(NSFW)The Emperor Has No Balls

Leah Starspectre wrote: No.....I"'m saying it's not terrorism or brutality. I didn't say is was right. Spray painting public, or even private, property is a nuisance, not brutality.

You're not the one who gets to decide that, Leah.

steamboat28 wrote:

Leah Starspectre wrote: No.....I"'m saying it's not terrorism or brutality. I didn't say is was right. Spray painting public, or even private, property is a nuisance, not brutality.

You're not the one who gets to decide that, Leah.

Brutality means causing extreme physical harm or cruelty, I looked it up. So unless a person is being physically harmed (assault) or threats are made...No, it's not brutality.

Again, I'm not condoning Indecline's previous work, but we should be making clear distinctions between this art piece, which is a political statement which (I think) was made for the purpose of satire, and what you're accusing it of - terrorism and brutality.

this is a lively and entertaining discussion with good points being made on all sides, and i have been enjoying all of the responses

as i mentioned before, i do consider it art, but i also think that "the second half of art" is the internal response of the observer

artistic interpretation and the value of art, is imo the response to the piece as much as it is the creative impulse of the designer

"art", (like "religion", "truth", or "real") is a word with very blurry outlines, and imo, rightfully so: i think we need to allow those outlines to be blurry because the words refer to experiences and perceptions that do not fall easily into neat, clear cut categories

but in other cases the outlines of words should be preserved

i dont like diluting the meaning of strong words, such as rape, for instance, because when you throw the word around to support every trivial little bicker you may have, then the word no longer has the same implications - if we can rape each other by merely looking at each other, then rape, in and of itself, isnt really that bad. it would be inconvenient, uncomfortable, unpleasant, and a little awkward, but nothing that anyone should go to prison for

when i hear or read or use the word "brutality" i always assume violence

i started to post to the effect that we should not dilute the definition, but then of course i had to actually produce the definition, this is what i found

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=brutality
bru·tal·i·ty
bro͞oˈtalədē/
noun
savage physical violence; great cruelty.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brutality
brutality
: cruel, harsh, and usually violent treatment of another person

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/brutality
bru·tal·i·ty (bro͞o-tăl′ĭ-tē)
n. pl. bru·tal·i·ties
1. The state or quality of being ruthless, cruel, harsh, or unrelenting.
2. A ruthless, cruel, harsh, or unrelenting act.

so it seems to me that this group, Indecline, does ENCOURAGE and PROMOTE brutality, such as their Bumfight series, but that this statue is not, itself, brutal

everyone else is free to their opinions as well, this is only mine

carry on! :laugh:

Leah Starspectre wrote:

steamboat28 wrote:

Leah Starspectre wrote: No.....I"'m saying it's not terrorism or brutality. I didn't say is was right. Spray painting public, or even private, property is a nuisance, not brutality.

You're not the one who gets to decide that, Leah.

Brutality means causing extreme physical harm or cruelty, I looked it up. So unless a person is being physically harmed (assault) or threats are made...No, it's not brutality.

Again, I'm not condoning Indecline's previous work, but we should be making clear distinctions between this art piece, which is a political statement which (I think) was made for the purpose of satire, and what you're accusing it of - terrorism and brutality.

Once again... let me try to get this accross... you are confusing the creation with the creator! No one is saying that the Trump statue represents terrorism or brutality itself. What the statue itself represents is cruelty and exploitation of another for nothing more than a laugh. It does not represent a political stance nor does it further a human rights agenda. Its just a cruel joke. This is evidenced by the fact that the creators have a long and rich history of this same thing as well as a history of brutality and yes even the condoning of terrorism in the fact that they wish to decriminalize it and make it legal!

Breaking and entering, defacing property, attacking others, coercing others into getting the crap beat out of them for a drink or bribing them to commit crime so they can get a "fix" - these all show brutality, cruelty, the willingness to commit terrorism and they produce fear! It is as simple as that and I'm sorry but you cant deny it. I consider this current statue as something other than artwork because the creators have no motivation to produce artwork, their only motivation is ridicule not only of the subject but anyone that buys into their crap and defends it as artwork. It is a joke not only on Trump but anyone that follows them.

Just watch one of their bumfight videos. The poor homeless people they exploit think they are in on the joke when in fact indecline are laughing AT them, not WITH them for being what they would characterize as being "so stupid". Those homeless want to be part of something and they are tricked into buying into something that is not real, just like this statue. They didn't produce it for your benefit or the advancement of any institution or position, they produced it so they could make fun of everyone that bought into the joke or defends their actions. The bigger the reaction the more they laugh.

Personally, I did not find it amusing. I'm not sure who that is supposed to be, but mocking people and making fun of them is not the Jedi way I think. Nor is hiding that ridicule behind the guise of art. And that is what appears to be happening.

As to is it art, what is art?


Sounds like if someone did not see it as what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance then they do not have to recognize it as art. Others may. But I can’t find anything that says if one sees it as art then everyone has to. Thank goodness I can still decide that for myself.
[hr]
seems to me like it is not meant to be pleasing but ridiculing.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Once again... let me try to get this accross... you are confusing the creation with the creator! No one is saying that the Trump statue represents terrorism or brutality itself. What the statue itself represents is cruelty and exploitation of another for nothing more than a laugh. It does not represent a political stance nor does it further a human rights agenda. Its just a cruel joke. This is evidenced by the fact that the creators have a long and rich history of this same thing as well as a history of brutality and yes even the condoning of terrorism in the fact that they wish to decriminalize it and make it legal!

Breaking and entering, defacing property, attacking others, coercing others into getting the crap beat out of them for a drink or bribing them to commit crime so they can get a "fix" - these all show brutality, cruelty, the willingness to commit terrorism and they produce fear! It is as simple as that and I'm sorry but you cant deny it. I consider this current statue as something other than artwork because the creators have no motivation to produce artwork, their only motivation is ridicule not only of the subject but anyone that buys into their crap and defends it as artwork. It is a joke not only on Trump but anyone that follows them.

Just watch one of their bumfight videos. The poor homeless people they exploit think they are in on the joke when in fact indecline are laughing AT them, not WITH them for being what they would characterize as being "so stupid". Those homeless want to be part of something and they are tricked into buying into something that is not real, just like this statue. They didn't produce it for your benefit or the advancement of any institution or position, they produced it so they could make fun of everyone that bought into the joke or defends their actions. The bigger the reaction the more they laugh.

No, I'm separating the creation from the creator's previous work. I have no doubt that some of their other work has been, shall we say, less than legitimate, but I'm not talking about their other work.

This is a discussion of this particular statue and what it represents. Which, in my opinion, is a joke at the expense of a politician, comparing him to the Emperor from "The Emperor's New Clothes." People are CONSTANTLY making fun of politicians. So how is this statue any different than, say, John Oliver's photoshopped images? Or the work of pretty much any political cartoonist? It is simply because the artist has previously done things in poor taste? Should an artist's past have any bearing on his present artwork?

Indecline's previous work has about as much bearing on this one as the Holocaust has on Hitler's paintings.

Leah Starspectre wrote:
No, I'm separating the creation from the creator's previous work. I have no doubt that some of their other work has been, shall we say, less than legitimate, but I'm not talking about their other work.

This is a discussion of this particular statue and what it represents. Which, in my opinion, is a joke at the expense of a politician, comparing him to the Emperor from "The Emperor's New Clothes." People are CONSTANTLY making fun of politicians. So how is this statue any different than, say, John Oliver's photoshopped images? Or the work of pretty much any political cartoonist? It is simply because the artist has previously done things in poor taste? Should an artist's past have any bearing on his present artwork?

Indecline's previous work has about as much bearing on this one as the Holocaust has on Hitler's paintings.

Absolutely an artists previous work and his past in general should and do hold influence over his creations. You yourself prove my point in your examples. John Oliver's photo shopped images is plural showing his history of political cartoons. In your other example of "political cartoonists" the fact that they are titled as such alone shows their history as belonging to a group that produces art. These people are not known for criminal acts or cruel exploitation in the name of a joke, as indecline is, but as political activists that are trying to further an agenda through art.

As for Hitler and his artwork, I'm sorry but his association with the holocaust will forever taint his artwork. His works will forever be associated with the horrors of WWII and the Holocaust. His past actions had a highly polarizing impact on his artwork and the two will be forever intertwined.

A number of Hitler's paintings were seized by the U.S. Army at the end of World War II. They were taken to the United States with other captured materials and are still held by the U.S. government, which has declined to allow them to be exhibited.

Jahn became the Art Consultant to the German Embassy in Vienna in 1937, where he would then search for, purchase and collect individual pieces of Hitler's art, in order to allegedly destroy a majority of the paintings.

One of the most extensive private collections of Hitler's art is housed at the Museum of World War II in Natick, Massachusetts.

Ok, I understand now that you are unwilling (or incapable) of overcoming bias in the realm of art. Don't worry, your examples show that you are in good company.

I believe that artwork can be separated from the vices and virtues of the artist and exist within its own context (be it social, political, artistic, etc), and if you don't, we will never come to any consensus.

Personally, I think that art has value in the context of an artist's previous work.

I'll use the example of Dali, as he is my favourite artist. When you see a lot of his work together, you get to appreciate the themes that run through his works... the twists on common items like clocks or set of drawers, the familiar symbols that he employs. I feel that it is impossible to truly appreciate an artist's work without understanding him or her as an artist in the context of all they create. Never is that more obvious that when you see several of their pieces displayed together.

There is certainly value in an artwork as an individual piece.. one can still get something from a piece of art (positive or negative) alone... but my personal opinion is that true value comes from context.

Now... I don't consider that statue art... I think it's in horrible taste and mocking a person in such a way is pretty low (and only stoops down to Trump's level)... but that's my personal opinion.

While considering this installment, I don't think we should overlook the rather obvious implication of the title. The title is a reference to the Hans Christian Anderson story "The Emperor's New Clothes". If you're unfamiliar with the tale, here's a short synopsis from Wikipedia:



The title of this statue implies that it was meant to be associated with this story. The story warns of the dangers of vanity as well as the dangers of following the crowd simply to fit in. One possible interpretation of this statue is that Trump is on occasion ruled by his vanity rather than common sense. Another interpretation could be that we should follow Trump because of who he actually is, not what his tailors (political advisers) tell us we should see. A third could be that the artists consider Trump to be all talk and no substance, or maybe that he is ugly underneath the outer packaging. Or maybe it communicates the vulnerability present in even the most powerful public figures. It is also very likely that the statue is meant as a cheap shot at Trump.

Whatever interpretation the observer chooses to make, the fact that there are multiple possible interpretations would lead me to believe that the piece achieves the goal of art. This is particularly true when we consider the intentional association to the Hans Christian Anderson story. There was intent behind its creation.