Man Steals Remains from Nazi Death Camp, Paints Shitty Rectangle in the Ashes of Holocaust Dead

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

BBC article with a few more facts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20622289

Apparently from the crematoria directly, not from the mausoleum, so they were far less likely to have degraded. The museum is certain that the ashes could not have been obtained legally.

Kopikatsu:
Anyway, if a Neo-Nazi were to desecrate the ashes? Then yes, it would still be irrelevant. I'll put it this way: There is no such thing as objective right or wrong.

You don't need it to be an objective wrong to condemn the actions of that thief. He stole people's remains, and on top of that already universally recognized crime, used them in something that's shocking and grieving for many people and which has no use at all to offset against the act of grieving others.

That's also relevant. There's other instances where remains were subjected to treatment that may not be what that person wanted or what the relatives wanted. For instance Bin Laden may want to have been buried, but got a seaman's grave. However in that case there was an interest offsetting that, namely that a grave would become a shrine for extremists and images of his remains were needed to ensure the believability of the claim of Bin Laden's death. No such interest exists in this case. He slapped it onto a canvas and used it for selfish monetary gain.

Thus there's little debate possible about the fact that the thief should be prosecuted for the theft, and the 'painting' depending on how harshly you want to look on purposely grieving useless actions.

Bentusi16:

There are still defenders and believers in the idea of aesthetics out there you know, and I'm one of them.

To be picky, bearing in mind that aesthetics is the philosophy of art, I think it would be better to say that you share a different aesthetic sense from others rather than that they don't believe in it.

Frankly I'm less annoyed that he did it and more that he did it and came up with this. A rectangle? How do we even know those are those specific ashes? Maybe he just burnt something in a wood pile and said 'Hey I've got an idea' or something.

I mean, other then a mild sense of disgust does this evoke emotions because it's from those ashes? Why does it evoke disgust? Is it because it was human remains, or because of the nature of the remains? Or is it because he could've done something amazing with it and chose to smear them in a rectangle shape.

Also, just because something causes debate does not in and of itself make the thing valuable. The debate can be valuable but the object spawning it might not be.

I get very little out of Rothko, who is perhaps the non plus ultra of coloured rectangles on canvass, so I get very little out of this myself.

But on the other hand, my point is simply that given my limitations on understanding of art, I can do little more than give a subjective opinion that is necessarily not of great wider value outside my skull. The generally hostile attitude to modern art is a lot about the fact it refers to all sorts of stuff you couldn't get unless you knew art and various contexts. In much the same way that you might read Animal Farm and think it's just a stupidly implausible story about intelligent animals, but I wouldn't say it's rubbish and/or the author's fault just because you did not understand the allegory it is of the Russian revolution.

Agema:

Bentusi16:

There are still defenders and believers in the idea of aesthetics out there you know, and I'm one of them.

To be picky, bearing in mind that aesthetics is the philosophy of art, I think it would be better to say that you share a different aesthetic sense from others rather than that they don't believe in it.

Frankly I'm less annoyed that he did it and more that he did it and came up with this. A rectangle? How do we even know those are those specific ashes? Maybe he just burnt something in a wood pile and said 'Hey I've got an idea' or something.

I mean, other then a mild sense of disgust does this evoke emotions because it's from those ashes? Why does it evoke disgust? Is it because it was human remains, or because of the nature of the remains? Or is it because he could've done something amazing with it and chose to smear them in a rectangle shape.

Also, just because something causes debate does not in and of itself make the thing valuable. The debate can be valuable but the object spawning it might not be.

I get very little out of Rothko, who is perhaps the non plus ultra of coloured rectangles on canvass, so I get very little out of this myself.

But on the other hand, my point is simply that given my limitations on understanding of art, I can do little more than give a subjective opinion that is necessarily not of great wider value outside my skull. The generally hostile attitude to modern art is a lot about the fact it refers to all sorts of stuff you couldn't get unless you knew art and various contexts. In much the same way that you might read Animal Farm and think it's just a stupidly implausible story about intelligent animals, but I wouldn't say it's rubbish and/or the author's fault just because you did not understand the allegory it is of the Russian revolution.

Of course there is no such thing as objective art, neither viewing or making, since art is supposed to be nothing but subjective. It's designed to appeal to emotions. Pretty pictures appeal to happiness, which for some reason has gone out of style. Happiness and peace are just as valid emotions to bring out in people as disgust, sorrow, anger, et al. There is no such thing as objectively bad art or good art.

Modern art tends to look bad and unappealing to the eye, even if it's got some deeper meaning. Usually it's supposed to; however, the abandonment of visual appeal in favor of emotional manipulation and declaring 'if you don't like it you just don't get it' seems to me to cheapen the entire point of art.

In this case it's a shitty brown stain in a rectangle shape in a cheap frame. It happens to be painted with the ashes of the dead. It's essentially the epitome of everything I feel is wrong with modern art.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked