thaddeus wrote:
does there have to be a reason, other than evoking emotion from those who view it? to me, this is a total success for that reason.
I totally disagree. The purpose of art (at least from the artist\'s perspective) is not to arouse a hodgepodge of uncontrolled emotion. One of the problems with the modern art movement, in my view, is the elevation of \"shock\" over \"substance.\" A recent exhibition of a dying dog in a museum as a \"work of art\" is but one example; the so called artist found a stray dog on the streets of some city, chained it up in a public gallery, and allowed to starve to death in the presence of assembled gallery viewers. It might have been evocative, but the desire to evoke emotion, in the absence of any governing artistic or ethical principle, should not be the end goal of art, or an artist. I understand that art is supposed to lead conventional morality by the nose, but I would argue that a dead dog in a museum, or videos of animals being killed by sledgehammers, fail the smell test. So too would the attribution of certain adult activities to children...
That said, I like the original picture, notwithstanding the concerns of the naysayers. It\'s not because it evokes random emotions or controversy, but because of its technical execution and clearly (to my mind) satiric intent. I think that concerns over exploitation are overstated, particularly since the child has suffered no cognizable harm or humiliation through her participation in this exercise. It\'s also debatable whether the photographer has profited in any way from taking this picture, aside from a few smirks at the remarks of the vocal morality expressed in some of these comments.
While I respect the views of those who think the image is in bad taste, I don\'t entirely agree with them... I think it\'s an interesting photo.
thaddeus wrote:
does there have to be a reason, other than evoking emotion from those who view it? to me, this is a total success for that reason.
I totally disagree. The purpose of art (at least from the artist\'s perspective) is not to arouse a hodgepodge of uncontrolled emotion. One of the problems with the modern art movement, in my view, is the elevation of \"shock\" over \"substance.\" A recent exhibition of a dying dog in a museum as a \"work of art\" is but one example; the so called artist found a stray dog on the streets of some city, chained it up in a public gallery, and allowed to starve to death in the presence of assembled gallery viewers. It might have been evocative, but the desire to evoke emotion, in the absence of any principle or control, should not be the end goal of art, or an artist.
That said, I like the original picture, notwithstanding the concerns of the naysayers. It\'s not because it evokes random emotions or controversy, but because of its technical execution and clearly (to my mind) satiric intent. I think that concerns over exploitation are overstated, particularly since the child has suffered no cognizable harm or humiliation through her participation in this exercise. It\'s also debatable whether the photographer has profited in any way from taking this picture, aside from a few smirks at the remarks of the vocal morality expressed in some of these comments.
While I respect the views of those who think the image is in bad taste, I don\'t entirely agree with them... I think it\'s an interesting photo.
Arka C.
Oct 21, 2008 at 03:51 PM
Previous versions of Arka's message #6297630 « The Princess »
