Poll: Bloodstained Art

[jawakiller]

That wasn't that bad. (see, Fox News is right, haha) The first one was kind of hot. Now if those were REAL people... That would be rather disturbing. When I say real I mean actually wounded human beings (and I'm talking about emotionally wounded either). That would be a rather strange fetish and I really wouldn't want to be in a relationship with a woman who found me more attractive with my eye missing. But finding fascination in it isn't sick, just human. Now people who watch clips of suicides are disturbed to say the least. And the people who post it are smart mother fuckers. There's prolly some money in that industry.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I personally find that tasteless. I'd still be ok with it if they kept it to themselves, but that is not the case often.

Can't these people realize that other people find it offensive/disgusting/etc? If you like that kind of stuff, go nuts. But for Pete's sake don't go around shoving it into people's faces! Consider other peoples' opinions and tastes. And don't tell me "I didn't think they'd find it offensive or disgusting", because that's a flat-out lie. There's a reason we have censorship, ratings, etc. I am quite squeamish when it comes to extremely detailed graphic depictions of this stuff, and I would be outraged if someone forced me to see something like that, with their only defense being "It's art! Freedom of expression!"

/end rant (before I start sounding like a high-society grandmother)

I'm sort of in agreement, it's like when some newspaper gets hold of a dodgy joke told by a stand up.

If it's in a theatre, where people have paid to see him, then you don't get to complain, you know what he's going to be like. However, on TV, there's a certain level of 'playing to the public' that needs considering.

So, this or any kind of art, fine in galleries or on websites, but probably best not to display it just on a wall in the middle of town, where anyone who doesn't wish to view it will see it.