Is this ART, or is it something else ?

In my time ill off I have spent a lot of time researching on the internet into different subjects, some mainstream and some which are on the very edges of human experience.

I have taken the time to look at a lot of art aswell to develop my tastes and find out what really interests me. There is a lot of very different and interesting lifestyles and mindsets represented out there and I have been surprised and amazed by much. It has been a time of self discovery for me.

Now to the point of this blog

In my searches I visited a lot of Photographic Artists websites as I like portrait art. I came across one particular artist who is responsible for the image above and the image on my page.

Now below is and image by the same Photographic Artist upon which I would like you to comment. As you can see it is a properly staged photograph, well lit, modelled, the make up perfect and a certain aura perposefully created.

What I want to ask you all is . . . . . . . . . . .

IS THIS PHOTOGRAPH ART OR, IS IT SOMETHING ELSE ?

What feelings does this image stir in you?

What message does it convey to you?

What message do you think the artist was trying to convey?

Do you feel it has value?

I am not offering my own commentary on it yet as I dont want to have the comments centred on any opinion I might have. So please feel free to comment from whatever standpoint and discuss in my blog comments.

Photobucket

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

9 Responses to “Is this ART, or is it something else ?”

  1. Bunny Boo Says:

    I absolutely belive that instead of asking us what we think, you should have stated your opinions and thoughts first – with no judgement attached to this statement, wanting to know what our perceptions and feelings are first, without sharing your own, is a form of voyeurism. I don’t mean that critically.
    However, I can’t stop myself from commenting. It appears to be a very skilful photoshopped photograph. I find it interesting that that one assumptively perceives this as a female form, when actually there are no cues to that fact, apart from perhaps a slightly long thumbnail – it is more androgynous than specific – who knows whether that was intentional. As a medium for conveying the emotional arousal of self-harm, it works well; I can’t look at that picture and not have a deep, visceral feeling of horror at the dirtyness of it, the superior viewpoint we have to take to look in on this figure who is on the ground, the fact that this person is holding a scalpel ffs – themes of intent and power and a deep desire to communicate, but in a painful, dangerous and ultimately abusive way (much as CL says above – if this were real, it would be a continuing of the abuse and scarring). But we don’t know what the artist is trying to convey – is it shock shlock, is it abuse porn, is it a cri de coeur? Is it a commentary on the lasting wounds and scar-tissue of abuse? What prompted someone to create this?
    The picture on your background is equally complicated but less challenging emotionally. The viewpoint, the angles, the tongue – this appears to be much more easy to recognise as fetish porn. It so obviously isn’t blood, she striking a pose, it’s gratuitous but it does it’s job. I told you, it doesn’t arouse anything but a wry smile in me, it’s just too contrived. The pic above however – I hate it. I absolutely hate it. This is where I forget it is ‘art’ and I can only feel a deeply emotive personal response. You know my job and you know my background. The figure is represented as communicating a shocking, taboo message to the world by performing a staggering feat of self-injury. Real cuts like this (deep with a scalpel – that is disturbing) would scar and leave a permanent statement on this person’s body, as deep and permanant as on their psyche. But look how clear and on the whole clean the injuries are – the cuts are portrayed with little inflammation, no bruising, no sign of infection. The ‘cleaned-up’ image of abuse and self-harm, which makes me feel this is more for gratification than conveying a message of the long-lasting effects of abuse.
    A person would have had to endure an amazing amount of pain and shown the utmost determination to carve this into themselves, contrary to the more usual ‘boiling point desiring relief’ drive of self-harming behaviour. Which again makes me wonder – are we supposed to believe that this person did this to themselves, or has someone else done it to them? (Obviously, ‘Daddy’ instigated it at some point). Or is this just a display of nihilism on the part of the person in attempting to shock for the sake of shocking? Self-harmers are often accused of attention-seeking…
    In his picture, we are forced into both a superior and passive position. We are forced to look down on the person, but we have the ability to look and then look away; we can become self-absorbed in the response it elicits in us, forgetting the figure. But we are utterly passive too – we can’t penetrate the scenario, we can’t make contact with this person, we can’t even look them in the eye. We are forced into a voyeuristic position. It feels wrong.
    I’ve babbled a bit (a lot). Your turn now Door.

  2. Barefoot Contessa Says:

    it may be art…
    but its
    um
    a bit disturbing…
    sorry short answers…this chic chick is studying
    sshhhhhhhhhhhhh

  3. Comrade Louise Says:

    It obviously thematises female subjugation, the question is where it lies on the “prescriptive/descriptive” continuum – in other words, does it take a critical distance from that subjection, encourage you to be repelled in it? Is it showing a problem that exists already or does it replicate that problem by reproducing images of domination and allowing the viewer to take pleasure in them? I think there’s a real danger of it turning into pornography of sadists, because I can’t see that it takes any steps to condemn the abuse and in its very flaunting of it, it abuses the body a second time by enabling the viewer to identify with a position of power over and above the body.

  4. Gartenzwerg Says:

    My brains a mess, so bear with me. I have to speak from the point of view of someone given a “creative” way of thinking and seeing things.Sometimes it brings me great pleasure, other times I am tormented by it.
    ( BTW I find the word artist/art annoying.)
    My opinion is this; Sometimes it’ s the creative process that is far more important than the end product.
    and Now a quote from Rilke,:

    “A work of art is good if it has arisen out of necessity. That is the only way one can judge it. So, dear Sir, I can’t give you any advice but this: to go into yourself and see how deep the place is from which your life flows; at its source you will find the answer to the question whether you must create. Accept that answer, just as it is given to you, without trying to interpret it. Perhaps you will discover that you are called to be an artist. Then take the destiny upon yourself, and bear it, its burden and its greatness, without ever asking what reward might come from outside. For the creator must be a world for himself and must find everything in himself and in Nature, to whom his whole life is devoted.”

  5. oh! kate Says:

    What arrested him now as of value in life was less its beauty than its pathos. — Thomas Hardy, Tess of the d’Urbervilles, 1891

    I don’t know. I hate it. It makes my skin crawl. It’s painful and raw and tells a horrible, horrible story. But is it art? To someone, I suppose. To me, it’s exploiting someone’s pain.

  6. Anonymous Says:

    It’s in the eye and mind of the beholder. I don’t like the subject matter, so would choose not to view it. I like flowers and critters and nature, as you know. I certainly wouldn’t want want any of the pictures you have shown anywhere in my house!!
    I saw a programme once, about 2 older German gay blokes, who used to like to crap, pee and masturbate, and place the products on slides under the microscope and then take pictures. Some would call it art. Personally, I thought they were sick old fuckers.

  7. Trust Me Says:

    I perceive art as the personal representation of an individual’s perception. Many would argue with me but I maintain that art may be expressed with any medium, including photography. Its value depends entirely on another individual’s personal perception. To my way of thinking, only you have the answer to your questions.

  8. **Lost In Thought** Says:

    Art takes many forms and this one form of art seems to be quite prolific with the …mind is a blank right now…..GOTHIC yes gothic type genre. Most are stating a point in the piece of art they project of course but like all art……some just isn’t for everyone. There is some art that makes ur stomach curl so when u come across it – u just have to have an open mind to what the graphic artist, photographer, painter or otherwise is trying to project. Erotic art as well takes many forms……..some people find self mutilation erotic (go figure) but then they also think child porn is too. LIke i said…..we can choose what we wish to view, some objectionable ones though…….u wonder about.

  9. Lizzie Says:

    I’ll be the first to comment. I think it is art, very dark and psychologically demanding. The photographer’s aim is to shock, but not, I feel, gratuitously. The shock value comes from the fact that the child in the picture has been so damaged by her experiences. It makes us face a child abuse fom an angle that many people choose to ignore. It’s very bleak indeed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: