POZ Community Forums
Off Topic Forums => Off Topic Forum => Topic started by: tednlou2 on April 30, 2013, 03:07:47 pm
-
Is this art? Political commentary? State of the media commentary? Or, exploitation?
http://m.vice.com/read/jonathan-hobin-recreates-the-worlds-most-infamous-tragedies-with-children?utm_source=vicefbus
-
This is CRAP !
I big huge FAIL >:(
Weasel
P.S. I do not wish to relive my childhood :-X
GOD forbid there were pictures !
-
Is this art?
http://m.vice.com/read/jonathan-hobin-recreates-the-worlds-most-infamous-tragedies-with-children?utm_source=vicefbus
Yes.
Sometimes art is offensive.
Sometimes you may not understand it.
Sometimes it's just bad.
Sometimes it's great.
Does it make you think?
Absolutely
-
It does make me think Bugs, it makes me think is it a good thing to show a child how to tie a pair of tights around her neck, club a baby seal to death or point a gun at someone, I don't think it is.
I love art, but to show kids the dark side of art isn't right...just my opinion.
Aroha
Jan :-*
-
I agree with Jan and Carl. It's true, JonBenet was sexually abused when she was murdered; what's the benefit of a child experiencing this sort of circumstance? Nothing except perhaps a later visit to a psychiatrist. And an early start to psychopathy.
-
I don't see any art in the pics. Of course my Idea of art is dogs playing poker on felt.
I only recognized half the pics...Katrina, 9/11, and Jonbejnet... the rest escaped me.
-w
-
At the risk of going against the grain here...I agree with buginme2. Art can be very offensive and disagreeable - and the contrast of innocence and horror here is clearly intended to evoke strong emotion. I am not saying I like it, but it does evoke strong emotion.
Controversy is nothing new to art - Duchamp's urinal at the 1917 art exhibition created quite a stir. There was also the "Piss Christ", a photo of a crucifix in the artist's own urine - which started the controversy of how the National Endowment of the Arts should be managed - which led to criticism of federal funding for Mapplethorpe's homoerotic photos.
These aren't my cup of tea, but it is a big world out there and room for those whose taste includes this...
Those are my two cents,
JM
Edit: I will add or clarify, that I don't see these pictures as necessarily promoting, or advocating the horror that they depict as suggested -- they could just as easily be seen as a way of trying to help people process the emotions of the events, or mankind's self inflicted horror in general.
-
Showing a crucifix in urine is a bit different than experimenting with the psyche of children. If those crime scenes are in fact re-created, and the conversation true about the exact scene of JonBenet's murder and sexual abuse being played out by a young child, I'm sorry, I do not see any art in that.
-
I looked at the artist's CV. Almost entirely based in Ontario. The fact he's had extremely low interest outside Ontario would suggest that the "contemporary art scene" may not consider this person an interesting artist.
The artist did go to art school, and does consider himself an artist.
Anyone in the public is perfectly able to make up his/her own mind as to whether "this is art" or if he is an artist. Also, whether this particular work of his is "art" or "not art", in "good taste" or not.
I am watching the bbc series Desperate Romantics about the Pre-Raphaelites. The above questions - what is art, who is an artist? And is this particular piece of art "interesting" or "valuable" or, indeed moral or immoral, etc. are as old as art.
I think the series of pics you link to, is GHASTLY, and not original, nor interesting. The idea is NOT interesting and the images are NOT interesting. Its vile.
-
There is a sculpture on permanent exhibit at The Legion Of Honor Museum in San Francisco. It is of Jewish men being killed in one of the NAZI camps. You can feel the anguish on their faces but, glance away to see the Golden Gate Bridge and the Marin Headlands. We have a membership to this museum and I am drawn to this sculpture.
Over the last 5 years, I have seen nearly every major exhibit in San Francisco and this photographers work makes me uncomfortable but, I am not drawn to it. Sooner or later this IF this exhibit were to tour through San Francisco... I have already seen it here, it disturbs me but, I won't see it. I am not drawn to it. 8) TTFN
Michael
-
This commercial for Mountain Dew had me thinking about this topic. The director and creator is black. Obviously, he felt he was making a funny commercial. They say he is known for pushing the envelop, and "challenging stereotypes through humor." They say it is being called the most racist commercial ever. I was curious what the runners-up were.
http://youtu.be/MdFRWf-CNC8
-
Pity we dont get to see the whole ad in this news report.
The black director doesn't seem like a racist.
-
I thought the commercial was funny and I really enjoyed the sale on Pepsi product at the supermarket today. I have never seen the Director perform and I don't know if he pushes the buttons but, (2) Pepsi 12 packs, (1) A&W Root Beer 12 pack and (1) 7 UP 12 pack for $11.00 in Safeway this morning! 8) Have a perfectly lovely day
Michael
-
Those kids will be fine, most of them probably have no idea what they're recreating, the photographer even said he just let them have fun and then took his photos. You guys are over reacting about what will happen to the children in the photos. Now for the art itself? Meh. It's ok. Nothing revolutionary.
-
Those kids will be fine, most of them probably have no idea what they're recreating, the photographer even said he just let them have fun and then took his photos. You guys are over reacting about what will happen to the children in the photos. Now for the art itself? Meh. It's ok. Nothing revolutionary.
I stand by what I said regarding JonBenet. I didn't say every situation was out of place. But to act out a situation of a child who has been sexually abused and murdered? Ick.
-
Yes its vile. Who can tell what goes through a kid's head. Kids have to deal with a lot of adult ugliness, and most get through it fine. DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT TO SUBJECT THEM TO SUCH BAD TASTE. Jeez.
-
Yes its vile. Who can tell what goes through a kid's head. Kids have to deal with a lot of adult ugliness, and most get through it fine. DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT TO SUBJECT THEM TO SUCH BAD TASTE. Jeez.
Omg that IS kinda the point of the whole exhibit don't you think? I mean, think about wha we expose to children each and every day. How we construct news stories to play out in an almost theatrical way with a villain, a hero, and the backstory. Children are exposed to all of these scenarios each and every day just by our living.
-
Its up to parents to decide how much kids have access to violent news and entertainment. Though parents can't control everything, and each kid has his own personality and interests.
The art has been made to be consumed by adults and I don't think it has anything interesting to say to adults, about kids play, nor about violence in contemporary society. Or how they might be related. IMO.
Also, I don't see any evidence of the artist's engagement with children on their own terms. And in this consideration, the artist seems to use kids as props. Pretty standard, but to reenact Jonbenet Ramsey in some cheesy post-modern simulation??
The artists discourse in the article interview is weak, and not synthetic across the events he has chosen.
Its marginal work and I agree with the Vice article reporting on the public's general reaction. It's tasteless, and the tastelessness comes with no counterbalancing wisdom, critical insight, or visual pleasure.
-
Omg that IS kinda the point of the whole exhibit don't you think? I mean, think about wha we expose to children each and every day. How we construct news stories to play out in an almost theatrical way with a villain, a hero, and the backstory. Children are exposed to all of these scenarios each and every day just by our living.
Which is why parents should monitor what their children are watching (and experiencing). I know this is a "perfect" world scenario, but it is possible.
-
It may seem cliche to say it but I have nephews and nieces and one thing I love about them is the innocence , its sweet and will not last and is to be cherished and celebrated before its gone forever , not toyed with in this manner with the excuse that its art .
-
Here's the thing, a child's brain does not process information as an adult's brain does. The cortex and prefrontal cortex are not connected until a person is in his/her 20's. Those are the impulse and impulse control centers, hence why children and teens make bad choices, and when you ask them "why did you do that," and they say "I don't know," well, they really don't. Why children and teens do not make major decisions, like which house to buy, car etc.
Another way to look at it is, a child thinks their situation is normal and will adjust to it as such. Which is an explanation why a child can grow up in a bad environment, and watch their siblings (or parents) commit crimes, and it can become a norm for them. And if another child, who grows up in a good environment, is taught breaking the law is bad, if their sibling say robs the local 7-11, the child will be speechless.
So children's minds do not process info as an adult's. Which is why children shouldn't view gritty movies, porn, etc. I am wondering what all was told to that child who portrayed JonBenet, and if she will re-enact with her friends, and possibly remember it someday when an adult. And what will her reaction be? It's complex. I still stand by what I said.