News:

PD.com: children are filled with joy, adults are filled with dread and local government is filled with stupid

Main Menu

So, the Shia LaBeef Thing... (WARNING possible triggers)

Started by hooplala, November 30, 2014, 03:21:58 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

hooplala

Quote from: 🅵🅰🆄🆂🆃 on November 30, 2014, 09:33:29 PM
The not resisting argument only has foundation in the strange behaviour he's presented in the last year. Paralysed with fear or otherwise unsure how to act to exit a situation is an all too common scenario.

The reason he is facing unfounded ridicule and lack of support is mostly his peculiar behaviour over the last year.

He was in Lars Von triers Nymphomaniac (Part I is pretty well made and occasionally funny, part II is puerile garbage).

Over the last year he plagiarised other peoples work, then plagiarised the defences verbatim from other artists defending against accusations of plagiarism.

That was really only the start of some very bonkers behaviour which has led to widespread mistrust of Labeouf and this odd concept that everything he was doing was a publicity stunt somehow masterminded by Von Trier.

They might be right about all the weird stuff up until this, but I cant see anyone saying something as awful as this for a publicity stunt.

I don't see it as a publicity stunt at all, I see it as a misguided dedication to art.
"Soon all of us will have special names" — Professor Brian O'Blivion

"Now's not the time to get silly, so wear your big boots and jump on the garbage clowns." — Bob Dylan?

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
— Walt Whitman

Faust

Quote from: Hoopla on November 30, 2014, 09:36:34 PM
Quote from: 🅵🅰🆄🆂🆃 on November 30, 2014, 09:33:29 PM
The not resisting argument only has foundation in the strange behaviour he's presented in the last year. Paralysed with fear or otherwise unsure how to act to exit a situation is an all too common scenario.

The reason he is facing unfounded ridicule and lack of support is mostly his peculiar behaviour over the last year.

He was in Lars Von triers Nymphomaniac (Part I is pretty well made and occasionally funny, part II is puerile garbage).

Over the last year he plagiarised other peoples work, then plagiarised the defences verbatim from other artists defending against accusations of plagiarism.

That was really only the start of some very bonkers behaviour which has led to widespread mistrust of Labeouf and this odd concept that everything he was doing was a publicity stunt somehow masterminded by Von Trier.

They might be right about all the weird stuff up until this, but I cant see anyone saying something as awful as this for a publicity stunt.

I don't see it as a publicity stunt at all, I see it as a misguided dedication to art.

I don't either, but because the last year has been publicity stunts so the lad has been getting accusations that it is.
Sleepless nights at the chateau

hooplala

Quote from: 🅵🅰🆄🆂🆃 on November 30, 2014, 09:35:45 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 30, 2014, 09:26:58 PM
I should have named the thread differently, because my interest isn't really in this particular story, but in this kind of situation.

When art turns into something horrible.

I believe if the intent is art, including a premeditated understanding that rape could occur, then its either entirely art without rape or, rape without it any longer being art.

The only reason I hold this belief is because the only alternative is that it is possible to have degrees and shades of grey where it both art and rape, which is not a concept I am willing to entertain at this point because it gives rise to the concept of any dark aspect being explored as performance art.

Sure there are loads of art concepts and statements that could be examined through murder but it's artistic value would be suspect.

That's what I'm interested in though... what is the line?

About ten years ago there was an "artist" in toronto whose method of art (initially) was to throw up neon shades of jello onto well known paintings.

A tad pedestrian, perhaps?

He then went on to skinning cats on video, in the name of making some sort of point about cruelty in the fur industry. He claimed the cat skinning was legitimate art.

I don't personlly think it is, I believe it crosses that line you're talking about.

But then... Sometimes I wonder.  Can something horrible be art? I don't mean aesthetically horrible, or there would be no Group of Seven paintings. I mean like... skinning cats horrible.
"Soon all of us will have special names" — Professor Brian O'Blivion

"Now's not the time to get silly, so wear your big boots and jump on the garbage clowns." — Bob Dylan?

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
— Walt Whitman

Faust

The Zodaic Killers cryptography has this haunting aesthetic to it:


But that's not really what you mean. You're talking about the guy who murders everyone in the phone book who's name is a palindrome.

There is no boundary. Art is difficult enough to define without involving acts of cruelty and harm.
Sleepless nights at the chateau

President Television

Quote from: 🅵🅰🆄🆂🆃 on November 30, 2014, 09:48:50 PM
The Zodaic Killers cryptography has this haunting aesthetic to it:

But that's not really what you mean. You're talking about the guy who murders everyone in the phone book who's name is a palindrome.

There is no boundary. Art is difficult enough to define without involving acts of cruelty and harm.

I think art's easy enough to define: stimulation with aesthetic intent. And atrocities can fall under this definition. Art, in our culture, comes with underpinnings of glorification, this attitude that to call something art is to somehow validate it, but I don't think that necessarily has to be the case. I think it arises from nothing more than semantic confusion involving blanket statements like "I love art" or "I support the arts". Because horrific acts can fall under the definition of "art", it becomes easy to accuse a patron of the arts of supporting morally reprehensible acts, and therefore necessary for them to defend themselves and art itself by employing the No True Scotsman fallacy. And nobody calls them on it, because art's not supposed to be logical, right? But a fallacy it remains.
My shit list: Stephen Harper, anarchists that complain about taxes instead of institutionalized torture, those people walking, anyone who lets a single aspect of themselves define their entire personality, salesmen that don't smoke pipes, Fredericton New Brunswick, bigots, philosophy majors, my nemesis, pirates that don't do anything, criminals without class, sociopaths, narcissists, furries, juggalos, foes.

hooplala

Quote from: President Television on November 30, 2014, 10:00:11 PM
stimulation with aesthetic intent

I love this definition. I was trying to think of one which didn't amount to "it's pretty", but I've had a couple martinis, and probably shouldn't be posting at all. 
"Soon all of us will have special names" — Professor Brian O'Blivion

"Now's not the time to get silly, so wear your big boots and jump on the garbage clowns." — Bob Dylan?

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
— Walt Whitman

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Hoopla on November 30, 2014, 09:08:33 PM
My understanding of the situation was that the only way this event was allowed to transpire was precisely because Shia didn't resist. Because that was the point of the piece. People were "allowed" to do whatever they wanted, and he wasn't going to physically react.

My point wasn't that what transpired wasn't rape; it clearly was. 

My question was, if a situation in an art installation becomes that uncomfortable, at what point does one reasonably pack it in and break the art wall?

Can you link to a source for this? Because:
Quote"Nowhere did we state that people could do whatever they wanted to Shia during #IAMSORRY.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/30/shia-labeouf-collaborators-turner-ronkko-speak-alleged-rape-iamsorry-art-show
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Basically, I haven't found anything, anywhere, that supports the claim that he didn't resist the assault because passivity was part of the performance. It seems a little far-fetched.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


LMNO

Yeah. I haven't commented because 1) I have a negative Shia bias, and 2) I haven't read anything about the performance, nor how it was designed, placed, or presented.

President Television

Quote from: Hoopla on November 30, 2014, 10:06:36 PM
Quote from: President Television on November 30, 2014, 10:00:11 PM
stimulation with aesthetic intent

I love this definition. I was trying to think of one which didn't amount to "it's pretty", but I've had a couple martinis, and probably shouldn't be posting at all.

I was so glad when I thought of it, because until then I'd basically been thinking along the lines you just specified, but that definition always failed when Dada came up. But intention of ugliness is still aesthetic intent, right? I figure it works.
My shit list: Stephen Harper, anarchists that complain about taxes instead of institutionalized torture, those people walking, anyone who lets a single aspect of themselves define their entire personality, salesmen that don't smoke pipes, Fredericton New Brunswick, bigots, philosophy majors, my nemesis, pirates that don't do anything, criminals without class, sociopaths, narcissists, furries, juggalos, foes.

Faust

Quote from: President Television on November 30, 2014, 10:17:23 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 30, 2014, 10:06:36 PM
Quote from: President Television on November 30, 2014, 10:00:11 PM
stimulation with aesthetic intent

I love this definition. I was trying to think of one which didn't amount to "it's pretty", but I've had a couple martinis, and probably shouldn't be posting at all.

I was so glad when I thought of it, because until then I'd basically been thinking along the lines you just specified, but that definition always failed when Dada came up. But intention of ugliness is still aesthetic intent, right? I figure it works.
Its good, It blurs the line on media intended for consumption and media created for artistic craft though and pushes it into the deeply subjective territory. For instance I find less and less artistic merit to computer games then once I did, but under this definition all media is art.
Sleepless nights at the chateau

President Television

Quote from: 🅵🅰🆄🆂🆃 on November 30, 2014, 10:21:38 PM
Quote from: President Television on November 30, 2014, 10:17:23 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 30, 2014, 10:06:36 PM
Quote from: President Television on November 30, 2014, 10:00:11 PM
stimulation with aesthetic intent

I love this definition. I was trying to think of one which didn't amount to "it's pretty", but I've had a couple martinis, and probably shouldn't be posting at all.

I was so glad when I thought of it, because until then I'd basically been thinking along the lines you just specified, but that definition always failed when Dada came up. But intention of ugliness is still aesthetic intent, right? I figure it works.
Its good, It blurs the line on media intended for consumption and media created for artistic craft though and pushes it into the deeply subjective territory. For instance I find less and less artistic merit to computer games then once I did, but under this definition all media is art.

Eh. It covers art. There's no guarantee of quality.

Anyway, I thought we were talking about Shia LaBeouf and rape culture or something.
My shit list: Stephen Harper, anarchists that complain about taxes instead of institutionalized torture, those people walking, anyone who lets a single aspect of themselves define their entire personality, salesmen that don't smoke pipes, Fredericton New Brunswick, bigots, philosophy majors, my nemesis, pirates that don't do anything, criminals without class, sociopaths, narcissists, furries, juggalos, foes.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Is this conversation boiling down to "what is art"? Because if it is, the only rubric for defining art that I've used for years is "does someone think it's art? Then yes."

If the question is "is it going too far to be raped for art?" I guess my return question is what do you mean by "too far"?

"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: President Television on November 30, 2014, 10:31:36 PM
Quote from: 🅵🅰🆄🆂🆃 on November 30, 2014, 10:21:38 PM
Quote from: President Television on November 30, 2014, 10:17:23 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 30, 2014, 10:06:36 PM
Quote from: President Television on November 30, 2014, 10:00:11 PM
stimulation with aesthetic intent

I love this definition. I was trying to think of one which didn't amount to "it's pretty", but I've had a couple martinis, and probably shouldn't be posting at all.

I was so glad when I thought of it, because until then I'd basically been thinking along the lines you just specified, but that definition always failed when Dada came up. But intention of ugliness is still aesthetic intent, right? I figure it works.
Its good, It blurs the line on media intended for consumption and media created for artistic craft though and pushes it into the deeply subjective territory. For instance I find less and less artistic merit to computer games then once I did, but under this definition all media is art.

Eh. It covers art. There's no guarantee of quality.

Anyway, I thought we were talking about Shia LaBeouf and rape culture or something.

It seemed like we started off talking about that, but then I think it switched gears to a discussion of morally and ethically abhorrent acts in pursuit of art.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Faust

Maybe, but I think were still on topic, if not circling the definition of art too closely.

Quote from: Hoopla on November 30, 2014, 09:26:58 PM
I should have named the thread differently, because my interest isn't really in this particular story, but in this kind of situation.

When art turns into something horrible.

Harm is entirely where I can't engage. For instance the display of human bodies in germany, I think is fascinating to look at and intriguing from the point of view of anatomy, posture, musculatory systems which are really hard to draw, no one was harmed, the people were already dead and had donated their bodies to the science. Skinning cats to me seems like unnecessarily inflicting harm on a creature. It lessens the value of the piece to me.

There was another exhibit in Spain I saw over the summer where the artist would cut her hands repeatedly over the course of many months, always in the same place (some statement on repetition and authenticity in art) and another where she chews broken glass, again I couldn't engage, I guess I get the concepts but am repulsed.
Sleepless nights at the chateau