2.15.2010

the rape tunnel

{trigger warning - source material discusses rape in a dismissive, denying manner}

{addendum: apparently, it's a hoax. but the sentiment still stands.}

art should heal.
promote discussion.
uplift.
agitate.
inspire.

of course, art often depicts pain.

sometimes the artist opts for some level of self-harm. not big on that, but they are the purveyor of their domain.

that said, i would maintain that art should not hurt the observer--unless it is in the context of revealing a stark truth or reality in the interest of unpacking, analyzing, and reevaluating said truth for the betterment of the community/society as a whole.


but since when is deliberately setting out to rape someone art?  and what's with the cavalier attitude?
[Sheila Zareno] But rape is way more extreme than [his last project which involved] a punch to the face. Is your intention to ruin people’s lives?

["artist" Richard Whitehurst] Possibly. I’m not necessarily concerned with the positive or negative effects of this project so long as there is some effect on people’s lives. I’ve merely set up a situation where there is potential to impact people in meaningful ways. Maybe I won’t be able to rape everyone who crawls through the tunnel, but the door is open for all kinds of scenarios; rape, serious injury, maybe even death. I might even get arrested.

Right now the installation isn’t even complete, and I’ve riled up a substantial portion of the local population. The installation as an idea is powerful enough itself.

um, what?

cloaking your misogyny and misanthropy behind "art" is...pretty fking lame, dude.

2 comments:

possumstew said...

The next mothersucker I see using horrible sensationalist tactics to fill in for TALENT and calling it transgressive "art" is getting punched in the nertz. I'm dead serious.

sugar sista said...

my thing is, even if you THOUGHT to do something like that (ew), why take the time/energy to even attempt to execute it?!?! ugh.