Hey Odile, I mostly do painting in acrylics, landscapes and architecture.   My avatar is one of my paintings, of Bop the elephant. 

Sometimes art is going to annoy people.   Art, that to us is mainstream now, was shocking in it's day, like the impressionists.   I heard a program the other day about Stravinsky's Rite of Spring music.   It caused a riot the first time it was heard but the next time it was heard, a year later, it was received with acclaim.   Sometimes artists are trying to get us to see things in a different way.    The question is, where to draw the line.    Certainly cruelty is one criterion. 

Aquila wrote:

I just don't understand cruelty in the name of art. Remember Nathalia Edenmont? She not only used dead animal body parts in her art/photography but she actually killed the animals she was using. Mice, kittens, rabbits, etc. Thank goodness most artists are sensitive, caring people that love and respect animals and life itself.

Unfortunately, the 'Art world' appears to deem that anything, however sick it is (the more controversial the better) can be regarded as 'Art'

Some of the galleries in London exhibit 'art' that is so depraved simply because, in my opinion, the publicity gained encourages people to visit as otherwise, they would not believe what they are seeing in the popular press.

The worst aspect is that the UK Arts Council actually give huge grants to these sick/depraved so-called artists - and that the press print the stories about these - in order that they can promote their horrible art. I can only think that the members of the Arts Council, and some 'Art Critics', must have equally depraved views of the world!

These 'artists' obviously suffer from a disorder of the mind.... I hate to think of how terrible their early years must have been to enable them to believe that others can share and enjoy their (very sick) views of the world.

Maxx I agree with you 100%  I dont remember the name of the artist but he is doing a sculture of Barbaro in the agony rolling when he broke his leg  I dont call that art at all.. And to be very truthful with you I really dont care if I offend people!!!

art is beautiful not something hideous to cause controversy..

This is my honest opinion!

Barb

I was a portrait painter for many years....not professionally, but got my feet wet in the art community somewhat. It has always been by opinion that shock art, tabloid art, performance art, etc were just excuses for people with no talent to call themselves artists. I know that sounds arrogant, but it is the truth. Modern art in general is no longer measured in terms of quality....but rather how much controversy it causes. "Artists" in these new forms are ivory-tower hacks and con men....pure and simple. And hide behind obscure art-babbble when someone shouts, "The emporer has no clothes...."

Don't mean to effend anyone....but I call em' the way I see em'....

totally agree with you. Live suffering should not viewed as a form of art. And yes, most artists are caring people who dedicate their lives to the expression of beauty.

I just don't understand cruelty in the name of art. Remember Nathalia Edenmont? She not only used dead animal body parts in her art/photography but she actually killed the animals she was using. Mice, kittens, rabbits, etc.

Thank goodness most artists are sensitive, caring people that love and respect animals and life itself.

typing error: he should NOT have been there in the first place. Sorry!!!!!

Thank you, Bascia! And he has been invited to repeat that exposition. Some members think it is exagerated. But even the Humane Society acknowledges the fact. According to them, the dog "escaped" after the second day. Well, even if it is true that he escaped, he should have been there in the first place. It's just wrong!