eXistenZ vs. Reality

           Appearance vs. Reality has always been a relevant theme, discussed in the plays of Shakespeare to many of the works released today. In the film Existenz we are treated with an interesting paradigm in which the virtual world and the real world seem to mesh into one. The boundary between the reality and the mental perception almost seizes to exist. The gamer is physically attached to the game pod through an umbilical cord. Through this cord, the pod is able to live off of the host's energy. This relationship blurs the line between human and technology since a metaphorical transformation from human to machine occurs.

            This can be seen at a less intense level in today's society. With consoles such as the xBox Kinect, which turns the gamer into the controller, or games like "The Sims" where you can live someone else's life virtually. To an extent the same relationship formed between human and technology can be seen implemented around us. People can spend day's upon day's emerged in this virtual reality. Although some of the tasks may seem unethical or unrealistic everything is possible in this games. The difference between the game's reality and our reality has become so hard to distinguish for some that it has brought them to make stupid decisions that should have not been made outside the game. This is especially troubling since younger demographic's are most susceptible to  not knowing the difference between what appears to be real and what really is. 

Disturbia

                   Gianni Vattimo, had the notion that art should bring uneasy and discomforting feelings. Although I believe that not all art represents this idea, I do believe the form of DADA does so. A photo, video, painting or any work of art that makes one feel disturbed appeals to many. In today's society we have a greater tolerance for horror and disgust. With T.V. series like the Walking Dead and American Horror stories, and movies such as Saw it's not hard to see the appeal this characterized feeling it brings to many.

In the photograph above we see a sculpted nude women eating her own organs. What's even more lovely is that the sculpture is made out of Marzipan, a almond based paste that is used in creating many small delicacies. The reason this brings a sense of shock, is the thought of eating your own body Hannibal Lecter style. Although nude art is not far form the norm, in the way it is presented in the above picture gives a discomforting feeling, as you are not sure what the intentions of her being nude are. The piece itself takes a little time to soak in. You divulge into each section of the photo, and you soon realize that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. When you combine all the aspects together you get a gruesome and discomforting viewing experience. The artist Helga Vaticre explained that she wanted to be scary and viol on the outside, but sweet and creamy on the inside.

Shock & Disorientation

Although I wouldn't say disorientation is the "supreme" form of aesthetic experience, I do find that most art aims to be shocking in some aspect in order to captivate the viewer and be interesting or memorable. Artists want to create something that is striking to the audience and makes a statement. Sometimes a lack of shock will be ironically making a statement, or the artist will be specifically trying to create anti-art, but I think that regardless of intent there is still a message communicated. The meta-message lies more on the part of the audience than the artist, and depends on how the art is perceived. Modern entertainment is very inclusive of the horror genre, which explicitly has the intention of inducing fear in the audience. The repeated exposure to fear and shock is almost anti-productive in that it makes the consumer less sensitive to this kind of artistic disorientation. A mild form of fear is included as a normal part of media consumption, keeping viewers in a constant loop of being told to fear something and then buy something in order to be accepted/safe/comfortable. But it is this mixture of fear and comfort that makes an impact on the audience when done in an eccentric way. People constantly seek to explore things that make them uncomfortable, and art makes it possible to have these experiences vicariously.

An example of a shocking/disorienting artistic piece is this performance at an art show by Yoko Ono. It completely succeeds in disorienting the audience (based on their reactions), and even without experiencing it live I can feel the confusion every time I watch it. A true classic.

Ann Liv Young

I agree with him to an extent. Art should have some element of shock and discomfort that adds to its realism. Art should have an element that provoke us out of numbness and moves us to action in some sort of way. For art to truly represent life it needs to shock us, but people don't look to art for that reason or sometimes create art for that reason. I remember reading that writing is about creating private spheres out of public chaos. We sort of turn to art sometimes not to see reality relived, but as an answer to the chaos. I think I approach it like Jude Law's character, Ted, in eXistenZ, where the idea of going to see something very close to reality is strange. I do think that recently that shock has almost become the norm and it does pushes people to do more which can unleash a lot of creativity and a lot of harm.

Last spring there was a dance show on campus that was very weird and discomforting especially for someone in the front role. The choreographer, Ann Liv Young is known for her bold, shocking style. Here is an article about her from the Alligator and a version of the performance from rehearsals.

http://www.alligator.org/news/features/article_aab8b786-4b03-11e1-80b8-001871e3ce6c.html

https://vimeo.com/36865955

Shock Art

I agree with Vattimo's idea that art should shock a viewer into discomfort. I feel that the show 1,000 ways to die is a good example of this. It can cause some shock and discomfort in some viewers. Just watching a tv show on how some people supposedly died to me, seems very disturbing. Some other forms of are are unintentionally shocking, like photography. Photography can capture very beautiful pictures but it can also capture images that shock viewers, like pictures from the genocide in Cambodia.

My example of shock art is a painting called "Myra," by  Marcus Harvey. Myra is a portrait Myra Hindley. Hindley along with  Ian Duncan Stewart killed five children. Finding out that a painting of a child murderer can be disturbing, but finding out what the painting is painted with is pretty shocking, the painting is made up of children's hand prints.

Shocking Art

I agree with the idea Vattimo presents about how the purpose of art is to shock its viewers so they feel uncomfortable, disoriented, and out of place. I believe that artists nowadays work to try and be as unique as possible in order to separate themselves from other artists. Sometimes the best way to accomplish this is to produce art that is meant to disturb those that view it. Additionally, shock art is used in cinema, especially in the making of horror movies, which are a widely popular genre of movies at present.

The example of shocking art that I chose is called “ Helena: The Goldfish Blender” by Marco Evaristti. This piece of art has a more subtle shock effect than other examples of shock art, but can still produce feelings of discomfort in the viewer. This is because a goldfish would not normally be housed in a blender. Blenders are used to break things down for food or drinks, so putting a goldfish in a blender implies that it might be hurt later on, which would cause discomfort in the person viewing the piece of art.

 

Shock Art

Vattimo's main idea is that art is meant to shock the viewers in ways to make them feel uncomfortable, disoriented, and out of place. In today's society, art seems to have no sole definition. Anything is acceptable as "art" as long as the creator sees it that way. Vattimo's idea does hold true with a vast amount of today's art. Shocking photographs, paintings, videos, etc. are everywhere we look. Supernatural entities are now the main focus of horror movies. TV shows like CSI, My Weird Obsession, and even reality shows are dedicated to shocking viewers on every different level. Photographs are seen everywhere of obscene situations that are becoming increasingly socially acceptable. Since this shock is constantly becoming more acceptable, the bar keeps rising for what the public considers shocking. Aside from all of this, I personally do not agree with Vattimo's idea. I don't think that the purpose of art is to shock. The purpose of art is to please and entertain and this purpose is fulfilled through the cooperation of the artist and his/her audience. Given this purpose, as previously stated, art has no definition and therefore, no restrictions to what it can or cannot do, should  or should not do.

My example of shocking art is a picture by Andres Serrano, an American artist who is renowned for his shocking art. This picture is of a crucifix submersed in what is allegedly the artist's urine. Serrano has done multiple pictures featuring his bodily fluids and also a famous collection of pictures from a morgue. This is a clear example of how the bar for what we consider shocking has been raised, since these kinds of "artwork" wold have never even been considered ten years ago.