All morning, I've been stuck on the psychology behind creating disturbing art. I'm thinking of David Lynch movies, weird horror flicks, and, the painter, Frances Bacon. See his Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion below. 
I guess that I'm having trouble understanding the why. It is not beautiful. It is meant to push our minds to the edge of comfort and peer over a dark chasm of the strange. Invaluable? Maybe. Upsetting? Yes. Interesting? Yep, that too.
Bjork comes to mind as well.
If you think of any strange, weird, or disturbing works or artists, please share them in the comments section. I'd be interested.
3 comments:
Speaking from an artist's perspective (poetry and music)- meaning is sometimes very personal. Even if I would like the observer to feel their own subjective meaning, I know the real meaning behind what we've created.
Thus, I think it difficult to arrive at a why unless we were to press the artist for the true meaning of the piece. Even then, the piece may be so personal that it would never be divulged.
But, perhaps, in the case of horror flicks, the beauty is found in the lack thereof. Or the pleasure is in the making of the flick.
Meaning may be as base and vulgar as it could be brilliant and sublime.
In my art anyway, it's usually not as subjective as I make it out to be.
I ran across this last month and I thought it was really cool. It's not disturbing, but I wanted to share it with you anyway. It's called trash bag art.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH6xCT2aTSo
-char
Richard D. James (aka Aphex twin)
I think "disturbing" art might be made as a result of purging the disturbing thoughts that creep into our minds late at night when we can't sleep. Letting out the subconscious in an effort to keep control of the real conscious. Bringing to light the disturbed, makes it more bearable in its artistic form maybe. There is much in this world that is "disturbed." Is there a point to ignoring that fact by only making "pretty" art?
Post a Comment