Is Crime ART? by Kathleen Cameron

no I mean like, robberies, rape, murder etc…

well…if you take it literally..

Crime is an act punishable by law. Art is human creation.

Combine the two and you have a dangerous mix. I am sure they cross over at times.

Like in The Bill?

just look at film and tv kristy, that’s supposed to be artistic entertainment… do humans know what all the waves are doing to their brains when they pass through us… cause they do they interfere with our energies and that’s all that subliminal stuff.

like kiddie porn, snuff & beastiality movies? Art should be utilized to make people ‘aware’ but not to ‘exploit’ (my quick thoughts..)

I am sure they do Kathleen. The entertainment industry can really screw with a mind…but is it criminal? And can one blame an act of crime on artistic expression? Hmmm…you’ve got me thinking as always.

yes but can awareness encourage exploitation ??? everyone is innocent until proven guilty but are not the guilty still and always guilty?

Kathleen, are you talking about Crime or the portrayal of crime. To actually use a criminal act for arts purposes could be classed as an assistance to the crime.

To portray a crime by merely staging it, is more of a method of storytelling, whether fictional or non fiction is different again.

either or, it’s a multi-media world michman… I’m not sure, re-enacting crime has the same affects of ‘awareness’ on all the people that are exposed to it… just wanted to see what other people think…

Both do have similar effects and the first is becoming more prolific due to the availability of smaller media units like cameras and video devices.

The first is still an act as part of the crime and should be treated as nothing more than assistance in the crime itself.

The second is hazier, those who glorify or dramatise a crime can be classed as giving a romanticised image of it, a sense that the crime is merely a dramatic slideshow or camera angle. But to look at these and take them in is the role of the individual, once you pass a certain age it then becomes a balancing act between the individual and those who produce the piece as to the interpretation that is taken from it. The exploitation of it could also be classed as the awareness of it, the image of a rape or even shoplifting might not only be about the idea but the point that it occurs despite what may be viewed differently.

Is it exploitation, or is it awareness.

and does awareness become exploitation within the realms of the criminal mind AND if the criminal mind has not balance enough to prevent the crime and effects many many people (ala terrorism, ala mass massacre, ala rape, ala murder) and we know that the criminal mind exists this way because it has been studied by psychologists and psychiatrists throughout time… are artists QUALIFIED to decide whether that type of expression is appropriate for a mass media generation…

Where does social responsibility start in art?

I suppose this is where Morality and Legality are at logger heads.

Where does social responsibility start in art?

That is the question of the day really.

Are artists qualified to decide what is appropriate or not? How can any of us claim to be qualified to do so? Who IS qualified to do so?

But that is saying that life is a response to Art and not the other way around. or is it still a circle, and if the art is not portrayed would the crime still occur. Do people take that much on from art or is there a more basic reason to commit these actions.
If people commit there crimes they will do so regardless of whether you portray it or not, the awareness can lead to prevention, the exploitation can lead to enhancement. The portrayal is just a response. The crime is barely ever a response to ther art.

Both have parallels. Both are subjective in their realities. They align with each other most readily.

I agree Templar..Legality and Morality…which do we favour more? Which do we RESPECT more?

Michman hit the nail on the head..

“If people commit there crimes they will do so regardless of whether you portray it or not”

We may get inspirational ideas from art and media in general. Some of which may be criminal. But does looking at a piece of art automatically gaurantee that one will follow through on that which crosses through their mind?

Example: Ten teenagers visit a morally reprehensible art exhibit. Immediately afterwards, two of them go out and partake in the exact criminal act that was portrayed in the art they had just observed. 8 of them don’t.
Is the art to blame?

It is fair to say that crime has always been there, but even in ‘barbaric’ tribal time there were extremely strict rules and if you broke them that was it you were out on your own or killed. I don’t think any individual could say that crime is a definitive response to a piece of art… but they have tried to pin murder on heavy metal music before… what if they were right?

in mass media culture art is a response to life but life is a response to art because (in my view) people class things into the ‘art’ category to allow it to be used against any moral guideline that may be presented the against the concept which then creates that muddy well art is my expression… etc. etc.

but you can express yourself in a drawing and shove it in a draw if it is questionable… why bring it onto the state and into the limelight…

not necessarily kristy, but what of the child who is constantly exposed to violent material from when they are young… in fact why bother telling the children it is wrong to act that way if they see adults acting that way on tv or in the movies… do they understand it’s not real?

I believe it comes down to intent. What is the intention of the re-enactment of crime or the portrayal of crime. If the intent is to stir people into going out and committing those crimes, yes that definitely constitutes crime in itself. But if it is purely a story about crime, or an event that has occurred, then it can effectively make people aware of the realities of life. It can make us a lot more cautious. Being naive about crime doesn’t prevent it happening, and I doubt it encourages people who wouldn’t normally go out and commit crimes to do so purely because they have seen it in a movie. Personally, I think it’s always exploitation if an event is used (good-news story or criminal event) for personal gain,(to make heaps of money), but that is not necessarily a bad thing. It can have a positive outcome by enlightening people. As long as no one suffers through the exploitation I don’t believe it can be considered a crime.

But it is an interesting question, kathleen.

I should clarify what I’ve said – I’m actually only referring to adults, as I think it is our responsibility not to allow young children to view crime-based films on their own. If they watch anything, it should be with a responsible adult who can explain the rights and wrongs going on in the movie. We can use it as an educational tool – but I’d avoid the situation and keep children away from violence until they are older.

“But you can express yourself in a drawing and shove it in a draw if it is questionable… why bring it onto the state and into the limelight…” — That is a damn good point. Surely we can achieve the benefits of self-expression without becoming exhibitionists.

As for the child that is exposed to violence from a young age..That’s something to ponder. Is it the responsibility of artist or viewer….in the case of young children, are the adults who are resposible for them responsible also for what those children see and hear? Or DOES IT lie with the ‘artist’?

A crime can be commited whether there is intent or not. But to ‘artistically’ portray a crime or exploit it..I suppose that comes down to specific state and federal laws. Morality is a whole different kettle of fish.

Granted we have extreme levels of population and crime… can we assume that all children are given these moral choices… work with foster children and you find the answer… couple that with mixed ideas about role models and the media’s idea of commercial exploitation for gain children are expected to decipher right from wrong before they are fully trained in what it is… where can responsibility fall, for those the exercise parental irresponsibility in order to maintain a lawful, happy society… the media will tell you they are entertainment, entertainment is traditionally considered a creative artistic industry (excluding sport and current affairs that is). i.e. the term ‘the performing arts’.

Surely we can achieve the benefits of self-expression without becoming exhibitionists.

thanks kristy for saying that so succinctly :-)

Do we hide violent history or story telling of all violent events then, for fear of their portrayal being a crime or of us being considered exhibitionists? Then we should not tell children about past royal beheadings, or wars. We should not have stories or movies about those events.

Do we hide the real life, everyday stories of violence currently being committed by Mugabe in Zimbabwe, the violence that was committed by the former white governments of South Africa, and about the concentration camps in Nazi Germany? If not, why are those stories/portrayal of events any more acceptable than everyday street violence, or police dramas? We can’t go around pretending that everything is nice and pretty, that the world is one big happy society, because it isn’t. We can however tell the truth, which is not a crime, while giving our own children love and stability in their own homes, and teaching them right from wrong.

As I say, I believe a lot of it boils down to the intent of the story-teller or the artist – if it is to educate and enlighten about the truth, how can that be a crime? And as first-hand controllers or educators, it is the parents who have the most influence and responsibility for instilling conscience and acceptable behaviour in their children, and teaching children to respect themselves and others. I think we are too ready to place the blame elsewhere, when in fact that fault more likely begins in the home.

I am discussing the appropriateness of audience in the multi mass media environment… what’s the point of having a rating system for regulation of content in the public arena regarding sex and violence ? We can all express ourselves, but does all expression fit in the everyday family orietated environment… education aside, I am talking about things like Big Brother. Everyone apparently loves big brother but (to quote Ben Elton), we are telling young children that privacy should not be valued, and that you should create manipulative situation for personal gain and glory. Things are very different to when I was young and I am only 31, I wonder where we will be in another 30 years if things continue, I don’t see things getting better, just worse.

Does it mean that it is ok for bad parents to re-enforce anti-social behaviours that may repeat in the next generation… it’s about ‘repeating’ the crime or ‘repairing’ the damage… where is the choice if that person was trained incorrectly about social values… relating that to art… constant exposure to violent images and sounds and concepts is, if the movies are to be believed, the way they brainwash people to become killers, the better the actor the more believable the performance… the more violent the image the more deluded one could become about it’s authenticity…

just a couple more points.

We can’t deny the fact that some people will commit crimes whether we ban all violent and nasty movies/art/whatever or not, and neither can we avoid the fact that some parents are just going to get away with anti-social parenting behaviours. That is not saying it’s okay, it’s just stating reality. All we can do is try to rescue the children we know are at risk. Violent crime and cruelty has always existed, long before computer games and violent movies. I wonder what influenced Jack the Ripper? What about the Roman times and the Gladiators? Do you think our “modern” society is less humane and more violent than that? I honestly believe it’s about educating children about what they are seeing, and not exposing them to bad stuff until they have some concept of self-respect and respect towards others. Then when they do see bad stuff, they can understand that it is bad, or in a lot of cases “only actiing”. But that still comes down to parental responsibility or irresponsibility. By the time we are 18 years old, we should be old enough and mature enough to take responsibility for ourselves and our behaviour. As I said before, I was brought up on violent nursery rhymes, and saw violence all around me. I had an abusive and traumatic upbringing, in a very violent and racist country, but that has not turned me into an insensitive, violent, or racist person. I am quite the opposite, as are my two children who are now adults. The same goes for both my sisters and their families.

I don’t love Big Brother, nor do I love the other reality shows where the judges are abusive and arrogant towards the contestants. I think those shows are a fad and people will soon tire of them. The pendulum will swing the other way eventually – it has done through the ages. I didn’t allow my children to play violent computer games, but they managed to do so elsewhere. Then as older teenagers they watched violent movies that I couldn’t stand to watch – it didn’t numb them towards violence. By then they had a good grounding and understanding that cruelty and criminal behaviour is totally unacceptable.

Only if you get caught

It seems OK to exploit cute kids and kittens and puppies around here.
Why the hell shouldn’t we just exploit everything?
Crime, nudity, drugs?
We’re all human aren’t we?
Or are we going to pretend we’re saints and angels?
Wake up and smell the coffee, live in the world, or shut your eyes, go back to bed and dream about rainbows and butterflies.

We have to self administer a drug which suppresses our emotions then we go about wearing a neat gray uniform while some other guys in neat cool back uniform beats and shoots the crap out of non compliant rebels who refuse the drug, then this ultra kewl guy in black uniform who can really bust a move finds a cute doggie and really likes it and decides to keep it but he was busted by these guys with guns and he pounded all of thin into a bloody pulp. He then wants to smell perfume and like this chick but she gets incinerated and he’s pissed off real bad. He then wears white and beats the crap out of these guys in gray who makes people take the drugs and we dont have to take the drug anymore and can go back to killing one another….wat a GREAT world we live in.

I personally exploit religion quite a bit I suppose… thanks GUERILLA…

yes. daijiro, indeed..

I MISSED THIS DAMN!
IT’S LOVELY!

So then where does a work end and begin? It doesn’t. 9/11, perhaps the single most creative work? But then was 9/11 not a response to earlier crime/art? And has the invasion of Iraq outdone 9/11. Distinguish crime/art from that which is not.

hey ile ask my girl she got 22years in the big house and i doubt she would say hey it was just art man i needed the money but shes out in 2 months after doing seven ffaaaaaark yeah ile be telling her to stik to brushes instead of guns

What about photo journalism? Is that still not classed as art and awareness in one go?
too many grey lines and holes in this one.

good question raised Kathleen.