Art or terrorism?

[Billy Underdog]

There's this Swedish guy, Dan Park, who's works are so offensive that even i wouldn't post any of it here, but it's out there in the interweb, and there's google translate as most of his stuff include Swedish language.
But i'm really puzzled by this guy. To me he seem more like a conceptual comedian than an artist. Esp. the "worlds greatest dad", "not only .... have dreams" and "Stop offending! You fags" really cracks me up, amongst others. Being Norwegian, joking about the Utøya thing out on town the very same night, i also have a predilection for the "fight the power" one. And as you might guess, i've got a pretty dark sence of humour.
Some of these things really point on some issues on how PC going to far can stifle the freedom of expression.

On the other hand, what ilks me is that if this is a comedy project, or even art, he've become too obsessed by certain topics and some "works" that is beyond comprehension from that point of view. The fact that he've had lectures at neo-nazi rallies about freedom of speech more than once doesn't make sence either. It's not without reason that he've been jailed several times for hate crimes, though that being because of his "works" of art, not in any way being violent.

He's either an artist trying to say some things about the freedom of speech, but is missing alot in actually having to explain his art, the greatest conceptual underground comedian at the moment, but missing some points due to being too obsessed about certain topics, or just an asshole with shits for brains who actually believe in the topics he choose to be involved in. Making Swastika coasters from plastic beads is cute in a way. Placing empty tin cans labeled Zyklon B around a synagogue is way off line, though in his explanation he said the reason was "they say "never forget". Well, noone will forget now..." Is that just a simple exuse from a neo nazi propagandizing, or is there something deeper to it?

[Billy Underdog]

Btw, i have to say that this thread isn't about this one guy in particular, but more a question of where the line between art and propaganda goes in general, so feel free to come with other examples.

[Zzzptm]

Trying to pass off harassing as art is like spreading counterfeit money.

As for artists who try to shock, I have as much respect for them as I do shock comedians: none. Getting a shock is easy, anyone can do it. Saying something meaningful requires talent, not just posturing and posing and knowing the right people in the art scene.

[Billy Underdog]

I don't think this guy is in any way part of any art community.
Yeah, ofcourse shock is the deal, but i don't think it's shocking just for shocks sake.
I really hope he's trying to say something importan about society and freedom of expression, and that i just don't get it yet. Really hope, because if this is just a hopless escuse to harass i will be very disappointed.

But as said, i maily think it's more an act of comedy dressed as an attempt at art.

[Zzzptm]

I think better to probe the edges of freedom of expression would be to strive for the center of using that freedom to express something meaningful, even if it is challenging to accepted views.

Edges are hardly ever good places to spend extended amounts of time standing on or near. Going over that edge is always a hazard.

[Billy Underdog]

I saw this performance art project where a girl threatened to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge, getting pulled back by the police. It was totally convincing as an act. She said it was a criticism of society. What i don't get is why criticize a society that is helping people in need...

About getting close to the edge, you'll never get to see down in the abyss if you don't, and there can be some interesting things there. But ofcourse, there's always the hazard of falling over.

[Vyn]

One person's art is another person's crucifix floating in a piss-filled jar.

Some folks may be terrorized by it, others may dismiss it out of hand, still others may find deep meaning that changes their lives. And none of that has anything to do with the "artist's" intention.

In other words, it's up to each individual to categorize what claims to be art according to their own personal experiences, perspective, culture, and heck even mood at the time.

[Zzzptm]

I've heard that argument before when I was a teacher... and I still told the kid to quit looking at pr0n in my class.

[Vyn]

I've heard that argument before when I was a teacher... and I still told the kid to quit looking at pr0n in my class.

Yeah, but, like was the kid examining Lefebvre's Chloe or a Hustler magazine?

'cuz I know pr0n when I see it!

[Zzzptm]

Books? Magazines? What kids are *you* dealing with? 

This was on his phone, and I don't know if it was a website or pics of someone's unlucky ex-girlfriend... but school's not Vietnam, there are rules...

[Vyn]

Books? Magazines? What kids are *you* dealing with? 

[Zzzptm]

Books? Magazines? What kids are *you* dealing with? 

There's an app for that, now.

But, then again, something to be said for the printed word.