Being Ashamed Of Natural Processes

[Lace Neil Singer]

Children might lick paintings; plus, people might touch paintings. If the person who's painted the picture has a disease that can be passed thru bodily fluids, it could get transmitted if someone touches it with a finger that has a cut.

In any case, it's disgusting. If you want to paint a semen picture and submit it to the national gallery, feel free; but that won't take away the fact that the majority of people feel that painting with bodily fluids has a serious squick factor.

[AdminAssistant]

I don't care for performance/visual artists who do things with their bodily fluids, or nudity for that matter, because 9 times out of 10 it's a person trying to be edgier, more out there, and more "artistic" than the last guy. (I can't stand performance art for this reason - it's usually just someone desperate for attention. "Hey, look at me! I'm naked! I have a message! And I'm naked!!!")

However, there really is not a hygiene factor. People do not touch, lick, or in any way come into physical contact with paintings. And the kind of gallery that would house such art would not be a place popular with children. Even if we don't care for the medium, art is art is art.

[the_std]

You keep saying it's disgusting. I want to know why it's disgusting. I want to know if you have a reason beyond just "ew, that's gross", because there is no reason to think that. Your hypothetical situations about children licking paintings and people touching paintings are so slim that's it's pretty much not worth considering. Galleries either physically keep people from contact with the art, or the kind of art that would contain bodily fluids are, like AA pointed out, not available to the general public. Plus, like I said, many ingredients to regular paint and painting materials are toxic and hazardous as well, generally far more so than human blood. Do we stop people from using them?

If your sole reason is the gut reaction of "ick", then that's fine. Admit that. But saying it's disgusting for almost any other reason without proof besides supremely marginal chances of biohazard is not really valid debate.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Why isn't "ick" a reasonable reason? You might, for example, say that spiders are "ick". I might disagree, but wouldn't say that your opinion wasn't reasonable.

For the record, blood does not squick me out, personally; seeing as I self harmed for years, it wouldn't. I just don't see why people feel the need to paint with it.

[the_std]

Why isn't "ick" a reasonable reason? You might, for example, say that spiders are "ick". I might disagree, but wouldn't say that your opinion wasn't reasonable.

If your sole reason is the gut reaction of "ick", then that's fine. Admit that. But saying it's disgusting for almost any other reason without proof besides supremely marginal chances of biohazard is not really valid debate.

It's fine for "ick" to be your reason. All I'm asking for is the admission that that's your reason, rather than trying to rationalize it away. For people who have other reasons, I want an explanation, not "because I say so". That is not debate.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I wasn't trying to rationlise it; you just said that people don't lick paintings, and I told you that wasn't necessarily true. We all know too that people might be told not to do things, but do them anyway.

Ick is my personal reason; just the same as it would be if someone painted a picture with shit, or made a semen smoothie. Body fluids are not for consumption or for using in fine art, and that's my opinion. As for the other people, you'll have to wait til they reply before getting their reasoning.

[Amanita]

I actually have a book on Urban Paganism, which talks about making offerings of one's own blood. The authors state that they are not fans of the practice, but if people are going to do it, then they want these people to do it safely. They reccomend using a sterile needle to draw a few drops of blood (like a diabetic getting a test sample), and placing the drops on a cloth, then putting said cloth in the microwave just long enough to kill anything that might be in it.

I imagine there are other ways to make the stuff "safe" as well- Sealing it with some sort of topcoat, or using something else that will kill any germs.

Now, as far as shock value, art, and the like are concerned, this is something I've recently thought about. IMHO, there is a difference between doing something JUST to be shocking or provocative, and doing something because you have an actual statement to make, even though the act may be seen as shocking or provocative to some.
Unfortunately it's easy to confuse the two. I've been accused of shit-stirring because of some of my ideas, when I had no intention of doing such. I've been accused of stating certain things just to be provocative, when that was not my intent at all. (I mentioned that I am Pagan, when stating why I would not be comfortable praying to my dieties in a Christian church)

[HYHYBT]

That's it: If you're making people uncomfortable because it's necessary to get your message across, that's fine. If you're doing it solely for the purpose of making people uncomfortable, that's wrong.