It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can Art ever be Controversial? You Decide!

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   


German Artist Gregor Schneider’s unmade controversial piece of art which can be referred to as, “The beauty in death.” Gregor Schneider’s newest artistic endeavor will be complete as soon as he has a volunteer who is willing to die in a museum in observance of spectators from another room. The controversy arises when some people suggest that, “What if no one sees any beauty in death? What if there is simply death in death?” He claims that no individual’s death in his piece will be in vein (and all necessary respects to the dying will be made prior to their death). There is much debate over the artistic value of this design, if any, and there was great speculation over whether Gregor should have actually been picked as number 1 in this countdown too.

Guardian Article




David Cerny and his recreation of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein who, for this piece of art, is submerged in a tank of formaldehyde, better known as embalming fluid. “Shark,” shuts this contest down in terms of controversial art. Besides how any Saddam supporter feels, Shark, is a political piece that provokes the definition for controversial art. David created this art with his philosophical belief in the “impossibility of death in the minds of something living.” Which only strikes one thought within me which is: is he really trying to keep Saddam alive? At any rate, Shark is a realistic depiction of that despotic dictator we all have grown to know and view in obscurity so well.

More info. . .








Art Sculptures by Patricia Piccinini.
Link to more. . .



Cosimo Cavallaro’s piece of art entitled “My Sweet Lord.” My Sweet Lord is a 6-foot replication of Jesus Christ in his memorable dying moments hanging from the cross, made of chocolate.




And my personal favorite Professor Günther von Hagens.

Gunther von Hagens (born Gunther Liebchen, 10 January 1945) is a controversial German anatomist who invented the technique for preserving biological tissue specimens called plastination.

Read more about Dr. Frankenstein as he has been called









See more. . .




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Yes and no in my opinion. In my view everything has been done before. Sometimes someone or some group will prove me wrong. I believe many artist feed of controversy. They would do their best to be as controversial as they can so they can achieve with whatever they wanted from people. It is sad but this the world we live in. Of course I'm not trying to white wash my personal view of the world. Growing up controversy sells and get's people to listen to you.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Anything that questions or goes against the status quo has the ability of being controversial.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
No
But if i call him a perverted ^$%$^&%&^*^(&%%&($*&*(_&%)&^*(^&$^%&_(&%_*)$(^)&_.
Is that controversial??????????????
edit on 13-4-2011 by meathed because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AnteBellum
 


I dunno, explain to me what controversial is to everyone.
Controversial is to art as apples are to oranges.
One mans garbage is anothers treasure.
So i think the answer would be yes in some instances and no in others, subject to change at a whim.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Art can be controversial, that is the beauty and of it - Art really is in the eye of the beholder and that is as it should be.

Here is another link to add to the examples:

Smithsonian to Remove Ant Covered Jesus On Cross

Makes a strong statement and I would certainly put this in the category of controversial, as well.




edit on 13-4-2011 by LadySkadi because: add picture



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


Thank you for sharing!
It is a beautiful piece.

My definition of art is very personal, but so should everyones. In essence art to me, is to make one think and invoke a personal reaction. What these thoughts or reactions, that are provoked, are singularly personal to the individual but sometimes this transcends to a larger collective also.
Art to me can never be controversial not even when that is the intent.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
OF COURSE IT CAN BE CONTRAVERSIAL...

art is only a MEDIUM to use to communicate with....im only recieving a negative reaction to these...my brain is trying to understand the images....this is where the problem is....the time spent by your brain to decipher the message in this art is a dangerous journey for some unstable minds.....

its disgusting... its art yes...but its disgusting art.

THIS QUESTION IS LIKE ASKING......
CAN TEXT BE CONTRAVERSIAL? um yes...

by the way thanks for haunting my dreams later on tonight

edit on 13-4-2011 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
All art in my opinion has meaning, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Art exists in an ambiguous moral realm which no one can truly debate. Some of it is very shocking and my offend people, but it is our right as intelligent beings to be able to express our selves through a variety of means. We have to look at art closely and attempt to look for meaning regardless if we do not know what it means. It is a tool for learning.

As for controversy I think it comes down to beliefs. Most anythings sexual depicted in art is labeled as controversial, I think more so now than ever before. When it comes to death, death has always been a big theme in art, from canvas painting to literature, tragedy is one of the biggest triggers of artistic inspiration.

All the art posted above is very interesting, especially of the fetus in the womb reminds me of Alex Greys work.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Yes....art can be controversial. I think many artists hide behind the term "art" and the term "educational" to fulfill something that is pretty doggone sick as well.

Porn can be considered art. All you have to do is slap a name on it...

Who really wants to have a photo of a dead person lying on the floor hanging on their wall? Call it "The Great Escape" and it sells for millions.... Artist is hiding behind the word "art"...

This is my opinion of the "Bodies in Motion Exhibit". An artist wanting to use dead human bodies as a medium. How would one go about doing this and get the "ok" to do it? Well...let's call it "educational"...for those of you who have not seen it or heard of it...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.zimbio.com...

The artist is shown in the second link....and I think he is quite creepy as well...People do not go to this for educational purposes, really, although they may say that they do. The truth is that people love a freak show and Gunther Von Hagen is giving them just that.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Art can most definately be controversial as seen by some of the stuff posted here. Art is a personal thing, something may have different meanings to everyone.
What I really don't love is having to pay for a Lot of the crap put out by the national endowment for the "arts". Seems like the more shocking and offensive the better they like it!
This should not be big bro sponsored. There are plenty of art lovers that want to foot the bill; I Don't...
It needs to be taken off the funding list - I have a feeling that would help shave results off the spending addiction this admin has...
edit on 13-4-2011 by AmericanDaughter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
  • "In a decaying society, art, if it is truthful, must also reflect decay. And unless it wants to break faith with its social function, art must show the world as changeable, and help to change it." - Ernst Fischer

Maybe it's a sign of the times we are trying to live in. To me it represents Wall Street and Bankers quite eloquently.

In that case, if art isn't controversial, it's not doing what it's supposed to do.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by restlessbrainsyndrome
 




This is my opinion of the "Bodies in Motion Exhibit". An artist wanting to use dead human bodies as a medium. How would one go about doing this and get the "ok" to do it? Well...let's call it "educational"...for those of you who have not seen it or heard of it...


He is the last artist I listed and people do go see his exhibits all around the world.

Like the Smithsonian, art galleries, medical museums etc. Most don't even realize what they are looking at either because they don't read the fine print.
edit on 4/13/2011 by AnteBellum because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
It isn't controversial because it isn't art. This is the same thing PT Barnum and Ripley got rich on, exibition for shock value. Finding a volunteer to die in a public spectacle has no artistic value, the "artist" has contributed nothing, he is merely an agent.
I find very little difference between encasing a human in plastic and making a wallet out of human skin, both are in poor taste and ghoulish.




top topics



 
9

log in

join