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. 

SHOCK

Vattimo's idea of shocking the audience to capture their attention is quite apt in today's society. Often the media increasingly displays more and more shocking things to viewer as they have become numb to the previous "shock". This links back to the idea of overexposure and the same is true of shocking images. Initially television, radio and newspapers were highly controlled and their content monitored. A few decades ago a woman showing her legs to the knees was deemed inappropriate and "shocking" but nowadays it is common to walk into a supermarket and find the top shelf of the magazine rack filled with adult material. This demonstrates some of the change in our society in regards to acceptable levels of content and our created numbness to being shocked. It is the new, different and, quite often, extreme material that captures our attention if only to give ourselves the satisfaction of being horrified. It is strange part of human nature to be curious about horrendous things, to be fascinated by them and to be captured by them once we are given access.

The example I have chosen is one that many people have seen, a photograph of a Buddhist monk burning himself to death. This image shocks us. It scares us because we are made aware of the abilities of the human body, it hadn't been done before and it is a horrendous act that features so much pain. It is difficult to turn away from this image despite it's horrific nature.

Art, Shock & Disorientation

     I agree with Vattimo's idea that art is meant to shock the viewer and make them feel disorientated and out of place.  When a person wants an aesthetic experience they want to escape from our normal world and be put somewhere unnatural.  People wouldn't watch TV if it was just following an ordinary person around all day.  The viewer needs their attention grabbed by the art their looking at or they would simply pass it by.  People want to be in a state of " shock", according to Vattimo, and want their senses challenged, as cinema throws them into an abnormal situation.  I believe this is why horror, adventure, and science fiction movies are so popular.  It makes the audience wonder what if there was another planet with life on it with blue humans running around on it or if ghosts are real?  It makes us question the world around us, which is what fascinates people about art and cinema.  I think Vattimo's idea makes perfect sense, especially now when some people are literally becoming addicted to watching TV or playing video games.  TV and video games are getting increasingly disturbing lately to keep the viewers concentration.  Heidegger describes it perfectly when he says "The encounter with the work of art is like an encounter with someone whose view of the world is a challenge to our own interpretation."
     I choose a trailer for Paranormal Activity 4, for my example.  The Paranormal Activity movies have become extremely popular over the past couple years.  Its a perfect example because it is trying to "shock" and scare the audience.  Plus, the way the movie is made makes it very realistic and life like.  The camera is positioned like a security camera so the film doesn't seem like an act but real life.  I think this is what disturbs the viewer the most in these films because it makes them feel like it could happen to them and leaves some questioning if ghosts are real, which could blur their sense of what they thought was reality.

   

Shocking Media

Vattimo's idea states that disorientation is "the supreme mode of modern aesthetic experience." Personally, I disagree with this. Art is not solely meant to shock the viewer, but it can be aesthetically pleasing and depict the real world that the viewer/listener/reader lives in, in a way that does not require content that disturbes the audience in some way. A prime example of this is the Renaissance art period. This art form clearly demonstrated real and spiritual worlds in a way that brought awe to the viewer/listener/reader without shocking or dulling their senses. 

In this modern art age, however, schock does appear to be the prime method used by artists/writers/musicians to attempt and grasp the audience's attention in order to convey, what they believe to be, a deeper message of the real world. This constant attempt to shock seems to be taking a turn to the more disturbing corners of human life though, which could be detrimental to a society. It exposes people to aspects of life they should find disturbing, and conditions these images/sounds/words so they become normal. This new form on shocking art form appears to be at war with the classical forms of art and the new modern art wave, which seems to be less focused of real life and shock, and appeals more to our analytical nature. 

A prime example of how shocking art is beginning to become popular, though, is the current TV show "American Horror Story". 

It has a massive fan base in the United States due to it's strage nature, however this does not mean it depicts facets of the real world, on the contrary it depicts the abnormal. 

Art, Shock, and Disorientation

In response to this week's readings, explain why you agree or disagree with Vattimo's idea (based on the philosophies of Walter Benjamin and Martin Heidegger) that disorientation is "the supreme mode of modern aesthetic experience," and that art should shock a viewer/reader/listener into discomfort in order to confront him/her with the strangeness and uncertainty of a "real" world he/she usually takes for granted. Does Vattimo's concept rightly challenge the inoculating effects of art that only serve to coddle and dull the senses? Or is shock, like any other quality, constantly being made the norm, and thus in danger of forcing artists to search for even greater shocks at the risk of safety or simple aesthetic pleasure/value? Or, to go even further, is the basis of Vattimo's thought fundamentally flawed? Is disorientation "the supreme mode of modern aesthetic experience"? If so, why, and if not, why not?

Also, post or embed a link to a work of art you believe is primarily meant to shock the viewer,  and explain why it succeeds or fails in bringing to consciousness the disorientation of modern life. Here's an example: performance artist Chris Burden's "Shoot":

eXistenZ

In eXistenZ, there is one broad point that I believe Cronenberg is trying to get across: humans have become so reliant on technology that we can't tell the difference between our virtual, avatar selves and our real selves. When people nowadays go on Facebook or Twitter, or any one of those social networks, they believe that that is their reality. They get sucked into an online world and are mentally removed from the real world. This happens in eXistenZ, but in a more literal sense. Through the example of virtual reality video games, Cronenberg shows how new technology can be an escape from reality. In eXistenZ, the pods are "living" video game consoles that plug into humans and use their energy to power the game. The humans then play the video game and are put into a virtual world that is so realistic that it becomes difficult to distinguish between it and reality. This is analogous to our use of technology, since we become removed from reality and treat our virtual self as if it were our real self. It becomes an addiction, as it did in eXistenZ.
The fact that the "living" pods use humans for energy blurs the lines between humans and machines because the pods use the humans like a parasite. The fact that the pods are using real animal organs, but aren't alive like humans are alive (in the sense of emotion, communication skills, etc.) further blurs the line. However, it seems that they strive to be an actual living thing. And, in eXistenZ, the humans treat their bodies like a game console (which only furthers my belief that Jude Law is actually a robot). They use their body like a machine, which dissolves the human-machine distinction even more.

eXistenZ

This film was one that truly pushed the boundaries between the real and technological worlds through the use of one of the most common household items now a days: video games. The film's director took virtual reality to a new level by having the characters live in a world where the machine (video game console) and they became one of the same.
Much like a mother would nurture her child, player and game were attached via an umbilical cord allowing the game to feed off its host, indicating it had a life of its own. In the film the main female character was also made a remark that even though she she designed the game, you never knew where it could take you. This is pretty much her saying that while she designed this piece of machinery and data, what the game console decides to do with what she made is not in her control. This thought is possibly the biggest evidence towards the idea that the video console has a mind of its own and is a living thing, only in a different reality.
The film's lead male character appears to be much more conservative. He fears the idea of having an object live off of him, as well as the idea of his body being left defenseless as he explores another world. He can be seen as the advocate for the human world and what we consider to be our reality.
The ending of the film is quite possibly the most puzzling of all. While the "pods" they hold are not as grotesque looking as the previous ones in the game, its clear that they are on their way to becoming that. Also the fact that it is never explained if the game ended or not goes to show that even in our modern age, technology can pose a threat to our way of living. Some people may become susceptible to the idea that there is another reality out there and this can cause, as seen in the film, major paranoia. The film serves as a warning that while our improvements in the technological world are amazing, we should all proceed with caution.

eXistenZ

The film eXistenZ is very effective in blurring the line between man and machine, as well as reality and virtual reality. The "pods" which house the video games played by humans are hinted at being alive themselves, spoken about with phrases like "it took major hits" and "crying out for help" or "diseased." They do not have a life of their own, but connect to humans and live off of their energy. This brings up a strange symbiotic relationship in which the machine is like a parasite to the human, but it is important that the characters choose to enter these virtual realities. They almost seem to become addicted, to crave more experience in this world that is more exciting than their own. In the case of the game eXistenZ, though, the game is much like reality itself. In fact is it so similar that once entered, the players become unsure whether they are still in the game or not. Even the name sounds like "existence", implying a parallel between the game and reality. At one point in the film Ted pauses the game and then feels very uncomfortable because it makes reality seem less real. This makes a statement on the relationship between people and technology, and the way we rely on electronics so much that we feel we cannot live without them. Suddenly what we thought was real no longer feels natural, and it is hard to tell when one should stop indulging in "games." The complication is that when a game is so similar to real life, it brings up the question of whether we are players in the game of reality regardless.

eXistenZ

I believe the film shows that anything is possible in a virtual reality world. With that being said, there are also some limitations of the virtual reality world that are revealed in eXistenZ. One of the main limitations is that the characters, while having the freedom to do things they normally would not do in real life, were still somewhat restrained by their minds that are retained from the real world.  This is shown when Jude Law’s character says that he wants to take a break from the game and go back to the real world as well as when he is the only one to realize that if they are indeed in real life and not the virtual reality world, then they have killed people who did not deserve to die. However, it is also important to note that while reality is what governs the mind, the characters of the game do not seem to have a choice in whether they want to take certain actions or not because ultimately the people that start the game want to and will do anything to finish it.

eXistenZ

One example of a limitation of virtual reality is when Ted, first gets plugged into eXistenZ and tries to interact with the other characters  he gives a reply that doesn't go with the game and the character starts repeating the scene like it never happened before and waits for an appropriate response. I feel that the virtual world can help a person realize that in the virtual world they can do things that they normally wouldn't do in the real world, in the virtual world you can create an alter ego, and you can do many things that you normally wouldn't do. Like on the xbox, you can create an xbox live account and create an avatar that you feel represents you. In video games, you take lives of killers, spies, and even sports stars and do things you couldn't even dream about doing in the real world. Some people also feel better when they compete against another person in the virtual world, like now Sony and Microsoft have game consoles where you can compete with anyone in the world who has that game and console, a lot of people play online whether it is competitive shooting games or competitive sports games.

eXistenZ

    In today's American society, video games seem to play an important role in kids' lives, to the point where countless studies have been conducted to analyze the effect to which these games affect behavior and mental stability. Since their introduction, video game consoles have constantly evolved technologically in ways that bond player and game more extremely and bring a greater sense of reality into the virtual world. In "eXistenZ" the gamer is physically attached to the game pod through an umbilical cord. Through this cord, the pod "lives" off of the host's energy. This bond blurs the boundary between human and machine since the machine becomes part of the body and lives through it. I think the film is speaking for the need of technology in society and how we, in a sense, allow it to control much of what we do. In the movie, both machine and body need each other for different purposes. Applied to a larger scale, this same idea is visible in daily life. We have become so reliant on different technologies, such as the Internet, that without them, we would not be able to function as efficiently.
   In the film, the virtual world and reality are very similar, which brings up the question of the limitations of virtual worlds. While in the video game, nothing "out of the ordinary" takes place, other than the characters' game urges taking over their personalities, but even then, the virtual world is limited. Although the actions of the virtual body are beyond control, the mind from the real world is still present and guiding the virtual world. While in the game, the characters were still conscious of their real bodies and worried about what was happening to them. They were able to keep a separation of the real world and the virtual world in their minds. Since the mind is present in the game, the limits from the real world still seem to apply in the virtual world, keeping the virtual world as logical and "real" as the real world for the most part instead of completely escaping reality.