do you dare enter the-rape-tunnel?

[keith.]

excuse me, wtf do you think youre doin...
http://www.artlurker.com/2009/09/the-ra ... la-zareno/

First of all, I want to make it clear that I plan to make the experience as unpleasant as I possibly can to anyone who dares to crawl through the tunnel. I will try to the best of my ability to make them regret their decision.

[zac]

My initial reaction, as an asshole, is to point out that this is such old news.


But besides my internet-curmudgeony, I'd be enthralled if a discussion started about the nature of modern art, and if this constitutes "art".
I believe it does.

• The artist is creating a hypothetical scenario where the viewer is forced to face subjects such as death, control, consent, power.
• This has a simmilar impact on people's thoughts as some paintings.
• A creative endeavor instigated by a person for the purpose of having a psychological impact on a viewer is essentially the/a definition of art.
• This is art.

"I’ve merely set up a situation where there is potential to impact people in meaningful ways."

[keith.]

my initial thoughts were that of laughter (punch-in-the-face-tunnel) and "this guy is an asshole"

if you enter that tunnel, you know whats a comin' its your own fault. bravo rape-tunnel guy.
enjoy your rape

[grind/bro]

WAPE TUNNEL

[grind/bro]

I think he just placed John Ross at the other end of it.

[Mikey]

While I'm pretty confident that the actual project is a hoax, I'll pretend it isn't and respond in a serious way.

I don't see this as art. Rape is about violence, and power over others. It has been, and will continue to be discussed for years regardless of such an experiment existing. And to me, that is the point of art, to provoke response and discussion to encourage mental growth. This experiment (which it seems better deemed a social experiment than art) is unnecessary as it will have little effect on the discussions and mindset of the topic. The only result that seems to come from an idea like this is malice, and pain. As well as furthering the the idea that yes, mankind is rotten at the core. I see this an extreme way to get attention, and egotistical/the opposite of art as all the creator wants is to personally impact people and gain attention. You should create art for the sake of art, not to make yourself feel important and be "that rape guy" (lulz).

All that being said, I can also technically see this as art because even in just presenting the idea, has resulted in a large discussion about what art is, what is too far, etc. So..yeah I guess in a roundabout way this could be called art.

Just sayin', I don't think it's art. Now go ahead and make fun of me for taking this too seriously.

[Hollow]

While I'm pretty confident that the actual project is a hoax, I'll pretend it isn't and respond in a serious way.

I don't see this as art. Rape is about violence, and power over others. It has been, and will continue to be discussed for years regardless of such an experiment existing. And to me, that is the point of art, to provoke response and discussion to encourage mental growth. This experiment (which it seems better deemed a social experiment than art) is unnecessary as it will have little effect on the discussions and mindset of the topic. The only result that seems to come from an idea like this is malice, and pain. As well as furthering the the idea that yes, mankind is rotten at the core. I see this an extreme way to get attention, and egotistical/the opposite of art as all the creator wants is to personally impact people and gain attention. You should create art for the sake of art, not to make yourself feel important and be "that rape guy" (lulz).

All that being said, I can also technically see this as art because even in just presenting the idea, has resulted in a large discussion about what art is, what is too far, etc. So..yeah I guess in a roundabout way this could be called art.

Just sayin', I don't think it's art. Now go ahead and make fun of me for taking this too seriously.

I''m technically a Fine Arts major. I too, take this seriously.

Is this art? Well, honestly, there is no actual definition of what "art" is. There are Websters definitions, for sure, but they tend to only scrape the tops of the concepts of art, forgetting movements like Dada, which eschewed the very concept of art in favor of a more nihilistic political concepts (my personal favorite piece of Dada art was a door. Just a door, sitting in the middle of a Paris gallery. Saw a picture of that from 1922 when I was 10 and just laughed my ass off). Your concept of art seems to fall under the Aesthetic school. This was the school of art espoused by Oscar Wilde and Whistler, the "art for arts sake" movement. The problem with that, of course, was that their works caused a huge amount of sensation ("Whistlers Mother", while tame by todays comparisons, almost got him lynched when it was first shown. The idea that someone would paint such a boring, flat picture of THEIR MOTHER, and then name it "Arrangement in Grey and Black: The Artist's Mother" was horrifying to the 19th century artistic elite who were much, MUCH more used to the romantic paintings being put forth). This sensation inevitably caused discussion on the nature of art, and there fore, their "art for arts sake" ended up being incredibly political (if you can read Wildes "The Picture of Dorian Gray" and NOT see queer politics just oozing out of that thing, you are seriously demented). They, by their renunciation of the heavily moralistic Romantic movement, created a heavily moralistic artistic movement themselves. Irony.

All of this, of course, is just a prelude to me saying two things:

First: This is art, simply because someone says it is. You have to deal with the idea that "art" is a fluid and ever changing concept, and while this "rape tunnel" is disgusting and morally repugnant, someone out there thinks it's a genuinely interesting concept that deserves exploration, and therefore it becomes art.

Second: A question, more than a statement. If someone crawls through a tunnel, and are informed at the beginning that they will be raped at the end, does it not stand to reason that them crawling through the tunnel is implied consent? So, in essence, is this really a "rape tunnel" if you know your going to be assaulted? Wouldn't the people who would agree to do this be somewhat into the idea? I mean, the artist isn't hanging out in alleyways with a balaclava and a knife, declaring his sexual assaults as "art". He made a tunnel, and very clearly stated that anyone who goes in gets raped. I, personally, wouldn't go in there. That's kind of the equivalent of the lady who climbed over a fence in a zoo to get a closer look at a polar bear, got mauled, and then attempted to sue the zoo. That case got thrown out because, and rightfully so, the judge stated "What the hell were you expecting?"

Anyway, /rant. I like art. A lot.

EDIT: I should point out that the "implied consent" argument was first put forth by Zach. I just thought it was a really good argument, and so I stole it. I am a thief.

[grind/bro]

I'm pretty confident that the actual project is a hoax.

I think he just placed John Ross at the other end of it.

/end thread

[Mikey]

I''m technically a Fine Arts major. I too, take this seriously.

Is this art? Well, honestly, there is no actual definition of what "art" is. There are Websters definitions, for sure, but they tend to only scrape the tops of the concepts of art, forgetting movements like Dada, which eschewed the very concept of art in favor of a more nihilistic political concepts (my personal favorite piece of Dada art was a door. Just a door, sitting in the middle of a Paris gallery. Saw a picture of that from 1922 when I was 10 and just laughed my ass off). Your concept of art seems to fall under the Aesthetic school. This was the school of art espoused by Oscar Wilde and Whistler, the "art for arts sake" movement. The problem with that, of course, was that their works caused a huge amount of sensation ("Whistlers Mother", while tame by todays comparisons, almost got him lynched when it was first shown. The idea that someone would paint such a boring, flat picture of THEIR MOTHER, and then name it "Arrangement in Grey and Black: The Artist's Mother" was horrifying to the 19th century artistic elite who were much, MUCH more used to the romantic paintings being put forth). This sensation inevitably caused discussion on the nature of art, and there fore, their "art for arts sake" ended up being incredibly political (if you can read Wildes "The Picture of Dorian Gray" and NOT see queer politics just oozing out of that thing, you are seriously demented). They, by their renunciation of the heavily moralistic Romantic movement, created a heavily moralistic artistic movement themselves. Irony.

All of this, of course, is just a prelude to me saying two things:

First: This is art, simply because someone says it is. You have to deal with the idea that "art" is a fluid and ever changing concept, and while this "rape tunnel" is disgusting and morally repugnant, someone out there thinks it's a genuinely interesting concept that deserves exploration, and therefore it becomes art.

Second: A question, more than a statement. If someone crawls through a tunnel, and are informed at the beginning that they will be raped at the end, does it not stand to reason that them crawling through the tunnel is implied consent? So, in essence, is this really a "rape tunnel" if you know your going to be assaulted? Wouldn't the people who would agree to do this be somewhat into the idea? I mean, the artist isn't hanging out in alleyways with a balaclava and a knife, declaring his sexual assaults as "art". He made a tunnel, and very clearly stated that anyone who goes in gets raped. I, personally, wouldn't go in there. That's kind of the equivalent of the lady who climbed over a fence in a zoo to get a closer look at a polar bear, got mauled, and then attempted to sue the zoo. That case got thrown out because, and rightfully so, the judge stated "What the hell were you expecting?"

Anyway, /rant. I like art. A lot.

EDIT: I should point out that the "implied consent" argument was first put forth by Zach. I just thought it was a really good argument, and so I stole it. I am a thief.

Three things:
1. I could not agree with anything more than I do about Dorian Gray (being one of my favorite books/by my favorite author) I don't understand how people miss this.
2. You make good points, and as you/Zach said, the consensual part is important to note. And I hadn't really thought of it this way, but in the capacity it more becomes a place for people with extreme fetishes to hang out.
3. AND HERE COMES NICK TO RUIN THE DISCUSSION ABOUT ART. THANKS NICK.

PS: As has been stated before, mad love for the fact that we can debate/discuss things like this in a fashion that encourages people to participate and discuss how they see things.

TLDR; I like you Nick.

[Hollow]

For sure. I like that we all pretty much know each other. Keeps the ad hominem attacks to a minimum.

Nick is a dog fucker, though.

Mikey, make it out for the show on the 19th. I'd love to talk about this more face to face.

[grind/bro]

I'd call me more of a small-canine fucker. Big dogs are fucking hard to get a handle on. You ever tried that shit? It's difficult, some of those motherfuckers kick like horses. You can't risk your balls like that. Banging a small jack terrier is fine.

[ebony]

anyone stupid enough to take any part in checking out this peice of shit is stupid as hell. this guy is going to end up with a bullett in his head. it's not art to me, and nobody can choose if it is or isen't. art means differet things to different people and how they interpret it. i think he's a pig and real rape is not funny, it ruins people.

[tylerp]

"but is it rape if they choose to go through the tunnel?"

[zac]

Mikey, Willa, Ebony, responses! I'm damn glad.

It is a hoax, but the hypothetical scenario is interesting.
And lol yeah Tyler, I figured the implied consent of it all was obvious.
[One finds from reading the article that] the setting of this performance installation would be that of a gallery event. You can imagine that the appeal/interest/art of this interactive installation would be observing if someone enters, observing the consequences, or participating yourself. In many ways it does dip too far into social experiment field as Mikey said, but I can hardly see how anyone could deny its place alongside any other interactive art installation.
I also think that the performance is meant to exist to generate thoughts (and an interaction) on this subject, and the artist is just a tool in that. I wouldn't say he's trying to self aggrandize. I strongly disagree with the idea that you could call a particular work "unnecessary", which implies some utilitarian efficiency-scheme, which doesn't tend to have a place in art. Though I suppose my statement right there about that mentality not having a "place in art" is directly hypocritical!

Anyone else agree that this is analogous to plenty of other less controversial & completely legitimate art pieces?