[Goaswerfraiejen]

Just to return to the art question for a moment:

As a philosopher of art, I'd be perfectly happy calling such a work "art," and evaluating it as such. The important thing to remember is that just because something is art does not mean that it is moral, ethical, desirable, legal, successful, a work of genius, etc. Whether or not it was successful (insofar as it executes the artist's intentions and interpels the viewer) as a work of art I can't say, although I suspect that it would be: even if you don't go in, it's thought-provoking enough that it could work as a conceptual piece about fear, or how the intimation of one heinous act is thought to legitimate others (e.g. witness the members here who suggested harming HIM instead), or whatever.

It's pretty much the same as with the native man here in Canada who recently claimed his abused and starved sled dogs as a work of art: OK, but you're not escaping the animal cruelty charges, and it doesn't make you a genius.

Is it art? Sure, it can fit under that scope. The thing is, that's not the end of the story. And most of the time, works that are provocative simply for the sake of notoriety are transparently so, and they don't make much of a splash in the art historical canon.

[Use Of Weapons]

Or in other words, explanation is not exculpation.

[Abyss]

editted bcs elsepost shows this was a hoax.

Given that the entire thing is bogus and his actual 'project' is recording the response to the concept doesn't really excuse an attitude that this is somehow 'okay'.

It may be that what he's doing is challenging the concept of 'rape'. Ok, kudos to him for originality and social evolutionary activism (or something) - i just don't think rape is something that should be the subject of creative expression by someone doing it just for the sensationalism of it. he's not saying 'let's get people talking about art', he's saying 'let's get people talking about ME'.

And yes, victims and support groups and activists publicise art on the subject of rape, but that's not the same thing. That's reactive, or proactive. Tunnel-hoax isn't about sending a message that rape is bad. It's about using rape, or the threat of rape, for sensationalism, which may amount to a negative way of framing 'self-expression' but at least in my mind the distinction between tunnel-guy and a victim painting to express their own reaction is significant.

Or put another way someone upthread did, i don't care if it's art - you're still an idiot.


- Abyss, would prefer a 'Pudding Tunnel'.

[caladanbrood]

Apparently Jusen has left us, so I guess no response will be forthcoming to any challenges to her rather contentious post...

[Cold Iron]

^ Troll

[The Tyrant Lizard]

I never much understood these abstract arty type things. I'm not a particularly educated person, so to me this isn't art at all. Like that twat who left his tap running all week and said it was a peice of art... in that case most of us are artists, are we not? All we have to do is leave our front doors open and say "hey, come and look I've left my tap on.... the HOT one."

Does something become art just because it's original?

To me a statue showing one person raping another would be more worthy of the title, although just as iffy.

I'd like to know what would have happened if the tunnel thing was real, and some guy went down there and turned the tables and raped the living shit out of the fool at the other end. I bet he wouldnt be exploiting rape for his exhibitions quite so much after that.

Having said that, I'm thinking of making my own tunnel. It's called the Consentual Oral Sex Tunnel.

[Gothos]

Thread necro is thread.


Wait...

[Aptorian]

I still smile at prospect of such a contraption being built.