Assassination as Art?

I would have had someone photograph me as I punched the artist in the face and then framed the picture next to his exhibit.

Hey, it's art.
 
Did the artist elicit a response? Did he make you think?


If you answered yes, it's art.

I'm not saying the subject matter is good. I'm just saying art makes you react.
 
I don't think the images incite violence. No art gallery patron will see them and because he did, shoot a world leader or anyone else. Bad taste? Mebbe....taste is hard to quantify. I was in Cincinnati when the infamous Mapplethorpe photograph exhibit caused such a stir, it resulted in an obsenity trial. (The museum which displayed them won.)

Robert Mapplethorpe Obscenity Trial (1990): Selected Links and Bibliography

I happen to like disturbing art (not to hang in my living room, but in galleries). One of my favorite artists is Goya, whose "Black paintings" are so creepy, they scarcely bearing looking at after dark.

Interesting Op, BTW. Kudos to you.

goya3.jpg


 
Interesting article shows artist pulling the trigger on various leaders, politicians, and even the Pope.

Assassination as art? Or simply wrong? | Al Jazeera Blogs
I think that the artist may have committed an act of political suicide in creating and exhibiting these works. But perhaps that was his intent. After all, what countries would grant this individual an entry visa, after viewing these works that he created?

Also, if the works are viewed derived of their shock value by blocking out the depiction of the world leader from the scene, the self portrait of the artist that remains isn't that interesting or revealing.
In the interview he gave to a newspaper he stated:

“I don’t understand art. And I don’t read anything about art,”
he told a newspaper.

Looking as these works, I don't doubt that he does not understand anything about art!
 
Did the artist elicit a response? Did he make you think?


If you answered yes, it's art.

I'm not saying the subject matter is good. I'm just saying art makes you react.

Well.. the attack against the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 certainly elicited a response and made me think. But to consider the terrorist attack as a work of "performance art" would seem to excessively broaden the meaning of what to categorize as a work of artistic expression.
 
What is so different between this exhibit and some of the movies put out today? Just because it is a different medium or is it the subjects themselves that cause concern? Creativity has no bounds and art is an expression of creativity. For me the art is a window into the soul of the artist because it is an expression of how they see things. This artist has a hatred (?) of strong leaders and this might mean that he is against authority figures. But just as the art is an expression of the artist the interpretation of the art is an expression of the viewer. That is why it is so intriguing to discuss art.
 
So maybe the guy Mudwhistle works with who got a visit from the Secret Service because he said "obama" and 'dead" in the same sentence could have said he was working on an art project?
 
So maybe the guy Mudwhistle works with who got a visit from the Secret Service because he said "obama" and 'dead" in the same sentence could have said he was working on an art project?

Your post just got flagged at the NSA and is being forwarded to the SS now!
 
I think the artist should have a final work with him committing suicide. That would actually make a statement.
 
What is so different between this exhibit and some of the movies put out today? Just because it is a different medium or is it the subjects themselves that cause concern? Creativity has no bounds and art is an expression of creativity. For me the art is a window into the soul of the artist because it is an expression of how they see things. This artist has a hatred (?) of strong leaders and this might mean that he is against authority figures. But just as the art is an expression of the artist the interpretation of the art is an expression of the viewer. That is why it is so intriguing to discuss art.

While in principle works such as these could be intriguing to discuss, I'm perplexed as to how to interpret the image in which he depicts himself as shooting the Pope. Does he want to shoot the Pope because the Pope opposes abortion, because of the Catholic Church's supposed collaboration with the Nazis during World War II, or because of the sexual abuses of pedophile priests? The image gives no clue, and the artist's depiction of the pope in this image seems to be as baffled confronting someone pointing a gun at him as a viewer of this image would be expected to be.
 
Did the artist elicit a response? Did he make you think?


If you answered yes, it's art.

I'm not saying the subject matter is good. I'm just saying art makes you react.

Well.. the attack against the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 certainly elicited a response and made me think. But to consider the terrorist attack as a work of "performance art" would seem to excessively broaden the meaning of what to categorize as a work of artistic expression.
Not to be flip but, the attacks were certainly high concept. I mean if terrorism can be as relatively simple as a suicide bomb vest, the September 11 attacks were spectacular by comparison.

No, it's not 'performance art'. But what we're discussing here are charcoals on paper hanging in frames.
 

Forum List

Back
Top