to scare friends and family with.

 

[Treefingers]

That first one of the chick is hot. Also:

 

[Arizona Kyle]

very nice

 

[lacktheknack]

Snip

You said who would find this attractive. Thats judgemental.

I dunno, I guess I'm just a believe in art of any kind, and the need for expression, but hten again, I'm conservatively liberal. Sorry, if I over reacted.

And the thing is, I wasn't trying to judge, I was genuinely curious. I was fresh out of freakout mode, though, so I overreacted as well.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

The first two are actually fairly appealing to look at... The third one isn't really that far off something you'd see in a movie, and the last one's so absurd it's almost comical. Or at least, that's my interpretation of them. To each their own and such things.

 

[Unesh52]

snip

In reference to the second edit in the OP, again, I can't really testify, not having seen the works myself, but even if I had I still couldn't speak for the people who like it. The point is that your reaction suggests that no one, or at least no one in their right mind, would have any good reason to look at gore. To enjoy it is baffling, and to seek it out is incomprehensible. But gore is a rather common theme in art both modern and archaic. I'm not trying to call you out, but the fact that you can't see the possible use, meaning, or appeal to someone having half their face ripped off -- in any context, whether the particular artist achieved his intended effect or not -- just makes you seem a little close minded. Put simply, gore can be an outward manifestation of internal destruction and corruption. Gore can be an exploration of the uncanny, a mutation of the world we normally perceive. Give it a chance. If it makes you sick, don't throw it out; embrace the feeling and you may discover something new about yourself.

Maybe. And this kind of goes back to the FB thing. Unprepared, this sort of thing can be disturbing. I'm not saying we should plaster pictures of eviscerations on billboards, just that it's silly to act like people who enjoy or value this sort of thing are just sick in the head.

 

[lacktheknack]

snip

In reference to the second edit in the OP, again, I can't really testify, not having seen the works myself, but even if I had I still couldn't speak for the people who like it. The point is that your reaction suggests that no one, or at least no one in their right mind, would have any good reason to look at gore. To enjoy it is baffling, and to seek it out is incomprehensible. But gore is a rather common theme in art both modern and archaic. I'm not trying to call you out, but the fact that you can't see the possible use, meaning, or appeal to someone having half their face ripped off -- in any context, whether the particular artist achieved his intended effect or not -- just makes you seem a little close minded. Put simply, gore can be an outward manifestation of internal destruction and corruption. Gore can be an exploration of the uncanny, a mutation of the world we normally perceive. Give it a chance. If it makes you sick, don't throw it out; embrace the feeling and you may discover something new about yourself.

Maybe. And this kind of goes back to the FB thing. Unprepared, this sort of thing can be disturbing. I'm not saying we should plaster pictures of eviscerations on billboards, just that it's silly to act like people who enjoy or value this sort of thing are just sick in the head.

You'll notice my reactions get more lenient as I calm down. I don't think they're sick in the head, but I'd certainly like to know WHY they like it.

And your explanation is a satisfactory one (not to me, but I'm sure it's correct for some). I'm sure there's other explanations as well.

But if it is meant to be PLEASANT to look at (and I have a sinking feeling that this is the case), then this raises all kinds of other, less fortunate questions.

 

[Unesh52]

You'll notice my reactions get more lenient as I calm down.

Yeah, I can see that now. I don't know, someone said something about censorship a little earlier and I misdirected one of my default positions about that on to you. And ironically I think I agreed with them.

Eh, whatever.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Artistic licence means people get to produce utter crap and be 'edgy' for it.

 

[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.

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?

I didn't say some artists don't do this for shock value. That does not change the fact that this is a valid method of artistic expression. You don't have to like it, but going so far as to call it "not art" is assuming that everyone looks at art the same way you do.

Say you hate it, fine. Say it makes you sick, fine. Personal preference is different for everyone. But saying, "its not art" just bothers me. Art is subjective. This might evoke a powerful emotional response in people that aren't immediately turned off the gore. If it doesn't for you that doesn't make it "not art"

As for why game art isn't respected as much, that has nothing to do with this. I'm not even gonna touch that. But your dismissive attitude is the same as those who dismiss game art to easily.

 

[SodaDew]

The only time I say it ok it Halloween time period.

 

[darkbshadow]

Hmm the first girl looks like she just spilt fruit punch on herself. The color and consistency isn't right for it to be blood... Oh and i totally get the blood splattered images i actually like it... I have a tad bit of a blood/vampire/demon fetish.

 

[Screamarie]

Depends upon the person. Some people see beauty in disfigurement and blood. Some people see death, pain, and horror as aesthetically pleasing. And while generally not my cup of tea, it can be absolutely gorgeous.

Have you ever seen Saw? It's creepy, gross, scary, and absolutely gory. But, whenever done right, it can be downright amazing in the artistry. If you haven't seen it there's a scene in Saw 3 where a woman has chains attached to her ribs under the skin and then a mechanism pulled her ribs from her body. Won't go into more detail than that because even that was rather gruesome. Anyways, after that you see her in an almost angelic pose, hands up, head up, and the mechanism looked as if she had wings. If that's not symbolism I don't know what is and while disturbing, you have to notice the pose and how it's a often used pose to represent angels and other ethereal beings.

It's all in what you take note of and how you, personally, percieve it. If you take a moment to look behind the blood, pus, or deformation you might see an interesting story. If you can't find it attractive...that's you...but that doesn't mean that other people can't truly find it attractive.

 

[Vibhor]

Oh art is pretty shitty thing.
Seriously, art can be anything that can be misinterpreted.
I remember someone telling me that in a museum an "art" was kept flipped upside down and nobody even noticed.

 

[instantbenz]

When it comes to creation of art, you only need one gimmick unless you're in a genre of a medium. I will guess that the medium is just photography and the genre is horror. From there expression comes into play, but honestly people take it too far for the gimmick.

Title: 'Trite Obscurity'
Artist: Derpy McNotreallyanartistpants
Location: New York
Medium: Human Feces, Urine and Egg Tempra on Canvas

Let me tell you, poo and piddle a forgettable piece of art make. What's worse is when the artist names their piece untitled. That is complete acknowledgement of incompetence of conception. Why do you make the art? What is it of? How was it created? Something within those questions will give you a decent title. /rant

This fad is likely due to a generation of computer users thinking they have 'shop chops. Playing is one thing but taking your shiny new DSLR and (crap ... new rant) then poorly pasting a horn coming out of your coworker's head isn't quite art. That is actually degrading art to crafts. Okay srsly /rant