I find this incredibly tasteless. I lost a loved one to prescribed medication recently (no fault of her own) and the grief is still too near. Surely you could have chosen a better way to make your point.
Gotta say I agree with you, DorkyDune. It's a very interesting and unique take on a hot topic. It's times like these that I wish the artist would write a few words on the piece, explain what he meant when he drew it, or if it was just a random doodle. I'd love to know his story.
I do agree with that, that there needs to be an explanation as to how they came up with the piece of work. Art is all about interpretation, and unfortunately this is one where it can be viewed as something very good or something very bad. I can see both sides to this as to why some people would think this would be funny, but I also understand the fact of how this is wrong.
However I do stick by my friend Beruthiel on this; it's not the fact that it's because it is a grieving time for her because of her sister. From my point of view, this is tasteless; considering I had worked with suicidal patients, patients addicted to drugs, friends that were both suicidal and addicts, and that I have been to that place in life where I wanted it to end and seeked the aid of pills to help me end it. Thankfully I pulled out of this, however looking on this and reflecting on all that I cannot say that I care for it due to those reasons.
I think the artist needs to put more than 'Brainnnnnnn' in the comment I agree, I would like to know what his side of the story is. And I would also like to say thank you to you; for not being one of those people where you started bashing the person who said they did not like this. You came across as reasonable and did not fly off the handle, so thank you for that. You do not see many of those people on here much lately
Heyhey Jae, how's it going? All right, I'm glad to see you here because I want an open and frank discussion regarding this. I haven't really said anything to Cat because I understand where she's coming from, I don't want to rile her up or anything. I'm just gonna say here that I disagree and if you want to bounce ideas around with me, I'd be more than pleased, but I don't want to offend you either.
So, let me say my interpretation first. It seems to me that most of the people offended by this interpret it as a piece in which the person/zombie has been put in the grave by pills. When I see this, to me the hand is coming out of the grave, not going in to it. It makes me think of all those zombie movies, when someone has died and *cue scary music* we see a cemetery at night and the hand pops out of the ground, the zombie claws it's way out, and begins searching for sustenance, for braaaaiiiinnnns. The zombie is an undead creature with no thought or will of it's own, it's only goal is to get some brains. In this piece, the zombie is beginning it's emergence but it clutches for pills. My interpretation is that this is a statement that we have become zombies for pills. We trust inherently in doctors and pharmaceutical corporations that these pretty little pills will make us better, we don't think for ourselves, we don't try and fix the problem at it's root, we pop a few pills and think it will go away. Now, I know that this does not apply to everybody, I know that medication genuinely helps some people. It's just that in my own life I see in myself and those around us that we take pills to cure one thing, they create more problems, and we take more pills. I will say that my most serious suicide attempt was by pills. And what did they do to help me, they kept an eye on me for a few years and gave me more pills. ...... piiiiiillllssssss.
Yes, this piece does appear somewhat humorous, but I do think it is making fun of anything. Often, it is difficult for us to to think about the truly serious and painful matters we are confronted with, and humor helps us do that. Humor has always been a way of highlighting an issue, saying "hey, look at this here", but it draws us in with it's wit, humor can help us deal with these things.
But also, besides the subject matter, let me comment on the work itself. I think it is aesthetically interesting and well put together. Symmetrical, bold colors, interesting details. I have no clue how vector art is done or what technical skills go into something like. But I do find it visually of merit.
Now, I will also say that I am somewhat miffed by people that state this is positively tasteless and disgusting. Art is completely subjective. It does not move forward by playing by the rules. Every new art period that started was generally frowned upon by the old one. I would never call a urinal tipped on it's side and deemed a fountain to be a work of art. But it sparked something new and made us look at art in a new light. Not to say this is revolutionary or anything, but people will always disagree with art and there will always be controversy. Yet the ones that are talked about the most are the most famous, or infamous. Manet's Dejeuner Sur L'Herbe was completely offensive and degrading for it's time, but it is truly beautiful and cherished today. Yes, this can viewed as something good and bad. I can understand that people will interpret is in different ways. But let us take a rational look at it and really pick it apart, that's what I see you doing, that's what I want to do.
Perhaps it would clear things up if the artist put an intention in the statement. But perhaps he didn't want to clear things up. This way, it's up to us to think about it, look at it, decide what it means for us.
So, bounce some ideas back at me Jae, I'm not sure if I entirely understand your interpretation of it, and I want to.
Yes, as I said to the other person, I do understand the sense of humour in this but I do see the darker side to it as well. I can see, like the example you made as well as others, what it is that makes it funny to some, but to me it's kind of in that grey area. I can see a bit of the humour in it, however looking at it that is what I get the impression of.
Very true, like I said, art is about interpretation. It depends on the what the viewer thinks at the time when they see it and what past influences fluctuate their opinions on something. It's the same as calling something 'perfect'; there is no such thing, because everyone's view of perfect varies from one person to another. One may think that living in a house on a mountainside, hidden away from the hustle of the cities and living the quiet country is perfect; whereas the next person can say they think that is ridiculous and that living in a big city condo is the best, it's all about views.
As for art being tasteless, I have to disagree with you on that. Some art I do think is tasteless. Yes, pushing the boundaries of art is what was able to bring forth so many more mediums, but look at what some have tried to push as art. About 3 years ago now, there what a photographer who found a tray dog on the streets, took it home with him. Though this person did not take care of the animal, instead he starved the animal while keeping it chained up in the sun (allowing people to watch this at the same time and forbid them to feed the dog) so he could take pictures of the painful death of a living creature. How is something that grotesque considered art? I do not think that harming/beating/killing things is considered a form of art. Art is about bringing things to life, not destroying.
I also believe that somethings, like in art, is what can desensitize people to some things. For example, I will use the movie industry to better explain this. In movies before, there was no nudity/explicit sex scenes, there was no butchering of humans and animals, there was no graphic footage of women, men, or children getting raped. Now look at it. Nearly every movie that you come across, there is the 'mandatory' sex scene, there is the scare factor of killing a dog or a cat for nearly every horror movie out there, there are molestation/rape scene for scare tactics for psychotic killers. And what has this gotten us? Yes, they pushed the envelope on these scare tactics to give the fans more of a shock factor, but now it is done so much that people are no longer horrified by it. To see on the tv a woman getting beaten and raped, or a cat being thrown in a meat grinder; people view this as entertainment and cool to see. Yes, it is fake, but the more you see such things, it's no longer a scare factor. It sadly becomes something accepted. So I am thinking, just what kind of forms of 'art' will people try to push next? Are we going to have the starving baby in a crib to be sacrificed in the name of art instead of the starving dog chained to a pole? I am afraid to find out.
In retrospect, this is not something that is very bad compared to what I have seen and what I think is tasteless. It does make me sit and wonder what the intention is, and I can see what your point of view on it. But as I said, with the line of work that I was in and the health issues I have hade, I look at this with mixed feelings.
Well I guess that is all I have to say on that my dear
I know, I get carried away with these things sometime, I love talking about this stuff!
Honestly, I don't find it that humorous, I see it as more social commentary, but I do understand how some people are disturbed or offended at this, I just think one of the great services of art is to call forth those emotions but the value lies in taking your reaction and turning around and asking "Why?", instead of stopping at the reaction. Thank you for discussing with me.
That dog story is just disgusting, there's a difference between being tasteless and causing harm to an innocent creature. There is more of a grey area I think when an artist hurts themselves for art, but non-consensual abuse never be condoned, I definitely agree that is not art.
Now, the issue of the desensitization of our society due to visual presentations of gore is an interesting topic indeed. This is such a difficult issue though and I will say that I don't have any really firm stances on this topic. On the one hand, I do agree that overexposure to the sort of violence that we see in our pop culture that is treated lightly does have a negative impact. But on the other hand, drawing lines of censorship is very difficult and I wouldn't even know where to begin with how that could ever be decided. I think perhaps a lot of the problem lies in lack of discussion of these things with the youth and lack of an open candid need for education. It's such a polarizing topic, I see too often people that argue that we need to protect children from this an completely shut them off from it, and people that say we shouldn't restrict expression and it doesn't do anything. Where's the middle ground? Where the need to expose people to this to an extent to show them that it exists and to teach them how to deal with it while educating them on the topic? We need to find a balance.
I have mixed feelings about this too, but ultimately I think it's trying to draw attention to a problem, not make fun of it.