The real enemy of art right here, folks!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Well, usually a little "insanity" goes well with being an artist.

And like the interviewer said, it seems like any lawyer could argue against the technicality of rape in this situation.

Than being said, it's just fucking stupid. :down:
 
Where do you go from here then, a “Murder Tunnel”?

No. That would be too much like repeating myself.


Well at least he's not into repeating himself

Another "can you top this" stunt masquerading as art. If he wants to make a meaningful statement about rape maybe he should go work at a rape crisis center. Like that comment says, he'll get lots of attention which is what he's looking for.
 
Because as an artistic gesture, it’s one of the most impactful I can think of.
Rape as a gesture? Impactful?? Interesting ways of describing it.

I had my first breakthrough with an installation that was to be the prototype for this current one. It was called THE PUNCH-YOU-IN-THE-FACE TUNNEL.
DUDE STOLE MY IDEA!! :angry:

But seriously, um, is this a joke??

It was the same set-up as THE RAPE TUNNEL except at the end of the tunnel I’d punch the subject in the face instead of raping him or her. The impetus was completely reactionary to the current state of art, and motivated by pure frustration.
So his "art" is an excuse to act on his frustrations too. Lovely. From now on I'm going to do whatever the hell I want and call it art.
 
I'm surprised so many of you fell for that. C'mon guys, a rape tunnel where you get raped at the end?? There was a similar 'art' project in..i think it was brazil...a year or two ago where the artist kept a dog chained to the corner of his exhibit and slowly let it starve. People were outraged, but as it turned out, it was also fake an intended to spark conversation about what is/isnt art.
 
My first thought was "at least it's not a pickled shark."

Sadly, that one wasn't a hoax ... or perhaps it's the even bigger hoax because he not only actually got someone to buy it, but the buyer paid a shitload for it too.
 
I dont think it was necessarily meant to be a funny hoax, but rather a provocative one (if you're down with talking about art)
 
I think his real message is found in this line...

"Secondly, rape is not always a black and white issue. The definition is argued almost everyday in courtrooms around the country. The woman who gets too drunk one night and regrets having sex the next morning, was she raped or not? There is no easy answer. I hope some of that ambiguity will manifest itself in this project."

Rape (or sexual assault), by definition, must be a sexual act with no consent given. He is saying that he is making it crystal clear that he intends to rape anyone or anything that comes into his tunnel. The tunnel leads to only one place and has no other exit. So, knowing what is at the end of his tunnel, if the spectator still chooses to enter, then they have arguably manifested only one intention...to voluntarily engage in a (probably rough) sexual act. Thus, they have consented. And if they have consented, then no crime. (Except that he shouldn't call it a "rape tunnel" because it is evidence of "mens rea" --knowledge of what he is doing is wrong.)

It's an interesting argument, but I'm glad I don't live in Ohio right now.
 
Back
Top Bottom