Is this art?

[Virgil]

I'll put this in the general lit forum because I don't think this is quite chat. But a photo artist has taken portraits of people just prior to their deat and just after and juxtaposed them. Read here and click site to see some of the photos:

Art that faces up to death
By DAVID LOWE

A HEART-STOPPING new exhibition gives visitors the chance to literally stare death in the face.

Life Before Death is a collection of images by Walter Schels, who photographed each of his terminally ill subjects shortly before and after they’d passed away. [SNIP]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...cle1060968.ece

I don't know what to think about this. It has a shock value, and shock value to me does not lend itself to good art, but it does capture a certain pathos. On one hand it's like a afternoon TV Oprah-esk expression and on the other hand the photos hav a quality to them. What are people's thoughts? Help me make up my mind whether I should think this good art or pop crap.

[vheissu]

Well, it's definitely interesting...but I don't know if I would call it art. I have a different perception of what I consider art and this just isn't it. It's not rubbish, just slightly unnerving.

I'm a bit confused: why is there a whole year in between the two photographs (alive and then deceased)?

Lately, I've been seeing different portrayals of art which I don't particularly agree on.
One example is the dog that was supposedly left to die from starvation as an exhibition. I don't know to what extent this is true, because I've found a few accounts which said that the dog was fed and left unleashed, except in the 3 hour long exhibition. Even so, the meaning of it completely eludes me and I disagree with the whole thing.

Second example, and for this I cannot remember who the artist was or where this exhibition was (though I want to say UK), since I read it a couple of years ago. Anyway, the artist had collected hundreds of glass/plastic balls of all colours and sizes and placed them in a room. Gave a nice kick to them, the balls just went everywhere and he won some fancy prize worth thousands.
And the only thing that came to mind was: I could do that!

To each their own I guess....but I have to wonder sometimes...

[Virgil]

vheissu, I was able to add the poll. So if you could vote it would be nice.

I heard about the starving dog exhibit and it infuriated me. Was that for real?

[Sweets America]

Interesting thread. For my part, the only answer I can give is that no one can say if this is art or not, I'm not sure this can ever be judged objectively. Does art exist without a viewer? It can be art for someone and crap for someone else, but is it anything in itself? That reminds me of what I say about "no one can judge if this or that is good poetry because it depends on everyone", but I don't know, there might be rules to define what is art? But I dislike the idea because it takes away the freedom of art.

I find the images intersting, the before and the after, and death in between. That reminds me of a woman who had cancer and lost her hair and chose to paint a lot of things on her head to make art out of the illness, it was very intelligent.

Also, what do you think of Gunther Von Hagens? Do you know the guy? He invented 'plastination', which consists of keeping dead bodies and he made art out of it. If you google his name, you can see pics. This was very controversial because some people accused him of stealing dead bodies to turn them into artworks.

[vheissu]

I'm sure you've seen all the news articles describing in excrutiating detail how that poor dog was left to die in front of thousands of visitors. And how none of them even dared to free it.
It's definitely infuriating, what museum would actually let an artist do that?
But, apparently, it might have all been a hoax:


http://thepetextraordinarium.blogspo...d-as-hoax.html

This is from a blog, but there are others who have reported it. And it's interesting to see that yes, it has indeed made a lot of people angry, but somehow very few people actually questioned the validity of it and immediately jumped to the conclusion that was presented to them.

I voted the second option, though I'm not sure I would use the term art.

[Sweets America]

I had not heard about this dog thing, yes this is indeed scary if that is true. Art should not be an excuse for doing things like that.

[Virgil]

Thanks Vheissu. I thought I did see after that it was a hoax.

Sweets I've never heard of that fellow. I'll look him up.

[Sweets America]

Sweets I've never heard of that fellow. I'll look him up.

Ok. He plastinated people but also fetuses and such. It can be shocking but I somehow find those images fascinating. The guy was strange, if I remember well he always wore a hat and hid microphones in it to record all his conversations with people, he was kind of suspiscious. I also remember there was a 'giant' guy who died and Von Hagens tried all he could to obtain his body cause he wanted to plastinate it.

[vheissu]

Also, what do you think of Gunther Von Hagens? Do you know the guy? He invented 'plastination', which consists of keeping dead bodies and he made art out of it. If you google his name, you can see pics. This was very controversial because some people accused him of stealing dead bodies to turn them into artworks.

I wanted to go and see the his exhibition but was very expensive and at the time I was rather broke. Still, I don't see much difference between using bodies for medicine and allowing the general public (since we don't all go to med school), who are interested and curious?
If you don't want to see it, then don't.

Yet again, people immediately thought he actually stole the bodies for his own work. Which is rather ridicoulous: can you imagine the guy going from one morgue to the next, stealing bodies? Did anyone think that at least some of them might have families that had prepared a funeral and would find it just a bit odd that the body had gone missing?

[Sweets America]

I wanted to go and see the his exhibition but was very expensive and at the time I was rather broke. Still, I don't see much difference between using bodies for medicine and allowing the general public (since we don't all go to med school), who are interested and curious?
If you don't want to see it, then don't.

Yet again, people immediately thought he actually stole the bodies for his own work. Which is rather ridicoulous: can you imagine the guy going from one morgue to the next, stealing bodies? Did anyone think that at least some of them might have families that had prepared a funeral and would find it just a bit odd that the body had gone missing?

Huh, you are talking as if I were against Von Hagens, but I am not. I said I found it fascinating and if I could have gone to see the exposition, I would have done so. I think most of the bodies he had were those of people who wanted him to plastinate them so that they would be 'eternal' in this way. But I was only mentionning the questions that had been raised about his stealing bodies, I don't know if that's true or not, but I had seen a very interesting documentary about him, that was very exciting. So I'm merely reporting the questions they raised. I think they said he paid poor people to have the bodies of their dead family members.

[vheissu]

Huh, you are talking as if I were against Von Hagens, but I am not. I said I found it fascinating and if I could have gone to see the exposition, I would have done so. I think most of the bodies he had were those of people who wanted him to plastinate them so that they would be 'eternal' in this way. But I was only mentionning the questions that had been raised about his stealing bodies, I don't know if that's true or not, but I had seen a very interesting documentary about him, that was very exciting. So I'm merely reporting the questions they raised. I think they said he paid poor people to have the bodies of their dead family members.

No, no!! I didn't mean you! Just that you'd mentioned that it was a controversial exhibition for quite a few people and had accused him of stealing bodies.

Though I want to see one his exhibitions, I might decline to watch an actual live autopsy. He's done it once or twice and I think it was on TV as well. Maybe I could watch it on TV....but actually be there...hmmm...

From Wiki:

In 2002 von Hagens performed the first public autopsy in the UK for 170 years, to a sell-out audience of 500 people in a London theatre. Prior to performing the autopsy, von Hagens had received a letter from Her Majesty's Inspector of Anatomy, the British government official responsible for regulating the educational use of cadavers. The letter warned von Hagens that performing a public autopsy would be a criminal act under section 11 of the Anatomy Act 1984.

[Metanoia]

The definition of art these days is so broad. There is alot of so called "art work" out there that I just don't see as art. For example, a metal box, to me, is just A METAL BOX. I don't see anything deeply profound about it. Call me old fashioned or unimagintive, I just don't consider alot of the new ideas of "art" to be art at all. I think art should be creative and reflect what the artist was feeling or thinking.

Taking pics of dying and dead people I don't really see as art, although it may produce a emotional affect on people. Watching people get killed on the six o' clock news produces an emotional affect on most people, but that doesn't make it art, it makes it a fact of life. I think we all have a fasination with death, because we don't really understand it, and we don't know what happens after we shut our eyes for the last time.

I was just reading about an "artist" in some other country, that went out and found a stray dog, tied him up inside a art exhibit, and starved him to death. This dog was his "art", people actually came to see this poor animal as it was dying. Of course it created an emotional impact on those that saw it, but that certainly doesn't make it art, it makes it a depreved act of a heartless individual.

[papayahed]

I think I'm voting interesting art, neither great or crap. To me it's just photos, not even that shocking really.

[Sweets America]

Ok Vheissu, I understand.

Metanoia, I see what you mean, but I guess this is why I say that art really is seen differently by different people. You say:

I think art should be creative and reflect what the artist was feeling or thinking.

but the thing is, what the artist does is not always accessible to everyone because it might depend on everyone's sensibility. Maybe you don't see what the artist was feeling or thinking while someone else will perfectly see, this is the interesting thing.

[Virgil]

Interesting thread. For my part, the only answer I can give is that no one can say if this is art or not, I'm not sure this can ever be judged objectively. Does art exist without a viewer? It can be art for someone and crap for someone else, but is it anything in itself? That reminds me of what I say about "no one can judge if this or that is good poetry because it depends on everyone", but I don't know, there might be rules to define what is art? But I dislike the idea because it takes away the freedom of art.

I find the images intersting, the before and the after, and death in between. That reminds me of a woman who had cancer and lost her hair and chose to paint a lot of things on her head to make art out of the illness, it was very intelligent.

Also, what do you think of Gunther Von Hagens? Do you know the guy? He invented 'plastination', which consists of keeping dead bodies and he made art out of it. If you google his name, you can see pics. This was very controversial because some people accused him of stealing dead bodies to turn them into artworks.

I looked him up. Novel, but what's the point? It's not shock but I don't see what's so intersting either. I find these photos more interesting.