Topics Art

Question Can acts of terrorism, as choreographed performances of something, be consider art?

Accepted:
February 6, 2006

Comments

Terrorist acts can be considered art, surely. I know an artist who, when he saw the WTC burning from his loft window, thought this was art (namely the filming of a movie). But his judgment was based on a factual error. So you might ask: What may rightly be considered art? I think the best answer to this question now is that there is no good answer, no boundary between art and non-art (see my response to question 865). To be sure, we might consider in very bad taste an invitation to consider as art a terrorist attack in which innocent civilians died. But much of what is treated as art (exhibited in museums, sold in gallaries) is widely considered to be in bad taste -- and defended as expanding the consciousness of a complacent public. And similarly for other properties that one might think disqualify something from being art. For any such property, or combination of such properties, there seem to be things with these properties that are considered art.

Question Can acts of terrorism, as choreographed performances of something, be consider art? Accepted:February 6, 2006

Question Can acts of terrorism, as choreographed performances of something, be consider art?

Accepted:
February 6, 2006