Horror! Shocking Art Assignment

A thought that comes to mind after watching “This is Modern Art: Shock! Horror!” would be bizarre. I wouldn’t consider this type of art to be horrifying or gruesome, but I do notice the shock. I believe these artists portray their lives to a certain extent. Their art consist of their beliefs, and lifestyles or fetishes. The video mentioned that Goya (the Father of shocks) probably suffered from a nervous breakdown, or some type of anxiety disorder. He was more of a realist and his work drastically changed towards the end of his life after he endured the loss of his wife, along with a disease that left him deaf. The video states Francis Bacon stated he “loved shocks because shocks were a part of life.” This just demonstrates that all these artists were portraying their own life, not creating a new genre for the sake of art. The role of art I would closely relate with Horror Art would be that it helps see the world in a new innovative way. There have always been unique people, but these artists actually brought attention to themselves and their types. It allowed normal people to experience what these artists see on a normal basis. Now as far as using public funds to purchasing this type of art, I don’t know. Art is meant to be debated, art is meant to be seen from different perspectives, so anyone can argue whether or not public funds should be used to purchase it. I believe the best question is to consider if the art is appropriate for each location. If it is then I see no reason to display it with public funds.

Ezekiel 20: 23

To be honest, I did not find this so called "Shock Art" very shocking at all, if anything, it was amusing. I think that there is very little now-a-days that will actually shock a normal person of this generation. With the invention of the internet and the largely uncensored flow of information and media that ricochets from one computer to another in every corner of the earth, there is very little a person with access to the world wide web hasn't seen. From grotesque to simply inappropriate, it can be found on the internet. However, I did especially appreciate the last work that was shown because it made me think of Ezekiel 20: 23. (:

SHOCK HORROR

What is shocking to me is the way each artists portray how thier derange minds are it was like walking into a timeline of nothing but killings ,incese , ponography, devil worshiping and this didnt look like art to methis looked like something out of the horror films.It was really horrific and shocking this is not something i would go out and see nowhere. the film with the chocalate dripping from someone asss was disgussing i wanted to throw up when i was looking at it and the nude scen of the little kids with thier mouths shape like asses and some had penis mouth portrayed to me that it is okay to let little kids be fundle with and the body parts that were amptated off was very disgusting also this is another side of art i didnt know exists and if i was introduce to that first i wouldnt be taking this class nw im a little open minde about what art is and now i truly know the meaning art is in the eye of the beholder because what you see is not always what the artists portrays

Shocking!!!!!!!

  Francis Bacon's Head VI, 1949

Diego Velázquez, Pope Innocent X, 1650

 To me Francis Bacon was an artist who portrayed violence in his work of art. For example, he used Diego Velazquez image of the Pope Innocent X, that was drawn in 1650 and played around with the image.The pope appears to be tortured inside a glass box, and he screams as if he was screaming for help. Also, his skin is stretched out and pulled from his face. It also looks like if the pope is sitting on his chair. The image looks scary and its schocking to me just to think that he used the image of the pope and self destructed the image. The pope means alot to many Catholics, just as it means to me. While, Diego Velasquez image portrayed a highly respected Pope who people looked up to, and he represents God.

Modern Art: Shocking and Scaring

These artists use their art to express the horrors and sexuality of life. It's because of their art that we are not shocked when exposed to horror or sexually explicit movies or videos. It's my opinion that this type of art will stay popular, because people will always want more and more. For example the art work used in the Nightmare on Elm Street movie was very scary which made it seem real. As a result, the movie was very popular and several sequels were released to give the audience more. Though some of the art was very sexually explicit, I actually found the art very interesting mainly because it not all pretty and beautiful. I believe the role of the type of art should be used in movies and horror themes, Public funds should support this art just as it support all others because this art is based on some of life's realities. It also allow us to use our imagination, while triggering other senses. 

Lovely! Lovely! (blog #3)

And now for something completely different.
What about beauty in art, is it still important? Does it still matter? Watch the final episode of "This is modern art" where Collings focuses on a few artists that embrace the power of beauty in their work. Choose one of the artists from the video to look up further and respond to.

PS
Remember that I have included links on the blog to help you find reputable sites for research. Be careful where you get info and pictures on the web, many of you are posting images of art that is not by the correct artist. If you do include images of art in your post, always include the artist's name and title.

Is It Shocking AND Offensive?

These images by Jake Chapman and Dinos is very offensive. ALL of their art in some way is offensive. First watching, I said this couldn't be art. It just had to be something terrible that they might think is funny. Further watching, I did notice however that it was art. Just as paintings suck as Picasso and Warlock get fundings so should art such as Dinos and Chapman. Artist don't make art to please a certain group, they do it to send a message and make the audience feel a certain way. If these artist choose to do it in this form or fashion, it shouldn't be any different. And you're right! Who gets to choose what is offensive of not?