The artist who killed a cat and masturbated on it

[Aquagraph]

Many of you remember me mentioning this but here goes again.

In 1988 a Finnish artist made a video called Sex and Death where there was a 6 seconds long scene in which he decapitated a cat with an axe and ejaculated on it. Prior to that scene there was half hours or an hour (depending on the version) of images of violence towards nature and human beings. I have now translated a summary where Teemu explains the function of the cat killing scene.

The artistic function of the cat killing scene

As I was making the piece I realized that among the violence cavalcade I needed violence which had no other obvious purpose or explanation. Violence which would be just violence as it is, without anything immediately emerging, satisfying explanation.

The function of the cat killing scene was:

1.

I wanted to present violence as an unsolvable basic question. I wanted to admit that the my Marxist/adornoilais/desadeian violence analysis is not explicit, but there remains a dreadful conclusion: We will resort to violence, we don't want to and we can't get rid of it. We don't exactly know what is it in violence that corrodes us and what is in it that feeds us.

2.

I wanted to raise the question about the pleasure of watching violence. Only few of the clips of violent material I used for the piece are watched for gain, for the skill of rational problem solving required for information. Still very few of us are actual sadists. What are the reasons which makes us volunteer to watch violence, either real or mimetic?

3.

I was hoping that this unexplainable violence in the piece would show itself so true exactly for the lack of explanations and purpose that it would make the other violence shown in the piece seem like violence, not as a representation of something dynamic and symbolic.

4.

I was thinking, that because the cat killing scene would likely provoke a strong emotional reaction in the crowd, this reaction would be a proof of that the explicit, "meaningless" violence is less harmful than the structural and emotional violence. Obscene and "meaningless" (or self-intrinsic) violence is such a strong effect that even a small dose of it is much, it horrifies and/or contradictionarily enchants the viewer and the violence doer. Which is unlike the structural violence that insidiously masks itself and thus even an insane amount of it won't feel like much.

5.

The 6 seconds of cat killing scene in the piece was after an hour of presentation of violence against humans and other nature: documentary pictures of war, hunger, ecocatastrophy, structural violence and forced labor. I was hoping that the viewer would be shocked about the cat killing scene but after that even more shocked when the viewer would realize that he/she dismissed the other, much bigger waves of violence just like that. I knew that I will kill a cat for this piece, the audience will be shocked, but I was hoping that it would make the audience consider how many people need to be oppressed and killed for their lifestyle and consumer habits.

6.

I also wanted to deal with mortality and pain as something else than the opposite of a good life, as something else than a problem from which we'd hope the technological advances would free us from. My goal is to accept mortality and try to experience it not only as the edge of life, but as the source of everything pleasant. Only the limited nature of life gives us the chance to feel like it's valuable, just like death gives sense to life just like the empty stomach gives worth to food and the pain does to
relief.

TL;DR

The basic ethos of the piece, which is borrowed from Marquis de Sade, is that as violence is instrumentalisized for calculated gain pursuit, it loses it's fruitful potential, it's vitalizing ability, masks itself into something else and grows with the help of it's invisibility to colossal scale. The result is a world, where the most destructive violence is hidden and those who are guilty of it consider themselves non-violent, ordinary and law-abiding people. Few people die in street fights or are the victims of a pedofile compared to the number of people who die because we want cheap sneakers, bananas and oil without wanting to know who is enslaved and murder in order to pay for those.

[Absurd]

I'm sure he watched a lot of cat porn.

[rahmyn]

I'm not sure I would watch this video. Maybe.

The artist lays out some fairly clear explanations for the function of the cat killing scene. Not having seen the film, I can't say whether the scene successfully functioned in the way in which he intended. From just reading what he says about it, my guess is that what he is wanting to come across to the audience probably would not come across to them as he intended on a conscious level (for most people anyway). Maybe he doesn't intend for the work to communicate these ideas on a conscious level. However, it has resonated with you in the ways he talks about. I wonder what your first reaction was. Did you like it and know why? Did you immediately want to read about it? Is his explanation a part of the work?

I get the sense that he had an intuition to include this scene as a powerful show of purposeless violence, and then wrote some stuff to justify it intellectually later. This isn't necessarily a criticism of the scene. More a criticism of the explanation. It seems evasive somehow, though I'm not sure of what or why.

It is interesting that he explained it though... basically transforming that scene from "violence which had no other obvious purpose or explanation" to something purposeful and explained.

Also, I do find the points he makes in his explanation interesting.

[Scapegrace]

Sounds oh so edgy.

Boring.
Cruel.
Stupid.
Childish.
Unoriginal.

He would have better severed the art scene by taking a public shower. I'm sure he probably needed it.

That's also a really shitty interpenetration of De Sade's philosophy (which is itself pretty stupid.) De Sade proposed that sexual violence is perfectly fine (in fact ideal) because people want to be violated. And that this violation is natural, that anything else would go against nature. I think that's true to a certain extent. This is extremely flawed though. It obviously cannot be applied to everyone and certainly cannot extend to animals.

De Sade wasn't attempting to make some sort of profound statement about violence. He simply wanted to fuck little girls in the ass and his explanation of this is that it's a natural activity. Likewise this guy wants to kill cats and derive sexual pleasure from it. He seems to think that my making it "art" he is making a "statement." He's not. He's being a kid.

[rahmyn]

Sounds oh so edgy.

Boring.
Cruel.
Stupid.
Childish.
Unoriginal.

He would have better severed the art scene by taking a public shower. I'm sure he probably needed it.

Well, maybe you are EII.

[Scapegrace]

Maybe. My quest for profound uniqueness is not such that I am willing to justify killing an innocent animal because some necrozoophiliac exhibitionist didn't bother to properly read De Sade.

[RedBeard]

Contradictory. It's clear that the act of violence held meaning, it was just not made explicit in a conventional way.

Postmodernists can delude themselves into thinking their culture (or lack thereof, they might argue) symbolizes nothing, but anyone who is truly aware that they are absorbing the product of an artists' perspective will get the gist of the message.

The video is just as much of a calculated effort to exert power through performance as any product of structuralism.

[RedBeard]

This guy isn't a postmodernist. If a postmodernist were to film himself beheading a cat and masturbating onto it, he'd title it "This is Kindness" and say nothing more.

If he's not, then he damn well pushes the envelope with anti-structuralist sentiments.

[RedBeard]

A language game is the missing element.

Ehhhh...

That would mean that visual postmodern art doesn't exist.

[RedBeard]

All postmodern art is visual. It's also linguistic.

It's always linguistic in the sense that it deconstructs some other work, or "argument" (from a philosophical POV). It may not always illustrate words or phrases, but the conceptual basis remains. Similarly, the artist mentioned in the OP makes an iconoclastic effort to borrow other bits of film and reveal a different perspective about them, all the while decrying the tenability of objectivity (in this case, the objective nature of violence and how it influences us). Rejecting grand narratives, whether they be scientific, spiritual, religious, political, or otherwise, is a staple of the postmodern movement.

[RedBeard]

Not all art about either propaganda or grand narratives is postmodern. The most essential pieces of postmodern art focused solely on the space between language and objective reality, for that is the core of the movement; the rest just happens to relate.

What would you call this... art... then?

[chriscorey]

My father is a phenomenal artist, so I'm informed there.

The scene in this movie where Walberg describes the coffee table came to mind.

[jet city woman]

Really couldn't care less why he thinks he did it. It's just beyond anything I would think was the right thing to do.

[Absurd]

I think it is not complete, the cat art exhibition. That guy not eating the cat after seriously decreased the quality.

Am I the only one that thinks aesthetics have been violated by not eating the cat?

...

[rahmyn]

I think it is not complete, the cat art exhibition. That guy not eating the cat after seriously decreased the quality.

Am I the only one that thinks aesthetics have been violated by not eating the cat?

...

Eating the cat would have made this piece much easier to swallow.

(HAHAHAHAHAHA)

But it would have changed the meaning significantly.

[RedBeard]

Reminds me of this:

[Raver]

Reminds me of this:

What a sadistic POS.

[JWC3]

The real moral of the story is never go to an original theater of the absurd show. Let that shit get famous first. Because on the one had theater of the absurd can be things like Endgame or Waiting for Godot, on the other you could get a man killing a cat or a woman taking a shit on stage.

[Absurd]

...

That "shit" got famous by people talking about it if you haven't noticed.

[JWC3]

...

That "shit" got famous by people talking about it if you haven't noticed.

Well sort of, I have no idea who did it or what it was called. In fact other than what I've heard in classes and from professors I can't really even verify that it happened. In any case, now that it is famous (and perhaps imaginary?), I'm sure if the show ever came to town everyone would know exactly what it was about well before attending. That's what I'm getting at, people should know something about a theater of the absurd show well before attending, it's not something you want to just go see on a whim if it's a brand new original piece. Wait till people at least are talking about it so you don't end up watching snuff theater or literal piles of shit.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

they say good art makes you vomit, real life and its awkwardness still makes me vomit sometimes (imo the best artists are ones that are able to properly replicate reality, thus making the audience vomit) ... this just sort of frustrates me a little and makes me roll my eyes.

I think the author's ego is preventing him from seeing that he's not replicating reality so much as he's doing something over the top and campy/stylistic without much substance. Because most of us do not have the realistic urge to decapitate cats and then ejaculate on them. Sadism isn't the same thing as art, and reality has a way of being cruel without *trying* to be. This is too intentional. .

And you are not going to get anywhere in the arguement criticizing people of being 'too sentimental.' I don't feel sorry for the cat, I don't even know it... I just think it's mediocre art at best.

Also he wants too much control over how people view his art, which is narcissistic. I'm not sure everybody went 'ooh how shocking' like he wanted to, I'm sure some people yawned or were even bored with what he did. As an artist you have to realize that you don't have god like control over the world...

[rahmyn]

Also he wants too much control over how people view his art.

Interesting. I wonder if this is true. What makes you say that?

[Creepy-male]

Same I don't really feel especially bad for the cat or especially shocked. My initial reaction is more like if some crazy guy in a mental institution began to fling poo everywhere, I'd probably just *sigh* and be like "ah man, I didn't want to have to see this or deal with this today".

The thing is the cat's death isn't anything especially new; animals are killed for food all the time and in foreign countries they will eat animals that are associated to being domestic pets in other countries (like eating dogs in Asian countries), also in order for humans to survive we have to eat other organisms, plants, animals, and so forth. Tons of pets are killed as a result of negligence, or they are ran over in traffic, in fact in my city there are several hit and run fatalities in which people will get ran over by a motorist and left to die, so its not even just pets but people as well. The guy may have gotten off to killing the cat, but tons get off sexually doing some seriously disturbed sadistic stuff. They will convince children to have sex, they will kill other people while raping them, fuck the dead, cannibalize human beings, and so forth. This has all happened before in the course of human history and I'm well aware of it.... so seeing one cat die isn't anything especially special in terms of shock value, its just another drop in the pond of everything that's sordid.

Also this "artist" isn't anything special because consider the medieval practice in France of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat-burning, the king of france would even light cats on fire to a crowd, completely legal back then because cats were "witches" or something similar. It's just one zeitgeist or cultural values for another.

I'll completely agree its art, art can be anything, life is art, its poetry in motion or something similar. Or you can say nothing is art, or you can try to build little boxes around what is art and not. As for me I tend to look at it ALL as art, but just because its art doesn't mean I have to regard it with special reverence, if everything is "art" then well there is nothing special about something that's "ART", its just a thing. Therefore most people make preferences on the "art" they prefer... do I prefer going to an art gallery where at the door you get punched in the gut, and then watch a 300 lb 50 year old man take a shit for 3 hours while people discuss what it "means" in the big picture of life..... no I don't. I make different selections on what amuses me in life and what I find meaning in. I may even attempt to define an objective litmus test for what is art, but regardless of the results since people are free willing its almost an inevitability someone will disagree. My preferences are not the same as someone elses, and people's preference on art is no different.

Now considering this look at society, it consists of people with preferences who can form a consensus on these or disagree. Factions or groups appear on the basis of this harmonization of preferences. This is why culturally some things are art and other are not, its a form of society or culture selectively choosing what they prefer. Looking at this video I think its utilizing political controversy and leveraging it as marketing. I doubt most people really get off themselves at seeing it, but it sparks controversy in them and in society, so it's preferred for its shock value and drama. This is why I find it so annoying, if this trend grows then all the art that society prefers will just be shock artists running amock stabbing others in the face and raping other people and then giving complex wordy explanations on how its so "sophisticated and artistic and deep" in order to teach society about stuff like "LIFE ISN'T FAIR" and "BAD STUFF HAPPENS" and "VIOLENCE BRO, IT EXISTS" and likewise. Personally I'm already aware of all that sordid stuff, so perhaps the greater shock to me is to see something that doesn't devolve into complete ruin and destruction.

Also why do gallery owners and the like run around saying "WE CAN'T DENY THIS, ITS NOT OUR PLACE TO JUDGE ART!".... well yes it is, you can't house every single piece of art in your gallery. You decide what goes in and what goes out, and based on that you cater to a specific group of people with like preferences. It's unavoidable, because even if you accept all forms of art, then that's another form of catering, but a rather unrealistic one as practically you can't house it all in a gallery, you might as well walk around life with no walls and consider reality the gallery and everyone on the planet as having a share or stake in the ownership of it. But the fact galleries have walls, and admission, means they are making a decision but they are being stupid about realizing this.

[Words]

Plenty IEIs to debate the issue

[Words]

Who'd have thought this crap could've created so much chat, almost like the artist would say, "win"

[noid]

Wow this is the most interesting post ive read in this forum lately. There is somewhat of a creepish side but interesting. The artist have a good grasp of himself...

[mikemex]

Artist my ass. I would lock that bastard in a mental institution, he's an obvious threat for the society as a whole. Unhealthy Fi PoLRs often believe that intrinsic motivation, such as curiosity, is enough reason to perform an act. It is not, specially when there are others involved. And a cat is other.

Say, this is like Victor Frankenstein doing pseudoscience, creating a monster without giving consideration that a monster is still a creature. Science does not come from the air, it comes from humans and thus exist within the frame of human values. It's not science to lock up a group of monkeys in a cage and see how many days it takes for them to die from hunger or if they become cannibals and eat each other. We don't need to know that. Just like we don't need an idiot like this calling our attention by cheap means.

[Absurd]

Artist my ass. I would lock that bastard in a mental institution, he's an obvious threat for the society as a whole. Unhealthy Fi PoLRs often believe that intrinsic motivation, such as curiosity, is enough reason to perform an act. It is not, specially when there are others involved. And a cat is other.

Yeah, I think time is ripe to tie up all the Fi porls and perform surgery on them, and free cats they have imprisoned before it is too late of course. I've got a fine collection of scalpels - lost/sold all of my knives -, so it shouldn't be a problem.

[anndelise]

Regarding OP and the "artist"'s reasonings:
Oh please...this guy played the part of Curious and acted out a common saying: Curiosity killed the cat...but satisfaction brought it back. Only, the magic trick didn't work.

Since the saying refers to the cat's curiosity killing itself and the cat's satisfaction bringing it back, maybe this "artist" should try killing himself while reciting scat poetry and then ejaculate on himself to bring himself back. The timing might be a bitch, though.

[Trevor]

Was he a satanist?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Meh.

You can't control what other people do. Or we'd all be in prison. I'm just going to give it my best effort to not kill/masturbate on cats, not be pretentious or arrogant, not gaslight somebody just to see how much I can get away with it. In otherwords: I myself don't want to be a jerk and so I don't want to be like that.

And I can't control how other people view or see me because of this too. =D If a girl isn't attracted to me because it isn't 'bad boy/conflicted' enough, if somebody insists that this makes me weak or naturally inferior, that just has to be their prerogative. I want to be the change I want to see in the world, and it starts with the man in the mirror. I think that's as good as it's gonna get if you wanna do the right thing.

Bullies cannot take away my happiness, because I like the way I am. My happiness isn't dependent on people not cumming on cats, I just wouldn't put myself in that environment. I wish to surround my lifestyle with nice and pretty and polite things.

[xerx]

I was thinking, that because the cat killing scene would likely provoke a strong emotional reaction in the crowd, this reaction would be a proof of that the explicit, "meaningless" violence is less harmful than the structural and emotional violence. Obscene and "meaningless" (or self-intrinsic) violence is such a strong effect that even a small dose of it is much, it horrifies and/or contradictionarily enchants the viewer and the violence doer. Which is unlike the structural violence that insidiously masks itself and thus even an insane amount of it won't feel like much.

Oh, is that the take-home message? All it makes me want to do is kill a cat and masturbate on it.

[noid]

What you don't get is that he's not Fi polr, since he look at the consequence of violence/pressure through Fi eyes. Read one more time the rationals. Plus discussing rationnalz behind one's actions is a very Fi-Te stuff.

I don't want to look iconoclast or something but I think he's actually Se polr. He can really be an INFj sublimating the internal conflict/process of ESTj id vs super-id .

[Esaman]

"
I wanted to present violence as an unsolvable basic question. I wanted to admit that the my Marxist/adornoilais/desadeian violence analysis is not explicit, but there remains a dreadful conclusion: We will resort to violence, we don't want to and we can't get rid of it. We don't exactly know what is it in violence that corrodes us and what is in it that feeds us.

I wanted to raise the question about the pleasure of watching violence.
What are the reasons which makes us volunteer to watch violence, either real or mimetic?

I was hoping that this unexplainable violence in the piece would show itself so true exactly for the lack of explanations and purpose that it would make the other violence shown in the piece seem like violence, not as a representation of something dynamic and symbolic.
"

"Inexplicable". Except it isn't. Release of frustration and psychological boundaries, gain of sense of efficacy and affirmation of self/ones will, adrenalin, would be some reasons.
What is the reason he fails to acknowledge those an goes an extra mile in portraying that killing as inexplicable pure violence?
Because on top of those reasons he finds violence sexual and purifying and exaggerating it helps him get his rocks off.

People that are mystifying or glorifying or sexualizing violence need to be subjected to it until they get more rounded sha.. perspective .

[Creepy-male]

Has anyone asked why artists always use a cat? I mean its pretty blatant they are trying to be clever about it and its a little sick.

Cat's are adaptable and clever. They have 9 lives, always land on their feet, and curiosity supposed killed them (but satisfaction brings them back).

While yes symbolically this is all true and a very clever way to do something cruel and feel sly about it, satisfaction doesn't actually bring back mr.fluffy after you chop off his head and ejaculate over him. He just remains dead and its not really funny or clever anymore imo.

As for the point they are making a point about cattle.... oh gee then why not bring a camera into a meat packing plant, instead of kill a cat? Plus people actually eat the meat. Killing the cat is a waste in my opinion because I don't really see it as a suitable cost of life, other people will sickly say that the artist is giving the cat a higher purpose by killing it, elevating it to be an eternal symbol of art. This is as sick as snuff films where they physical hurt participants on camera to elevate their fame.

I guess if that's your bag then ok, but its not really mine and I see it as adverse to my own tastes and persona.