Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Malevolent Art

Rate this topic


SapereAude

Recommended Posts

I've often heard Objectivists expressing a distaste for what could be deemed "malevolent art" some going as far as to think the enjoyment of such is immoral.

In the past such things as Grand Guignol, or the works of Marquis de Sade woud probably fall along these lines as would the works of Hieronymus Bosch.

Modern equivelents could be seen as being HR Giger and filmmakers who work in horror or even the sub-genre known (I think stupidly) as "torture porn".

For myself I enjoy these things and take them for what they are. Horror films are a fascinating glimpse into the fears and neurosis of a time. The themes of these are not accidental, not are they strictly copy-cat. I think there is a good reason why horror themes come in waves such as religion, evil children, hillbillies, slasher, ghost, monster, science, sexual torture, cannibalism..etc...

I recently saw an interview with a filmaker who worked on horror pictures in the 70's who explained one of the now cliched horror movie devices where the "final girl" first realizes her friends are gone, then finds them mangled and dead one by one as drawing from his experiences in the Vietnam war.

I'm curious to know how other Objectivists feel about enjoying art that is technically "unenjoyable".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've often heard Objectivists expressing a distaste for what could be deemed "malevolent art" some going as far as to think the enjoyment of such is immoral.

In the past such things as Grand Guignol, or the works of Marquis de Sade woud probably fall along these lines as would the works of Hieronymus Bosch.

That would depend on how one interprets the individual works of art. Personally, I don't interpret Bosch's art as being "malevolent" in the Objectivist sense. I think much of it is strongly moral and implies that mankind is capable of choosing between good or evil, and of dealing with the consequences.

Modern equivelents could be seen as being HR Giger and filmmakers who work in horror or even the sub-genre known (I think stupidly) as "torture porn".

For myself I enjoy these things and take them for what they are. Horror films are a fascinating glimpse into the fears and neurosis of a time. The themes of these are not accidental, not are they strictly copy-cat. I think there is a good reason why horror themes come in waves such as religion, evil children, hillbillies, slasher, ghost, monster, science, sexual torture, cannibalism..etc...

I recently saw an interview with a filmaker who worked on horror pictures in the 70's who explained one of the now cliched horror movie devices where the "final girl" first realizes her friends are gone, then finds them mangled and dead one by one as drawing from his experiences in the Vietnam war.

I'm curious to know how other Objectivists feel about enjoying art that is technically "unenjoyable".

I think that art which includes horrific content can be intellectually and emotionally stimulating or challenging. It can invite you to discover things about yourself that are not necessarily enjoyable, but which can be valuable.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depending on what it is, I often have found many specific works that may not be particularly rosy that I still had a positive reaction to.

I haven’t yet read much of the non-fiction stuff on art yet, so once I do I may find out why this can’t be so, but I’ve often wondered if art can’t serve more than one purpose, or perhaps instead, if not everything which uses the forms art can be done in does count as art.

I know the explanation given for what art is and why it is so important is as a means of giving us a sort of more tangible summed up sense of what life can be like, what it is we’re striving for, to cheer us up and inspire us to keep on fighting the good fight. I agree this is very important and having experienced it, I know how powerful it can be. However, in the cases of the less rosy works of art that I’ve come across and enjoyed, what I enjoyed about them was not some kind of focus on a malevolent view of life and trying to portray life as hopelessly awful. When a work does seem to be just pushing something like that relentlessly, then I do not enjoy it. What I do enjoy are things like some horror movies where there are very interestingly intricate plots and lots of exciting surprises and it is those things which attract me to the work. Or maybe paintings with unusual styles and content for their being rather novel and perhaps in some cases, rather dream-like. Or maybe sometimes some music I’d like because it resonates with a feeling I may have and serves almost to help give it some more of a form and expression when I get to times where I don’t think there’s much else I can do about it.

I think an important distinction too is that when I may enjoy these less rosy works, it seems like that darker element to them is treated as a means to some other end primarily, not as the goal of the work itself. Like the movie has lots of people put in painful or dangerous situations as a means to creating a high-stakes and exciting story, not that they are just torturing people to try to bring the audience down (for example, the good horror movies I like are generally either hurting people who suck anyway and so you don’t feel too bad for them, or else if they are good people, then they come out victorious in the end as opposed to just relentlessly destroying good people and it being gotten away with.) However, that there is so much of it in its tone which is just there as a means to another end rather than being the goal of the work itself is why I wonder if these things count as art so much still since the tone of the work is largely what art is about and aimed at in the earlier definition of art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depending on what it is, I often have found many specific works that may not be particularly rosy that I still had a positive reaction to.

I haven’t yet read much of the non-fiction stuff on art yet, so once I do I may find out why this can’t be so, but I’ve often wondered if art can’t serve more than one purpose, or perhaps instead, if not everything which uses the forms art can be done in does count as art.

I know the explanation given for what art is and why it is so important is as a means of giving us a sort of more tangible summed up sense of what life can be like, what it is we’re striving for, to cheer us up and inspire us to keep on fighting the good fight. I agree this is very important and having experienced it, I know how powerful it can be. However, in the cases of the less rosy works of art that I’ve come across and enjoyed, what I enjoyed about them was not some kind of focus on a malevolent view of life and trying to portray life as hopelessly awful. When a work does seem to be just pushing something like that relentlessly, then I do not enjoy it. What I do enjoy are things like some horror movies where there are very interestingly intricate plots and lots of exciting surprises and it is those things which attract me to the work. Or maybe paintings with unusual styles and content for their being rather novel and perhaps in some cases, rather dream-like. Or maybe sometimes some music I’d like because it resonates with a feeling I may have and serves almost to help give it some more of a form and expression when I get to times where I don’t think there’s much else I can do about it.

I think an important distinction too is that when I may enjoy these less rosy works, it seems like that darker element to them is treated as a means to some other end primarily, not as the goal of the work itself. Like the movie has lots of people put in painful or dangerous situations as a means to creating a high-stakes and exciting story, not that they are just torturing people to try to bring the audience down (for example, the good horror movies I like are generally either hurting people who suck anyway and so you don’t feel too bad for them, or else if they are good people, then they come out victorious in the end as opposed to just relentlessly destroying good people and it being gotten away with.) However, that there is so much of it in its tone which is just there as a means to another end rather than being the goal of the work itself is why I wonder if these things count as art so much still since the tone of the work is largely what art is about and aimed at in the earlier definition of art.

This sounds like excuses to 'justify' your desired inclination to indulge in gross irrationality... as pathological examples, they serve a valid purpose, but in terms of declaring a pro-human aesthetic, no... [now, there is a distinction between horror and suspense - Halloween [the original], for instance, is suspense, with the heroine displaying resolve in the end, rationally acting to preserve herself, a pro-human action... the sequels are something else...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've often heard Objectivists expressing a distaste for what could be deemed "malevolent art" some going as far as to think the enjoyment of such is immoral.

If these people your speaking of were O'ists they would know that emotions like "enjoyment" are A-moral, and not subject to evaluation, because emotions occur automatically without volition.

It is only the premises behind the emotions which can be judged as moral or immoral, pro-life and/or anti-life, because they are formed and held volitionally.

Now, you state:

For myself I enjoy these things and take them for what they are.

My questions would be:

*Why do you enjoy them?

You state that you "take them for what they are?"

*What does this mean?

*What are they?

Here is a snippet from Ayn Rand's Romantic Manifesto: "Art and Sense of Life" on the topic of esthetic judgment, which I think is relevant to the discussion:

Now a word of warning about the criteria of esthetic judgment. A sense of life is the source of art, but it is not the sole qualification of an artist or of an esthetician, and it is not a criterion of esthetic judgment. Emotions are not tools of cognition. Esthetics is a branch of philosophy—and just as a philosopher does not approach any other branch of his science with his feelings or emotions as his criterion of judgment, so he cannot do it in the field of esthetics. A sense of life is not sufficient professional equipment. An esthetician—as well as any man who attempts to evaluate art works—must be guided by more than an emotion.

The fact that one agrees or disagrees with an artist's philosophy is irrelevant to an esthetic appraisal of his work qua art. One does not have to agree with an artist (nor even to enjoy him) in order to evaluate his work. In essence, an objective evaluation requires that one identify the artist's theme, the abstract meaning of his work (exclusively by identifying the evidence contained in the work and allowing no other, outside considerations), then evaluate the means by which he conveys it—i.e., taking his theme as criterion, evaluate the purely esthetic elements of the work, the technical mastery (or lack of it) with which he projects (or fails to project) his view of life.

(The esthetic principles which apply to all art, regardless of an individual artist's philosophy, and which must guide an objective evaluation, are outside the scope of this discussion. I will mention only that such principles are defined by the science of esthetics—a task at which modern philosophy has failed dismally.)

Since art is a philosophical composite, it is not a contradiction to say: "This is a great work of art, but I don't like it, "—provided one defines the exact meaning of that statement: the first part refers to a purely esthetic appraisal, the second to a deeper philosophical level which includes more than esthetic values.

Even in the realm of personal choices, there are many different aspects from which one may enjoy a work of art—other than sense-of-life affinity. One's sense of life is fully involved only when one feels a profoundly personal emotion about a work of art. But there are many other levels or degrees of liking; the differences are similar to the difference between romantic love and affection or friendship.

For instance: I love the work of Victor Hugo, in a deeper sense than admiration for his superlative literary genius, and I find many similarities between his sense of life and mine, although I disagree with virtually all of his explicit philosophy—I like Dostoevsky, for his superb mastery of plot structure and for his merciless dissection of the psychology of evil, even though his philosophy and his sense of life are almost diametrically opposed to mine—I like the early novels of Mickey Spillane, for his plot ingenuity and moralistic style, even though his sense of life clashes with mine, and no explicit philosophical element is involved in his work—I cannot stand Tolstoy, and reading him was the most boring literary duty I ever had to perform, his philosophy and his sense of life are not merely mistaken, but evil, and yet, from a purely literary viewpoint, on his own terms, I have to evaluate him as a good writer.

Now, to demonstrate the difference between an intellectual approach and a sense of life, I will restate the preceding paragraph in sense-of-life terms: Hugo gives me the feeling of entering a cathedral—Dostoevsky gives me the feeling of entering a chamber of horrors, but with a powerful guide—Spillane gives me the feeling of hearing a military band in a public park—Tolstoy gives me the feeling of an unsanitary backyard which I do not care to enter.

When one learns to translate the meaning of an art work into objective terms, one discovers that nothing is as potent as art in exposing the essence of a man's character. An artist reveals his naked soul in his work—and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it. (RM, 'Art and Sense of Life', 42)

I guessing this last premise is what you have been sensing in other peoples reactions to certain works of "art," such as 'torture porn".

". . .nothing is as potent as art in exposing the essence of a man's character. An artist reveals his naked soul in his work—and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it."

I'm not sure what man's positive response to "torture porn" says about the essence of his character.

Edited by phibetakappa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you give some examples of malevolent art? Certainly people who value rationality would tend to make a certain kind of art, but even those who have an irrational premise cannot avoid demonstrating what their ideas mean. You can see value in art that effectively conveys some element of reality, even if it is only an abstract element. What matters is *why* you like the piece of work. A malevolent premise does not mean "immoral art". Celebration of man isn't the only thing good art is allowed to be. It could also be severe judgment of evil. Or a demonstration of the importance of self-esteem. Or showing how altruism destroys individuality. To enjoy something like The Matrix does not mean you accept some Kantian view of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, you state:

My questions would be:

*Why do you enjoy them?

I guess I should say I enjoy watching and judging them rather than enjoying them as something enjoyable. I enjoy experiencing and looking at all kinds of things and dissecting them. Most recently I've been fascinated by a genre of movie that is commonly referred to as "torture porn".

Obviously there are some very bad movies made under this banner, and none of it would be considered pleasant to watch but I do enjoy finding the themes and subtexts in horror movies. As I mentioned in the original post one finds that what is considered "horrifying" is a matter of social context. So I find it interesting to pick apart themes and match them to what is going on in the world.

Even poorly made horror movies give an interesting glimpse into the collective mind of the sheeple.

There are also some brilliantly made horror movies with cutting satire, brilliant mood and ambient filmmaking techniques, social commentary or just an amazing visceral effect.

Halloween was a great film, but I think The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original by Tobe Hooper) was even more masterful. The Last House on the Left was pretty stunning (for those not in the know it was a modern update on the classic The Virgin Spring). There is a movie called Irreversable that gave my wife nightmares for weeks but was undeniably a great film.

More recently there was a French movie called Martyrs. It was one of the most appalling, brutal things I've ever seen. Also, a movie that made me think more than any in recent memory. Many people claim it is near impossible to sit through and therefore critique it based on seeing only parts of it. I wouldn't want to spoil so I can't go into it much- but it is, despite something I will probably never subject myself to again, a brilliantly made movie.

I guess to be fascinated by something is not necessarily to enjoy them. But I enjoy being fascinated and challenged so I like to seek out extreme but well movies so I can debate with myself- what the heck was this person thinking? feeling? what made this person think of this and feel the need to express it?

Another good example is Bret Easton Ellis. And Hubert Selby Jr.

The stuff is truly depraved and yet at the same time hits and some brutal and uncomfortable truths.

Edited by QuoVadis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sounds like excuses to 'justify' your desired inclination to indulge in gross irrationality... as pathological examples, they serve a valid purpose, but in terms of declaring a pro-human aesthetic, no... [now, there is a distinction between horror and suspense - Halloween [the original], for instance, is suspense, with the heroine displaying resolve in the end, rationally acting to preserve herself, a pro-human action... the sequels are something else...

You have me mistaken I believe. I did not enjoy these darker works of art and then come up with why they *should* be enjoyable, I enjoyed them and then tried to identify what it was about them I *did* enjoy. Once I identified what I did enjoy I looked at the stuff and it didn't look like there was anything obviously nefarious in there and that is then where my questions arose about if there was something not-so-obviously wrong anyway or not. So far I think some of the things I enjoyed were kind of like the quoted part about Rand talking about Dostoevsky. Now clearly you think there is still something wrong, but you have not made it clear to me what that is. Care to please explain what, how, and why it is still quite so bad as long as you do hold that it is grossly irrational? What is wrong with what I enjoyed or how do the things I enjoyed still not make my enjoyment ok? In spite of what you may have assumed, I *am* open to having my mind changed by a good, strong argument, I'm not just a hopeless case that you can do nothing but condemn and move on from. ;P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what man's positive response to "torture porn" says about the essence of his character.

See that is the part that is problematic. "Torture porn" has no clearly defined definition and many people will use it to describe anything they feel is uncomfortably or needlessly graphic. Yet, often, because of their inability to stomach the graphic content they are unable to see how vital it was to what the film maker was conveying. For one of the best examples of this check out Irreversable. (if you haven't seen this movie don't read reviews before you check it out- they contain far too many spoilers).

As to positive response... what is the nature of "positive response"?

There are many who, being sick, could be turned on by watching brutal things.

There are others who may have a positive response to seeing something brutal but understanding what the film maker is trying to convey (whether agreeing with it or not).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See that is the part that is problematic. "Torture porn" has no clearly defined definition and many people will use it to describe anything they feel is uncomfortably or needlessly graphic. Yet, often, because of their inability to stomach the graphic content they are unable to see how vital it was to what the film maker was conveying. For one of the best examples of this check out Irreversable. (if you haven't seen this movie don't read reviews before you check it out- they contain far too many spoilers).

As to positive response... what is the nature of "positive response"?

There are many who, being sick, could be turned on by watching brutal things.

There are others who may have a positive response to seeing something brutal but understanding what the film maker is trying to convey (whether agreeing with it or not).

I'm reading a detailed summary of the film found here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290673/synopsis

Here is a quote:

He rapes her, and then beats her brutally. The scene lasts for nine minutes, and is one continuous camera shot (most of the scenes are).

The film has a 9 minute scene of raping and beating a woman.

Ayn Rand has said, and I agree, that art is a selective recreation of reality according to an artist's fundamental premises; that the artists can choose to include any concrete depictions he wants, so one can judge their art work based on what the artists chooses to keep in and what they choose to leave out.

The 'artist' of this film/screen play, given all the possible scenes they could use, chose to have 9 minutes (a large percent of the films total running time), spent recreating a woman being brutally raped and beaten.

I am not sure if the film's overall theme warrants the scene, mainly because after reading the synopsis I'm not sure what the theme of the work is.

Maybe the synopsis provides this in describing the final scene, which it states

In the final scene, Alex sits in a park reading a book while children play. She is completely unaware of her coming fate. The scene fades into flashing strobe lights and shows a final slide saying LE TEMPS DETRUIT TOUT (time destroys all things).

"Time destroys all things."

If this is the intended theme, its hard to understand how brutally raping and beating a woman on film for 9 minutes concretetizes it.

That it was the "time" passing that "destroyed" her, and not person choosing to beat and rape her.

After reading another synopsis I now understand the "plot" of the film to be:

Two men seeking revenge for the rape and beating of one of the two men's girlfriend, mistakenly bludgeon the wrong man to death while the real culprit watches amused.

Edited by phibetakappa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find imdb a pretty bad source for movies.

They give away plot points without context.

One of the main things the film maker had to say about choosing to do the scene the way he did was that so many rape scenes end up being titillating to an unfortunate majority of film goers, particularly men, for whatever reason. His purpose was to let there be no mistaking the crime, and that no one could walk away from the movie thinking "they shouldn't have raped her- but nice tits!" It was also his goal that it not be something anyone could joke about (yes, a lot of rape jokes out there folks) he wanted something that would not stun people with its reality but slap them awake to the reality.

By and large it does tend to be a study of entropy, natural and man made. But I've not met anyone who came away from it thinking that time, and not the rapist killed the woman. One has to see the movie to judge whether the rape is vital to the theme, and I believe in the case of the story and the characters within it it was necessary. There is actually quite a bit going on and the characters are, considering that the movie takes place in less than two days time, well formed.

It is one thing that often bothers me about both professional and online reviewers when they do things that are horror, or simply very graphic but of a different genre... how often you see someone say they love horror/slasher/war movies but they want it to be fun and scary without brutality. Along came a genre of film makers that said- wait- YOU are the one who wants to have FUN watching people die and you say I am sick for showing how truly brutal these things are?

Haneke was another excellent example... his movie Funny Games (the original German was better, I thought than the American remake he did) is basically a thriller/horror that berates the viewer for their bloodthirstiness.

So on the one hand you could say "I liked Halloween, it was a good scary thriller- it made me jump without resorting to making me uncomfortable"

and another person might say- "what is wrong with you that you want to see actions without consequences, what is wrong with you that you want to watch people die without being made uncomfortable?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to Irreversible, I think this review hits it more closely, also gives you an idea of why it had to be rape, and brutal that occurs. And again, if you plan on seeing this movie, know that every review I've ever read of it is full of really big spoilers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5033116939.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find imdb a pretty bad source for movies.

They give away plot points without context.

I also use Wikipedia's synopsis found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irréversible

In this particular case, the film has 13 scenes filmed in reverse order. It appears the 'author' intended the audience not to have the context of the events. I don't think IMDB's synopsis did the film a disservice.

I am not sure of the appeal of watching: Two men seeking revenge for the rape and beating of one of the two men's girlfriend, mistakenly bludgeon the wrong man to death while the real culprit watches amused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also use Wikipedia's synopsis found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irréversible

In this particular case, the film has 13 scenes filmed in reverse order. It appears the 'author' intended the audience not to have the context of the events. I don't think IMDB's synopsis did the film a disservice.

I am not sure of the appeal of watching: Two men seeking revenge for the rape and beating of one of the two men's girlfriend, mistakenly bludgeon the wrong man to death while the real culprit watches amused.

Taken down to a couple base points any movie can sound pointless and stupid.

Heck take The Accused for example:

Drunk Slut gets involuntarily banged on a pinball machine by six guys who get off easy by the DA. One of them sees her in a parking lot later and makes crude gesture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taken down to a couple base points any movie can sound pointless and stupid.

I don't think reducing a film to its essence makes it sound "stupid." Calling something "stupid" is just an empty, dismissive, non-criticism.

The property of being "point-full" or being "point-less" could be objectively demonstrated, corroborated, and/or supported.

Was there a "point" to this film? Do the events of the film sum up to any kind of abstract theme and/or conclusion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think reducing a film to its essence makes it sound "stupid." Calling something "stupid" is just an empty, dismissive, non-criticism.

The property of being "point-full" or being "point-less" could be objectively demonstrated, corroborated, and/or supported.

Was there a "point" to this film? Do the events of the film sum up to any kind of abstract theme and/or conclusion?

I think you were typing the response previous to this one when I was responding with a link to what I think is a more fair assessment.

The themes? Yes, I found the movie to present some relevent themes.

I think I might start a thread in Movies about this movie rather than get to bogged down in specifics here when I meant a more general topic. Also, I personally loathe spoilers and I think some here may be interested in the movie and don't want to ruin some of the more unique devices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I might start a thread in Movies about this movie rather than get to bogged down in specifics here when I meant a more general topic.

There is no form without content. Abstractions are gotten by chewing specific concrete examples, and conceptualizing them. There is no point in discussing empty generalizations with no specific content.

You have provided a concrete example a film, which you have stated is missunderstood, or unfairly judged, or whatever.

How exactly would you proceed if specific examples are barred from discussion?

Edited by phibetakappa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...