[-empyre-] correct: Abu Ghraib and the image

[Susana Mendes Silva <arslonga@netcabo.pt>]

John,

I think you made same confusion...

"G.H. Hovagimyan wrote:
> If you look at the video and photos from Abu Ghraib they are art  
> works, albeit rather twisted."

And I asked to G.H. this:

"I find this sentence quite intriguing. Why this images are art works  
for you? Because you find in them some aesthetical value? Because  
they mimic the "transgressive art that is part of a fairly standard  
Avant-garde position essentially épatez du bourgeois"? They seem to  
me like war trophies..."

I am also asking you this because in 1999, for a work called  
"Vigilante" I looked for images of east timorese being tortured by  
indonesean police agents. I never saw these images like art...I could  
not do it."

The quotes you use in your post are not mine. Because the next posts  
are not mine, but from G.H. and another one from Christina.


susana mendes silva




On Jul 21, 2006, at 9:37 PM, John Haber wrote:

> My take is a lot going on here in the thread, too much at once  
> really.  Do I
> follow that this began when SMS said that the infamous photos from Abu
> Ghraib show the ability of art to alter awareness and thus events?   
> Then GH
> expressed puzzlement at the example because it had to assume those  
> images
> are art, and he asked if SMS is taking them as art because of their  
> visceral
> power?  Then SMS said that art is what artists say it is, and noted  
> that
> Richard Serra had made it art?  And Christina gave more context,
> particularly in the controversy over Amy Wilson's drawing?  So  
> where do I
> start...