i heard of one artist from China that buys dead babies from hospitals, fries them on a pan and eats them for a lunch. all this process he videotapes and shows as a video art in China.
r we better off producing art that is in line with western culture rules, fully commercialized, derivative and no longer interesting to anyone ?
2006-07-06 08:18:54 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Performing Arts
If this is true then he is beyond sick and should be put away for good. But whoever allows a hospital to sell bodies is really sick and needs leadership that can make better decisions. If people want to see this so called art then they are allowing darkness to enter and control their lives. This is not art. Artistic expression is an emotion that is put on paper as a song, painting,story, or a statue, a movie, etc. I believe that expression should be allowed as long as it is a true emotion and not a sickness/deviation that is supported by the medical and legal laws of the country it is in. If it is against other countries laws then it should not be sold or seen there. We have to protect the integrity of our country and ourselves or our future will be a horrible existence that our children will never be secure in.
2006-07-06 08:35:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear. That Dead Baby story is so not true.
but in response to:
"r we better off producing art that is in line with western culture rules, fully commercialized, derivative and no longer interesting to anyone ? "
Who makes these rules that you're implying exist. Art is what it is. If you live in a Western culture society and you pursue artistic endeavors then you will be subject to the conditions and circumstances that your particular corner of the society imposes on your work.
An artist always has the option of conforming to the pressures of society or to deviate. His or her method of expression is deemed art not because it's the "most/best" but because it raises a perception in the observer.
Whether that perception is "positive" or "negative" is beside the point, that a perception is aroused, is enough to make the expression qualify as art.
Good art, simply stands the test of time. If one can view/observe/listen to, an artist's expression created hundreds of years ago and perceive a bit about the artist and his or her particular circumstances and in some way relate that expression to his own present life, then what is being observed has artistic value.
When you ask are we better off "producing art that is in line with western culture rules", then imply that those rules are "fully commercialized, derivative and no longer interesting to anyone" you're answering you own question.
Art is like air, no one really gives it much thought until you don't have any.
What you described "fully commercialized, derivative and no longer interesting to anyone" isn't art per se, it's product.
2006-07-06 13:42:55 · answer #2 · answered by Dahs 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, commercial art is far more interesting than the dead-baby game, because it exists in a dynamic and ever-changing relationship with a real but fickle audience. The frying and eating of babies is all concept and no execution; it's not actually art at all, but a parody of the notion of art; in other words, it's postmodern, and thus profoundly limited.
2006-07-06 12:08:03 · answer #3 · answered by Keither 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is accepted as artistic expression is local culture. I am sure that many people around the globe would find this to be offensive! Just goes to show you how low the depravity of the human race has achieved.If you want to create something beautiful, you are only limited by your imagination!
2006-07-06 08:24:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ok that was really gross..Now I have an image trapped in the folds of my subconscious..brrrrrr. I guess you have to know the definition of 'art'..Art is any presentation which causes one or more of the human emotions to trigger. Most of us hope that art will trigger euphoria or pleasue but this isn't always so. Art can trigger sorrow, hate, anger, revulsion and disgust.. So my advice is to always do some research prior to visiting an exhibit. You might end up throwing up on your date. Enjoy
2006-07-06 08:29:58 · answer #5 · answered by imannemarie 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To answer the tag question: when it does not inhibit or repress another's expression. But, on a practical note, when it does not blatantly break the law. It is a year long course that you just asked right there though hehe. It would take a very long time to successfully answer this question.
2006-07-06 08:24:24 · answer #6 · answered by daiunus 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that's kind of weird, cooking babies. No, I think that when we express our souls through art we sometimes get carried away. Chinaman eatin' babies just seems like a Stephen King book character to me. yuck...But-i think the limit should be like attackin' other people's art and critcizing them in a public place. like a celebrity might say about someone else's shoes or something. we should all be nicer to eachother.
2006-07-06 10:26:26 · answer #7 · answered by VandyViolin09 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I find it hard to believe that eating babies is a form of art, let alone showing movies of it.
2006-07-06 08:25:32 · answer #8 · answered by Jen 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What else is reality TV but eating cooked babies.
2006-07-06 08:21:15 · answer #9 · answered by bairland 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont think that would be allowed in the geneva convention so I don't believe your story.
2006-07-06 08:22:34 · answer #10 · answered by wiseornotyoudecide 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋