Is Eating Dead Babies Goth?
Ms. V
Greylock wrote:
> So, yesterday, on a trip out to the suburbs, I flick on the radio.
> News Radio or Local ABC.
> It's the Beeb World Service.
> They're chatting about a new Channel Four docco in the UK, about "extreme
> art in China", during which one artist takes the body of a dead baby and
> begins to carve it up and eat it.
>
> I was shocked.
>
> But, apprently it's okay, as the Chinese have a different point of view
> about death than we (the individual doesn't matter) and no laws on
> cannibalism.
>
> Oh, and they suffer under an oppressive regime.
>
> So, is eating a dead baby art?
This could well spark the ages old "what is art?" or indeed the "My four year
old could do better than that!" debate.
>
>
> I say no, you know.
Speaking as an artist I can honestly say... I don't really know. My reaction
would be that I'd be so revolted by this particular piece in so many ways
that'd I'd be unable to draw any conclusions about meaning or context
rationally. Perhaps if it was a *facsimile* of a dead baby......
It brings up a lot of rather disgusting and slightly disturbing questions as
an artist who considers how other people's art is made, like - did they
actually *cook* the baby before tucking in? Where the hell did they get a
dead baby for that purpose anyway? Bleh!
Ms. V
>
>
> ---
> A loaded gun won't set you free,
> or so they say
Synic
> So, is eating a dead baby art?
Satisfying at least one of three important criteria should occur for
something to be considered art in my personal view:
o Does the work show any skill?
o Is the result aesthetically pleasing?
o Does the work have anything important to say about life?
Roasting and eating a dead baby would take no skill. 40 mins per dressed
Kilogram in a medium oven, as per a pork roast. Add spices to taste.
Leftovers and tablescraps go in the bin. The rest goes down the bog
after digestion has taken place. Neither is all that much to crow about,
aesthetically speaking.
The only thing it would seem to say about life is that eating 3.5 kilos
of meat in one sitting will give someone a monster case of constipation.
So, no. It's not art.
stranger..
"Ms. V" <vic...@alphalink.com.au> wrote
: Where the hell did they get a
: dead baby for that purpose anyway?
The One Child Policy, which can involve forced abortions (sometimes
allegedly carried out after birth!), combined with the tendency to liberally
use executed criminals as organ donors, raises at least one uncomfortable
possibility.
--
stranger..
(go, go speculator)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.goth.net/~stranger
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"the moon stands in the shadow
of a world gone entirely mad.." (No)
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<stra...@goth.net> wrote:
> "Ms. V" <vic...@alphalink.com.au> wrote
>
> : Where the hell did they get a
> : dead baby for that purpose anyway?
>
> The One Child Policy, which can involve forced abortions (sometimes
> allegedly carried out after birth!), combined with the tendency to
> liberally
> use executed criminals as organ donors, raises at least one uncomfortable
> possibility.
If it's what I think it is then the "baby" is fake. Check out...
http://www.gapingmaw.com/59701
I may, of course, be _way_ behind the 8-ball on this one.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"...Base 8 is just like base 10 really... ((o))
If you're missing two fingers." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
Ms. V
Synic wrote:
Actually, now that I've worked it over in my brain sans the gag reflex and
put it into some sort of cultural context (given that I'm *not* intimately
acquainted with Chinese culture)......
Let's just call it "bad art".
Ms. V
Ms. V
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
> In article <auvout$2tjt$2...@arachne.labyrinth.net.au>, "stranger.."
> <stra...@goth.net> wrote:
>
> > "Ms. V" <vic...@alphalink.com.au> wrote
> >
> > : Where the hell did they get a
> > : dead baby for that purpose anyway?
> >
> > The One Child Policy, which can involve forced abortions (sometimes
> > allegedly carried out after birth!), combined with the tendency to
> > liberally
> > use executed criminals as organ donors, raises at least one uncomfortable
> > possibility.
>
> If it's what I think it is then the "baby" is fake. Check out...
>
> http://www.gapingmaw.com/59701
Oooops! wish I hadn't looked at that before breakfast....
Ms. V
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Grey...@vurt.NOT.net.INVALID wrote:
> Last episode "Mr Q. Z. Diablo"
> <jona...@zeouane.org.remove.this.it.is.bollocks> said:
> >http://www.gapingmaw.com/59701
>
> Somehow, I don't think that's either worksafe or stomache-safe.
>
> >I may, of course, be _way_ behind the 8-ball on this one.
>
> You may, I may.
> The Beeb seemed convinced.
If you read the text in the URL, I think you'll find that the
Independent and the Telegraph were convinced, too. They were also, it
seems, wrong.
Dan
"Synic" <flavp+...@nhgbaf.arg.nh> wrote in message
news:slrnb15vp8.qn...@lark.autons.net.au...
> Greylock <Grey...@vurt.NOT.net.INVALID> wrote:
> > So, is eating a dead baby art?
>
> Satisfying at least one of three important criteria should occur for
> something to be considered art in my personal view:
>
> o Does the work show any skill?
> o Is the result aesthetically pleasing?
> o Does the work have anything important to say about life?
Hmmm, I wouldn't neccessarily say that art should be aesthetically
pleasing. Not that I'm a shock-jockey or anything like that, but it's
probably safer to say that the result should be able to elicit some sort of
strong emotional response, be it shock or a more pleasant reaction. In that
case our Mr baby-eater can probably argue quite validly that his work is
art.
Love Dan
Miss Havisham
Grey...@vurt.NOT.net.INVALID wrote on 1/1/03 8:23 PM:
> So, yesterday, on a trip out to the suburbs, I flick on the radio.
> News Radio or Local ABC.
> It's the Beeb World Service.
> They're chatting about a new Channel Four docco in the UK, about "extreme
> art in China", during which one artist takes the body of a dead baby and
> begins to carve it up and eat it.
>
> I was shocked.
>
> But, apprently it's okay, as the Chinese have a different point of view
> about death than we (the individual doesn't matter) and no laws on
> cannibalism.
>
> Oh, and they suffer under an oppressive regime.
>
>
> So, is eating a dead baby art?
>
> I say no, you know.
I guess I would figure it _is_ some form of art, but people that do that
kind of thing for the shock value, send a message to me that they aren't
capable of much else. Hell, there's plenty of books and films that are so
bad that I consider them offensive to my sensibilities, tastes, humour
whatever, but they're still considered books and movies. So I figure this is
"art" of some description, but in incredibly bad taste. Art yes, goth no.
I find this whole story repulsive, yet I love Edward Gorey's book "The
Beastly Baby". After its publication 40 years ago, he was barraged with
letters from outraged mothers, yet now a signed first edition copy sells for
US $600. Who knows what people will consider entertainment in another 40
years from now?
Miss H.
-- house_of_havisham at yahoo dot com dot au
Synic
> Let's just call it "bad art".
No such thing. There's art and there's dross. For me, the dividing line
between art and dross is whether at least one of those three requirements
is achieved.
In contrast, there are some people who believe that art is anything
that provokes a reaction. They also presumably also believe that KFC's
television adverts are one of art's highest forms. Only KFC ads are
able to provoke ordinarily sane people to eat poor tasting semi-cooked
pieces of six week old chickens in cheaply spiced batter soaked in
grease.
Ms. V
> Ms. V <vic...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
> > Let's just call it "bad art".
>
> No such thing. There's art and there's dross.
Sure, but it's up to individuals to decide that for themselves.
Personally I think Bret Whitley's paintings are a sack of shit, but
others swear by him. I certainly don't think his work is dross (or not
"art") though - it just dosen't appeal to me at all.
For me, the dividing line
> between art and dross is whether at least one of those three requirements
> is achieved.
For you yes... for me no.
I don't think a work has to be aesthetically pleasing either. And
what's important to one person is not important to another. For
example George Giottes (sp?) has said that if you don't paint pictures
of dying kids in war torn areas your work has no meaning. I think
that's bullshit. It's all so subjective that one person from one
culture cannot say definatively that this is "art" and that isn't.
Its *hard* being an artist these days... not that I'm defending mr
"eat the baby" either. I do defend artist's rights to make art as they
see fit (without breaking laws of course). People don't have to like
it.
Of course I'm terribly biased ;-)
>
> In contrast, there are some people who believe that art is anything
> that provokes a reaction. They also presumably also believe that KFC's
> television adverts are one of art's highest forms.
ahhh, but nobody is touting that as art..... but then again I don't
"get" ballet and dance. It's all subjective.
Ms. V (Where's my garret!!)
Synic
>> > Let's just call it "bad art".
>>
>> No such thing. There's art and there's dross.
>
> Sure, but it's up to individuals to decide that for themselves.
> Personally I think Bret Whitley's paintings are a sack of shit, but
> others swear by him. I certainly don't think his work is dross (or not
> "art") though - it just dosen't appeal to me at all.
Whatever they may be, they show some skill in execution. So yes, they're
art. Maybe not in a style I enjoy, but, still art. Someone painting a
canvas monochrome blue and giving one part of the surface a second
coat? Blech.
>> For me, the dividing line
>> between art and dross is whether at least one of those three requirements
>> is achieved.
>
> For you yes... for me no.
*shrugs* I don't think I claimed anything else. There are people out
there who'll claim two sticks held together with string and chucked in
a bottle of urine is art. I consider that sort of thing pointless dross.
> I don't think a work has to be aesthetically pleasing either. And
> what's important to one person is not important to another. For
> example George Giottes (sp?) has said that if you don't paint pictures
> of dying kids in war torn areas your work has no meaning. I think
> that's bullshit. It's all so subjective that one person from one
> culture cannot say definatively that this is "art" and that isn't.
When it takes a sales pitch explanation from the artist to derive any
meaning, it's lost any claim for the work itself having any meaning.
At best, the mono blue canvas becomes a crappy prop in a performance
art piece. Yawn.
> Its *hard* being an artist these days... not that I'm defending mr
> "eat the baby" either. I do defend artist's rights to make art as they
> see fit (without breaking laws of course). People don't have to like
> it.
If there's no skill involved and the so-called point being made is
painfully obvious, pointless or tedious... Bin it if it looks ugly.
It's rubbish.
> Of course I'm terribly biased ;-)
I don't consider myself an artist. Though I'm sure if I laminated a
turd and introduced it with a sufficiently wanky sales pitch... ;-)
>> In contrast, there are some people who believe that art is anything
>> that provokes a reaction. They also presumably also believe that KFC's
>> television adverts are one of art's highest forms.
>
> ahhh, but nobody is touting that as art.....
Why not? Surely for the 'any reaction from the viewer proves it's art'
crowd, they'd be making the case that it's performance art displayed in
the media or some such nonsense...
Kitsune
Synic wrote:
> Ms. V <vic...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
>>Synic <flavp+...@nhgbaf.arg.nh> wrote in message
>>>Ms. V <vic...@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
<snip a lot of stuff about "what is art" which I don't really want to make
an intellectual discussion of right now>
> *shrugs* I don't think I claimed anything else. There are people out
> there who'll claim two sticks held together with string and chucked in
> a bottle of urine is art. I consider that sort of thing pointless dross.
There is only one art, and alcohol is its prophet.
> I don't consider myself an artist. Though I'm sure if I laminated a
> turd and introduced it with a sufficiently wanky sales pitch... ;-)
so you don't drink spirits at all?
Kits, as long as you don't go giving me burbon whilst calling it scotch,
we'll be fine on what's art and what's not.
--
-Quis Hanc Felem Exhaurit-
Kitsune
<snip>
> But, apprently it's okay, as the Chinese have a different point of view
> about death than we (the individual doesn't matter) and no laws on
> cannibalism.
You've gotta define cannibalism.
And I'll drop this line of thought right here as I have issues.
> So, is eating a dead baby art?
>
> I say no, you know.
Poor taste, yes... Art. Well, from the responses you've recieved it seems
to be debatable.
I'll say it depends on what garnishes were put next to the roasted infant.
(and its still in poor taste) Be they wonderfully carved swans made from
the heart or liver of an angting teen, or what not.
Mind you, I'd personally question the artist's sanity (and motives)
Kits, then again, shrunken human heads are art.
Cam
wrote:
>Speaking as an artist I can honestly say... I don't really know. My reaction
>would be that I'd be so revolted by this particular piece in so many ways
>that'd I'd be unable to draw any conclusions about meaning or context
>rationally. Perhaps if it was a *facsimile* of a dead baby......
Yes. If it was a guy chowing down on baby replica, that would be art.
In eating a replica he makes a statement about a given thing, yet in
actually eating a dead infant the thunder of the act drowns out
whatever it is he's trying to say.
Also, it's fucking sick.
And, from an objective artistic standpoint, utterly one-dimensional.
He did it to comment on the fact that, according to his research, no
religion expressly forbids cannibalism, and neither does Chinese law.
Thereby he made his point by exploiting this loophole in both law and
faith. He could have achieved the same end by printing a leaflet
pointing out this fact. Eating a baby in public achieved the same
end, but in my opinion the leaflet would have been more artistic.
If he'd crafted a replica, the simple act of of thought and craft
would have served to promote contemplation of what he was doing and
why he chose that method, and would thereby permit the viewer
illustrate his point. But this... in my opinion all it highlights is
the glaring fact that this man _isn't_ an artist, but is a great many
other undesireable things.
Cam
____________________________________________________________
Website: www.cameron-rogers.com
I am not a gun.
Cam
wrote:
>The One Child Policy, which can involve forced abortions (sometimes
>allegedly carried out after birth!), combined with the tendency to liberally
>use executed criminals as organ donors, raises at least one uncomfortable
>possibility.
There were a great many reports of room piled with the corpses of
unwanted baby girls, killed after birth. For all I know it still goes
on.
Mr_Thing
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
>
> > If it's what I think it is then the "baby" is fake. Check out...
> >
> > http://www.gapingmaw.com/59701
>
> Oooops! wish I hadn't looked at that before breakfast....
>
> Ms. V
>
I quite like this one myself, though it is getting off the subject: