Drawar Thread: Schlock art - Profound or Simply A Nuisance?

Schlock art - Profound or Simply A Nuisance?

loism — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:27:40

Thank you Nils, for the pointer.I've just added the symbol@

Schlock art - Profound or Simply A Nuisance?

Nils — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:19:10

Not a problem, Loism, you weren't harsh at all, just inquisitive.

One thing: I'm not quite sure I follow your formatting. Who said what, and what's your input... This reply left me rather confused.

If you're not familiar with the blockquote tag, perhaps you could just use, for instance:

@hthth

when you address someone

and

hthth said:

when you repeat what someone said?

Anyway, you said:

However, being only an intuitive, simple-minded lover of arts.

I wish we had more of those. There's no shame in it and honestly, that's how art is supposed to be appreciated as far as I'm concerned. Good on you.

Also, don't worry about your "childish" drawings. I think at one point or other, we all experimented with drawing ghastly scenes and used our red pencil for drawing blood and gore :-)

It's natural.

Glad you enjoy 9r and keep up the good work.

Schlock art - Profound or Simply A Nuisance?

loism — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 07:19:17

@hthth,

I came back to this Note just now to ask exactly that: if you consider morbid art nuisance when in canvas form, then what's your stance toward movies with violence in them? (This is not a hidden critique of anyone's opinion, I'm genuinely curious).

=I have the same feeling towards violent, grisly movies. Isn't it strange to view on-screen killing and fighting with admiration?

=My friends have been quite infatuated with Shock Art . They keep telling me the wisdom behind it. Out of curiosity I went online to search for the information. However, being only an intuitive, simple-minded lover of arts. I just couldn't bear with what I saw, as it contradicted my perception of beauty.

@Nil,

=I am more tolerant of horror art in the form of canvass. At least it does not dishonor the dead. Even though approval has been granted, it still defies the ethical code of nature.

@Alisdee,

//I mean, jeeze, if you think this stuff is bad you obviously haven't seen some of the medieval depictions of Jesus on the cross!//

=At the age of ten, I saw few of those depictions Though terrified by what I saw, I had a strong urge to try out the same approach. So, I reproduced five copies of one painting with my childish skill, each with a varied manifestation of suffering. Along the process an unexplained sense of pain, fear and misery was sweeping over me and I finally realized what the paintings had actually been intended for(instead of the illogical traditional clean look). I displayed them with pride on my bedroom wall. However, I overdid one with more horrifying expressions, making my shocked parents order me to have it thrown right away, hehe.

My appreciation to you for the reminder of the grotesque art.

p.s: I have to admit that my remark of Shock Art as unnecessary a little too harsh.I will try to view arts from a different perspective. Thanks for your participation in this discussion. I have learned a great deal from all of you.

Schlock art - Profound or Simply A Nuisance?

Vidar — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 03:56:46

Loved the gallery, very detailed.
Oh and tl;dr the discussion, will get back to it later

Schlock art - Profound or Simply A Nuisance?

hthth — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 02:47:53

I have to admit I don't find the workings of the body grotesque or shocking when presented scientifically [...] It's just meaty bits. We've all got them.

Exactly.

[...] (as opposed to, like, with screaming a la grindhouse films).

I came back to this Note just now to ask exactly that: if you consider morbid art nuisance when in canvas form, then what's your stance toward movies with violence in them? (This is not a hidden critique of anyone's opinion, I'm genuinely curious).

I wonder how one goes about donating one's body to Von Hagen?

I've wondered the same.

Fantastic comment Alisdee.

Schlock art - Profound or Simply A Nuisance?

alisdee — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 02:33:38

Joel-Peter Witkin is actually a modernist version of the memento mori (roughly: "Remember you will die.") art that's been going on for, well, since pretty much forever. It goes through phases, but wander through any major art gallery and I guarantee you'll see portraits of people holding skulls or even still life paintings with bones and hourglasses nestled in amongst the fruit. Witkin just does it with severed limbs, thrown in with obvious influences from the surrealists and hints much older painters like Goya and Bosch. I mean, jeeze, if you think this stuff is bad you obviously haven't seen some of the medieval depictions of Jesus on the cross!

Artists have always been fascinated by the grotesque.

@hthth

I believe that the bodies on display were all donated to the show by their previous owners

Yes, they were. Von Hagen's roving art exhibition is only a part of what he does. Most of the stuff he plastinates goes for teaching purposes; it's much more accurate to teach anatomy off actual anatomy than it is to teach it off drawings and models! I always wanted to be a prep-room skeleton after I died, but I wonder how one goes about donating one's body to Von Hagen?

Actually, Von Hagen isn't the first one to invent this idea, either. Again, it goes through fashions (generally depending on how interested society is in science at any one time), but roving anatomy displays -- previously done with wax muscles and organs painstakingly sculpted over real bones -- displayed as art have been common in the past. You'd get these tableaux set up like a classical painting -- "Family With Picnic" or some such -- except no-one would be wearing any skin, as it were. Most good 'anatomy for the artist' type books have an introductory section on this stuff.

I have to admit I don't find the workings of the body grotesque or shocking when presented scientifically (as opposed to, like, with screaming a la grindhouse films). It's just meaty bits. We've all got them.

Schlock art - Profound or Simply A Nuisance?

hthth — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:39:33

Agree with Nils. And frankly, I don't find Witkins that shocking either. But then again, I'm still emotionally numbed after watching Cannibal Holocaust — in comparison to that venture everything commercial+shocking is kind of dull.

When it comes to art, I try not to judge any general branch of method or style. They all appeal to me to various degrees. Surely, morbid art can go over the line — but I can't and won't put a stamp on a particular style.

I suppose that I object more to the "work" of Gunther von Hagen, a german "professor" who tours the world with corpses treated with some sort of plastic to preserve them.

I'm actually dying (no pun intended) to see it. I believe that the bodies on display were all donated to the show by their previous owners (<-- Strange sentence). Personally I think it's inspiring and intriguing.

Schlock art - Profound or Simply A Nuisance?

Nils — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:16:12

For the lazy:

the gallery

(@Loism: I see you've been having some difficulty posting. Not a problem. Normally, clicking the submit button will get the note posted, even if it takes a little while. As for links: just write what you want the link to look like, then select it and click the Link button in the formatting bar above the comment box. You'll get a dialogue where you can post the URl. No need to write code even.)

As for the shock art, that isn't an easy debate of course. I'd never even heard of this particular artist, but I have to admit I find it very fascinating. He uses techniques that make the photos look very old and battered, which in a way fits the subject: creepy, obscure and ancient. The theme of death is just that. And yet it grabs our attention like nothing else.

I'm not sure I find these shocking. Sure, one could argue that using corpses or body parts isn't ethical, but I suppose the "subjects" don't mind and that anyone else involved (government, relatives) are okay with it.

I suppose that I object more to the "work" of Gunther von Hagen, a german "professor" who tours the world with corpses treated with some sort of plastic to preserve them. He says he wants to educate, but there's really not much there except entertainment and shocking just for sake of it. To me, that guy is just in it for the money. It's certainly not as powerful, poetic and strangely beautiful as the work you refer to.

And then I haven't even talked about World Press Photos that show starving or dying people. In the news, these work, in a gallery, receiving awards, they don't.

See? Very interesting but difficult topic ;-)

Schlock art - Profound or Simply A Nuisance?

loism — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:22:58

Okay, Vidar the link ....

Schlock art - Profound or Simply A Nuisance?

loism — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:21:54

I'll try and show you the link. Vidar...

Schlock art - Profound or Simply A Nuisance?

loism — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:17:36

I'll try and show you the link. Vidar...

Schlock art - Profound or Simply A Nuisance?

Vidar — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:14:16

I think I need a link to said gallery, sounds interesting.

Also, not everything can or has to be necessarily pretty.

Schlock art - Profound or Simply A Nuisance?

loism — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:15:08

I chanced upon a gallery of shock art and was very much offended by the content. There is nothing aesthetic in it except for horror, perverseness and insanity. Have you ever heard of Joel-Peter Witkin? His works, which centre on the themes of death, torture and transgressions of nature, can easily make one pale and shaken with the images of decapitated corpses, broken limbs, spilling intestines and any thing revolting under the sun.

Although some may find shock art thought-provoking by contending that the appreciation of beauty is arbitrary, I find its presence in the art world unnecessary and should therefore be discouraged.

What do you think of it?