... but is it art?

No I wouldn’t consider this art – I’d consider it stupid.

No. It’s vulgar trash.

As for it’s artistic merits, it is poorly drawn with no attention to any artistic elements.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic @Simone_De_Beauvoir

Why?

I think the more important questions are:

Why do you even know about this?

Why do you feel it necessary to make it available here when you know the response you are going to get?

BTW, this violates community guidelines in a big way.

@Blondesjon

I found it after a long click-fest on different links pages.

Its (believe it or not) an art discussion that includes the ideas of what’s found acceptable.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic I gave warning. Also, if you looked at the tags, I assumed it would be modded…

Before you get modded, I anxiously await your point.

If it satiates your curiosity, yes I find it offensive.
It does not fit the model of art any more than my taking a dump on a plate and delivering it to your doorstep is art.

bleh

What point are you asking for?

I put up this question as a forum to discuss whether or not this would be considered art. And why one would feel the way that they do.

You did not answer the question I asked you above. Why don’t you consider it art?

I answered it. Read my above statements.

nope.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic Ah, you edited your response…

I consider it art.allright.very bad art. If it were judged it would be:
Artistic merit..0.0
Technical style: 0.0
Freeform: 0.0
Total 0.0
Result: last place..and see you when you learn what real art is..

I looked through the frames thinking something funny was coming up, nope.

Second time I have seen this and I still don’t think it is art. Besides the fact that it is utterly offensive and disgusting it’s…that’s pretty much my reason.

I would consider it disturbing more than anything else. This looks like something someone in a psychiatric facility would draw. Plus, this persons ability to draw isn’t very good at all so no, I’d say, definitely not art.

I’d say that technically it’s art but that it’s truly disturbing, sick, and wrong art.

This is not art- it is sadist porn.

Thanks for sharing.

@Dog Porn is much more artistic than that. Also more arousing :P

Not at all, art is something you would appreciate, something that makes you admire it.

Can someone post a brief description of what it is. I don’t want to open it in my office and curiosity is killing me.

@uberbatman porn comes in all forms of media and this falls under sadist fetish.

Here is one of many articles on Sexual Cannibalism

This is in regards to comics being pornographic

“Although there had been pornographic comic books since the dawn of the medium, for example the crudely produced “Tijuana Bibles” from the 30s to the 50s, the new specialty market that bypassed newsstands opened up a new wave of comic book pornography. On the flip side, it also allowed comics to explore issues of sexuality and body image. Cartoonists who have used this new freedom to create taboo-challenging work include Julie Doucet (Dirty Plotte, since 1989), Phil Foglio (Xxxenophile, since 1989), Pheobe Gloeckner, Melinda Gebbie, and, most prolifically, Dave Cooper with Cynthia Petal’s Really Fantastic Alien Sex Frenzy! (1993), Pressed Tongue (1994) and Suckle (1996).”

@drClaw its a super shitty ms paint drawing comic of a guy flipping out over his shitty steak and killing his wife and kids. He then chops off his sons ‘diddlywho’ and frys it up. Then he adds a little special sauce to complete the dish. He then enjoys his fine cuisine with his dead naked family hanging in the background.

@Dog i refuse to believe people fap to this :P

after looking through the rest of the ‘comics’ on this site ive come to the conclusion it was made by a male age 12–15 who is the same type of person that enjoys trolling websites and is liked by no one in real life.

does the “artist” call it “art”?

This reminds me of the boy who made that flash video animation of himself killing a lot of people and committing suicide before he tried to off people at his school and then committed suicide. Sure, it’s art, but only in the widest possible sense of the term.

It may be art using the wiki definition; “Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature.”

Though a case could be made that it doesn’t appeal to the emotions as much as it repels.

But it is also garbage that doesn’t deserve any distribution or recognition (other than psychiatric).

im also going to go as far as to say the ‘artist’ is also a closeted homosexual.

@uberbatman That may be an insult to closeted homosexuals…

@uberbatman why?

“Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions.”
Don’t get confused. Deliberatly is personal, appeals can be to the good and dark side of us.

It really depends on the intent of the “artist”.

If a 5 year old likes to paint and the only thing he or she can make are some squiggly lines. Is it art? Yes it is. Might not be what you like, but to the child and their loving mommy and daddy it is beautiful.

@ChazMaz – So does this appeal to your dark side?

I do have chalk lines drawn by my nephew when he was 1.5 – 2 years old, but it actually appeals to me.

Not mine, but you wont find me burning books either.

For me (art is subjective) it does not do anything.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir his clear obsession with naked men and boys. One may say its just shock value, but i think there’s something more there. Think of it like the neighbor kids dad in American Beauty.

@boots touche :P

Uhhhh….

@uberbatman
—i see an obsession with cutting off penises
that might point to a hatred of oneself
not necessarily a love of those with penises
that’s quite a stretch—

i agree with @Simone_De_Beauvoir, cutting off penises and disturbing traumatized children may be up your alley but not mine and i don’t want to have anything to do with it. i do have a dark side and this is nooooot anything like it. it’s disgusting. somebody with serious issues. it may be art in the same way toddler scribble is art but i’ll have nothing to do with it. whoever finds that funny is sick.

I have no intention of looking, but I did enjoy reading the answers

Art makes you think or stirs emotions.
The only thing I thought when I saw it was “this guy needs therapy”

The comments on this question have thoroughly convinced me that this is, in fact, art. Only art could extract such emotion from people.

It is sad that this worrying filth has taken so much of my time.

In my opinion this is an expression of a seriously troubled mind. In that sense I would not call it art, but rather a symptom.

Given the recent tendency to violence preceded by ‘outings’ similar to his comic, I would strongly suggest anyone that knows of a way how to do that to warn the authorities. I think it would be wise to verify the state of mind of the individual who made it.

Art is subjective – the appreciation of it warrants an intent to view it as such by both its creators and its audience. This audience (ie my person) does not want to view it as art, since that would be an insult to (most) artists.

In the sense that its a drawn comic, I guess I would call it art. Like so many other have said, art is subjective. There is still a such thing as bad art, and I think terrible fits this just fine.

Well, it certainly raises powerful responses in people. Most people seem to be very uncomfortable, or to be totally grossed out by the ideas in this cartoon.

There are some pretty horrible stories out there. Men do go crazy and kill their families. Then they might abuse the corpses. It doesn’t make any sense to us, and this cartoon reminds us of that senselessness.

Do we need to be reminded? Who knows? Perhaps so. Perhaps we hide ourselves from these things too much. We want to forget they are there because they make us so uncomfortable.

It was a hateful topic. But it was very effective, it seems to me. Yeah. It’s art.

i’m not going to criticize you for posting this, because regardless of what your intentions are in asking, it’s still a legitimate question, and the ‘art’ in question gets a point across

i think it really depends on your definition of art. to some people, art is something pleasing to the eye. in which case, most people wouldn’t define it as art, because it’s not pretty.
some people consider art ‘anything you can get away with’, a la andy warhol. in which case, sure, it’s art.
most factors, however, that people use to judge whether something is art or not (such as ‘artistic technique’) are absolutely subjective.

@all of the people who are just responding defensively/etc, i think the point of the question is lost on them. the image is obviously disturbing, and i doubt you’ve got it framed in your living room. the point is that, despite horrible subject matter and little display of talent, can the subject still be considered art? this was a good example of something so extremely far from what is considered art, which raises the question of what art actually is anyway.
GQ

Finally someone “got it”. @tiffyandthewall, thank you.

@jeanna (:

@tiffyandthewall

I wish Jeanna answered more questions… but she exactly explained the reason I gave you a GA on your orginal answer.