Do you feel weird about art connected to horrible acts of violence?

Yes, I do, and it makes me sick when they make movies about it even more. Anything to make a buck...it's disgusting. I hear that soon the movie will be out about Chapman. You know why a movie would be made about John Hinckley before James Brady? Because hero doesn't sell...sensationalism does. I think that Chapman would have killed John Lennon if he read "Catcher in the Rye" or not. That was just a lame excuse for a sick man that wanted the limelight.

---

BWW HEADLINE 1/9/07

Cruel_Sandwich stomps feet, kicks little sister and begins pout session after reading Ida Noodleman's insightful post. Movie to be directed by Tim Burton.

---

Don't forget, Cruel: That eighties kid tried to kill himself after listening to Judas Priest! But he was a nobody, not a celebrity at all so I guess it doesn't count.

---

I don't ascribe to the theory that being exposed to those works of art were the direct causes of the violent acts.

---

Now his spam isn't even original.

He starts posts because of other comments in other threads.


JUST STOP POSTING NEW THREADS!

---

besty I FINALLY get to see Guernica in Madrid in April. I am SO psyched!

---

Stick I am so excited. That and the Prado will be the highlights of Madrid....well, and the thick hot chocolate and churros!

---

the only thing Botero makes me do is smile!

---

No, I haven't-Ididn't know about them. I'll check it out.

---

Don't feel to bad. I found about the Abu ones in a really good GQ article. I think it was GQ, anyway.

As an artist, you have to do what you have to do. And painting those paintings is something he felt he had to do. As far as I know, he won't sell them. He doesn't want to make a profit off such a horrible act.

---

I've always loved Botero's work, but I haven't seen the Abu Ghraib paintings yet. Will have to check those out.

I agree that an artist should do what they ahve to do and an artist can use acts of horror to make a strong statement, just like they can use beauty to the same effect. However, if you're talking about someone using art as a reason for committing acts of violence and believing that the art has given them some sort of message to do so (that seems to be what the original post was asking), that's just mental illness and has nothing to do with the art.
If you're talking about using acts of horror and violence in art to shock people with no intent to make a statement, that nothing more than sensationalism done to gain attention. The purpose of any form of art, whether it's based on violence or beauty, should be to make people think and feel, not just shock them or gain attention for the artist.

---

I applaud Botero's Abu Garib series. It creates a more permanent visual reminder of the blood on our hands. Wouldn't want one hanging in my hallway, but I'm glad the paintings exist, and hope lots of people get to see them.

Through the ages, art has depicted the suffering of man...often as it's being inflicted by others. Museums are filled with horrific images, but they don't have the ability to hurt us as much because enough time has passed that they don't feel personal. Or don't make us feel responsible. Or guilty.

---

Updated On: 1/9/08 at 10:25 AM