h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Artist Eats Baby
Reuters
Dec 31 2002 10:09AM


LONDON (Reuters) - A British television station defended a show in which a Chinese performance artist apparently eats a dead baby, calling it a "thought-provoking film about extreme art in China."

Woah-wah!

You know, I really don't know what I think about this. Most cultures have embraced the notion that cannibalism is ethically abhorrent. However, many have not, and I have to assume that the baby in question wasn't killed for this purpose. I guess, technically, since I don't believe in 'right' or 'wrong' especially as it relates to culture and cultural sanctions, I don't think it was 'bad'...however....d*mn! Dude ate a baby! *scratches head and goes to make sure her children are still in their beds in an undigested state*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2614643.stm

unsubscribe

It's a stillborn baby. I believe the guy is going to eat a pickled penis as well...

I'm not sure whether to be morally outraged (always fun) or commend the guy for just about disgusting *everyone*!

Way 2 weird 4 ME!

A lot of art is/was/will be! I mean, look at surrealism! That pig's eye scene in "Un Chien Andalou" is *still* horrific!!!

Baby eating eh? Clever, but it doesn't match the satirical brilliance of "Merde d'Artiste"

Hehe. Merde is my favorite swearing word. You don't have to star it out on here!!

But you have to be careful still. French is illegal!

Merde!!



I hope you meant the language though...and not all things Frenchly...

A few quick thoughts and a couple of questions...

Could anyone give me an answer to the following question: How is this performance "art"?

A thought: His justification seems to be that cannibalism isn't actually forbiden by religion. My reaction to that comment is "Who cares? Excreting in one's

hand, spinning around wildly in public and releasing the aforementioned excrement with a resounding splat isn't (and I'm willing to be corrected) forbidden by

any religion, but I haven't seen Damien Hirst get his hands dirty yet."

A question: How is eating someone art? The last known (I stress *known*) canibal family in Britain were residents of the Isle of Mull. They were arrested

together, and imprisioned for waylaying travelers and eating them. If only they had thought of telling the police that they were an experimental art

commune...

Another question: Why are Channel Four showing still shots of his act? Why couldn't they just describe it? He takes a bite out of a dead baby. 'Nuff said.

Which brings me to the main event. If a starving man/woman had to survive by eating the flesh of dead individuals, then good luck to them. Most, if not all

cultures have taboos against eating human flesh. I don't mind either way, really, as long as you don't make a habit of it. If the choice is between death or

eating Mrs. Garvey's calf, then pass me the pepper. However, if you're not starving, and merely wish to sink your teeth into the flesh of a dead baby to

prove, perhaps, that you're more extreme that the next "artist", then maybe a course of pills wouldn't be such a bad career move. This strikes me as

sensationalism - the artist wanted to be infamous (otherwise, if you've got a point, write a book, right?) and Channel Four are looking for publicity.

On the other hand, art can take all sorts of forms. So if Mr. Zhu Yu would care to drop by and view my latest piece "Twisted Chinese artist being

beaten with rubber hose whilst someone shouts 'NO!' continuously", I would be pleased to play host.

just about anything can be "art", the spacing in that last post, for example...

You noticed. Good.

Hope the pickled penis the guy is going to eat is his own. I agree channel 4 would show anything to gain ratings.

PeterK

just about anything can be "art"

True. On the other hand if the story were about a doctor who took the corpses of children home to eat in private, then I doubt there would be any ambiguity as to what should be done about it. So is it OK just because this guy stands on stage and advertises what is about to happen? I think not. And anyway, since when did using "art" as an excuse become acceptable?(Rhetorical question).
The difference between someone artistically demonstrating multitudinous meanings of the word "sodomy" in public by having sex with a dog or other animal (look it up), and someone having sex with a dog because, well, they like it, is, in my humble opinion, so slight as to not be there. For when all is said and done, they just done a dog.

YEP

Personally, this sort of thing rings as more of making a sociological/anthropological point rather than an artistic one..it's not so much about aesthetics as societal norms.

I couldn't care less about WHAT he is eating. People eat cows, lambs, sheep, pigs, stomachs, dogs, cats, insects...I'm more concerned about the mentality of the parents that donated their dead baby to be eaten.

Provocation is an art form in my mind.

Although, I really kind of view this as a little dull...I mean breaking social stigma is...well...tiring. WHat else is there now? Necrophilia? Incest? All available on the internet, I'm sure. There is nothing left. How boring!!!!!!!!!!

Bring on the aliens, I'm ready for them...

Art is anything you look at that provokes a reaction.
(I reckon.)
for e.g our dear Tracey's bed wasn't, to me, since the only thing it got out of me was indifference. To many people, it was, especially if it made them so outraged as to write in about it.

but then I'd have a Necrocard, if they were legally-binding. Couldn't care less what happens to my earthly remains, and if they can provoke thought, or make someone happy, by all means haul 'em up on a pedestal.

Did anyone else see the programme last night? I only caught it at the penis bit...missed the baby eating. it was an excellent programme...the only droll bit was the warning about how *offensive* I might find it.

I found it fascinating and inspiring, but not offensive.