Why "ought" art to terrify and shock? What moral imperative?
Nancy
Date sent: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:23:52 EDT
Send reply to: [log in to unmask]
From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Definition of art
In a message dated 01-08-20 16:45:02 EDT, you write:
<< You've raised a very interesting question, here, Michael. I can't
accept
the images from Vietnam you mention as art, because I know they are not
harmless, reflective disquisitions on the nature of human suffering, they
are authentic pictures of real people dying. I find that shocking,
iconic, but not in the least artistic. However, if I saw an artist's
depiction of the Buddhist's self-immolation (like seeing a depiction of
the crucifixion) I would feel that much more distanced from it; I would
know what it referred to, and reflect on that, but not feel that sense of
sickness in my stomach. No-one is actually suffering before my eyes. >>
art ought to terrify and shock.
Michael
|