This is the sharpest (and strangest) example I’ve ever seen of how to explain that nonsensical performance art is not really art at all:
The segment that made the greatest impression was that about Marco Evaristti. This fellow had his fat liposuctioned, turned into meatballs, canned and then served as part of a pasta dinner to fellow artists. The piece was called Polpette al grasso di Marco.
The intent of his work was to explore cannibalism from an artistic standpoint. My own view of the matter is that his approach was more sensationalist than substantive and did not really add much (or anything really) to the aesthetic and philosophical discussion of cannibalism. I am also inclined to regard what he did as not being art. After all, he simply had liposuction, had his fat made into meatballs and served a meal. As such, he was a patient, a purchaser of meat balls, a cook and a host-hardly the stuff of art.
While I have not had liposuction, I have been a patient, I have bought meat balls, I have cooked them and served them at a dinner. In a odd coincidence, I have even had a discussion over cannibalism over meatballs (which began as a discussion over the ethics of eating meat). On the face of it, none of this activities are artistic in nature and hence the burden of proof seems to rest on those who claim it is.
The main distinction between what I have done and what he did was to actually serve his own fat in the meal. While this does technically transform the meal from non-cannibalistic to cannibalistic, it is not clear that this results in an aesthetic transformation of the event. What needs to be shown is that adding such a content to a meal somehow transforms the event into art. After all, serving some beef meatballs to facilitate a discussion about eating meat hardly seems to transform the event into art. Likewise, adding some human fat to the meal does not seem to make that art either.
January 7th, 2010 | 10:23 am
“The intent of his work was to explore cannibalism from an artistic standpoint.”
So then, can the case be made that the lampshades made from Jewish skin in the 1940s was merely the Nazis’ desire to explore mass murder from an artistic standpoint?
That the words “art” and “cannibalism” are actually typed into the same sentence shows how far our views of art have truly fallen.
January 7th, 2010 | 10:50 am
Anyone ever heard of the “disgust factor”? Sometimes you don’t need any argumentation to know that something is wrong as well as foolish.
January 7th, 2010 | 11:18 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by First Things, mhick. mhick said: Thx for stealing my dissertation idea. // RT @ROFTERS: Just Because It’s Cannibalistic Doesn’t Mean It’s Art http://bit.ly/8sL4h1 [...]
January 7th, 2010 | 11:45 am
I found it telling that he served the “meal” to “fellow artists”. Perhaps they all belong to the same performance art sewing circle, each one trying to outdo the others as to who can best “epater le bourgois.” Or maybe they are just starving artists who couldn’t refuse the offer of a free meal.
January 8th, 2010 | 3:33 am
“That’s not even art!” is the laziest cliche in art criticism. Answering the question of whether something is art or not is commonly conflated with making a judgment of whether that thing has any artistic merit. Unfortunately for lazy art critics (and lazy thinkers), these two issues are entirely separate.
The most banal or inconsequential acts can be works of art, if intended as such, and yet be so banal or inconsequential to be considered to have no artistic merit (or very little, like some sensationalist or pompous and empty performance art).
Just as something can be banal and art, it can be evil and art. Steve made the point about “lampshades made from Jewish skin”, and how they were so morally despicable that you couldn’t excuse their creation as “merely” art. But who said you could? Whether they are considered art or not has no bearing on the morality of their creation – these are separate issues. This is not to say that the morality of a piece cannot bear on judging it’s artistic worth, of course it can, and it may even be judged worthless because of it – that just doesn’t make it ‘not art’.
Regarding this particular work, John C makes the point about the disgust factor, but this is a clear example of the so-called ‘naturalistic fallacy’ when applied to morality. Many people happen to find Brussel sprouts disgusting, but it’s not therefore “wrong and foolish” for anyone to eat them – you need a better argument than that.
In a nutshell, I believe that you can legitimately argue that the cannibalistic element to the work does not give it any artistic merit above merely cooking and serving ordinary meatballs as art, maybe even less, given moral qualms about cannibalism, but you cannot legitimately dismiss this work as not art at all.
January 8th, 2010 | 11:38 pm
DMR, I appreciate your response to my comment. I guess my point is that art should in some way lift the spirit, whether intellectually or emotionally. Like one of Keats’ odes, for example. I wouldn’t underestimate the “disgust factor”. It may be one of the bases of morality. And by the way, Brussel sprouts are not disgusting. They are simply a matter of taste.
January 11th, 2010 | 11:47 pm
John C., do you mean either:
1) Art must, as a matter of definition, in some way lift the spirit.
Or the weaker claim:
2) Art ought, as a measure of its merit, to in some way lift the spirit.
I could agree with the sentiment of 2, but not with 1 in any way.
As for the “disgust factor”, I don’t doubt that it is one of the bases of everyday morality – in general it steers us away from many behaviors harmful to ourselves and others. However, it varies from person to person and culture to culture, and is simply not a necessary, or on its own sufficient, guide to what’s right or wrong (unless you are quite a radical moral relativist).
I presume you’re joking about Brussels sprouts not being disgusting because that’s a matter of taste! Just in case you’re not though, I’ll point out again the variability of the disgust factor, and that there is no objective ‘fact of the matter’ about sprouts, precisely because it is a matter of taste!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact