Wanted: Dying People for Art

1. Peeves
   May 30th, 2008 at 2:13 am

   Reminds me of the artist that took pictures of people about to die (from illnesses like cancer mostly) and then a picture of them right after death. It was amazing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/gallery/2008/mar/31/lifebeforedeath? picture=333325401

2. fz
   May 30th, 2008 at 2:20 am

   Sounds like some kind of disturbed prick trying to appear profound.

3. Ali S.
   May 30th, 2008 at 2:28 am

   I’m sure he’ll find someone who’ll volunteer for it. After all it is Germany. Some crazy folks hailing from there at the moment.

4. leanbeans
   May 30th, 2008 at 3:57 am

   Just wondering, wouldn’t this breach some kind of ethics code ?

5. Peeves
   May 30th, 2008 at 5:00 am

   What is unethical about death? Death should not be a taboo..it’ll happen to every single one of us. That inevitable reaction of fear or disgust or confusion will make the point that maybe we should think about it more before it happens to someone we love or ourselves. There’s nothing inherently wrong with dying.

6. Peeves
   May 30th, 2008 at 5:01 am

   Interestingly enough, my previous comment about death and dying (with no swears) triggered the auto-moderatoratron.

7. Evilbeagle
   May 30th, 2008 at 7:02 am

   I don’t know how I feel about this. I know I wouldn’t call it art, but I don’t know if I am intrigued or disgusted.

8. Gerry
   May 30th, 2008 at 7:36 am

   Gregor just need to keep smoking whatever he’s on and be his OWN participant in the ‘art’.

   At the very least he needs NOT TO BREED.

   As cartoon character Hank Hill would say, “There’s just somethin’ not right about that boy….”

9. sw
   May 30th, 2008 at 9:15 am

   peeves, that was an amazing link. thank you.

10. Thomas
    May 30th, 2008 at 11:57 am

    I think the link set off the auto-moderation. To make sure you weren’t spamming. Just guessing, though.

11. Dave
    May 30th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

    Definitely NOT art.

12. Mattie
    May 30th, 2008 at 1:17 pm

    I wasn’t aware so much art was happening in a hospital.

    I hope no one actually PAYS to see this exhibit. You can go into the intensive care unit or the cancer wing of any hospital and see this “art.”

    There is beauty in death, that’s for sure. But this guy just comes off as someone trying to make a profit out of a spectacle. It reminds me of that “artist” whose exhibit was letting a dog slowly die over several days. At least in this case he’ll have a willing volunteer.

13. Video Game Dork
    May 30th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

    There is nothing wrong with dying.

    There is also nothing beautiful about death.

    It can be pain, or it can be peace. But romanticing it is just wrong.

14. Peeves
    May 30th, 2008 at 3:42 pm

    It was my second comment, with no links that triggered it. The first one had no problem.

15. Anthony
    May 30th, 2008 at 7:27 pm

    I don’t see what’s so bad about it. I guess art is doomed to be the most objective thing in existence, but I didn’t expect so much opposition.

    If anything, this will have a big impact on some people. If Art is about invoking a feeling, memory, opinion, etc in a person or a group of people, than this is better than some mountainous landscape, right?

    I don’t think it’s wrong or that you have to be a lunatic to want to put your death on display. Some people want to die alone at home, and some would want to do something like this. It’s your death, I say do whatever the hell you want with it.

16. Tempscire
    May 30th, 2008 at 7:42 pm

    I assume the “beautiful” part comes before the bowels evacuate.

17. Idil
    May 30th, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    Beautiful or not, it is definitely art.
    However, to me it kind of comes off as an excuse for dealing with dying people…
    Anyway, it is definitely not unethical because the it’s based on the subject’s choice.
    I wouldn’t want to browse a gallery of it though.

18. ted
    May 31st, 2008 at 11:44 am

    Just wrong in so many ways.

    Is it “art”? Here’s the scale to test it on:

    Will this be in a museum or even remembered in a thousand years’ time?

    500 years?

    A century?

    A decade?

    6 months?

    Tomorrow?

19. Jerub-Baal
    May 31st, 2008 at 1:33 pm

    One misunderstanding of ethics keeps popping up in any of the discussions about this. That is, that it can’t be unethical because the subject agrees to it.

    However, the subject of a scam or a ponzi scheme agrees to the terms of the scam, but that doesn’t make said scam ethical.

    I am not comparing Mr. Schneider to a scam artist, please! I am merely pointing out that the willing participation of the subject, in and of itself, does not confer ethical respectability to the project.

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT