Last weekend, a painting was put on display and auctioned in London which was made out of Amy’s and Pete’s blood. The money gained was mostly destined to the singer’s father, for it to be invested in a foundation named after his daughter. The total amount for the painting was approximately 120,000$.
Pete
Doherty declared that he took part in the design of the painting Ladylike, and that part of the benefits
corresponds to him. However, he has not said anything else related to the
painting.
- What do you think about this?
- Do you consider the idea original or, instead, rather disgusting?
Comment
below!
Ana Las
Hayas
I think that using blood as paint is not sickening or revolting, as it has a very particular colour which may not be found in other inks. My opinion on this is that artists should use blood to paint if they want to. If I were an artist I would use it as a last resource, in the case that I had looked for an ink with exact blood qualities but hadn’t found it. Also, I believe that if someone wants to paint blood in a canvas realistically, there is no better way than using blood itself. Therefore, I have nothing against using blood as paint, as far as it isn’t used in an extreme way.
ReplyDeleteBut, I would personally donate my blood to hospitals where it could be useful for ill people before actually using it for a painting.
Ana Adán
Indeed, the first idea that popped into my mind was the component of paint, and I’m sure was not the only one!
ReplyDeleteBLOOD! WOW! It is absolutely a great idea to use such ingredient to create a masterful piece of art. I’m pretty sure that if we see it physically we could sense the vivid and intense colour of it and therefore we would appreciate it much more.
On the other hand, it is understandable that other people might consider it non-hygienic as well as disgusting, as it is not a liking element for everyone. These might also contemplate this idea rather hideous and revolting specially knowing that blood smells. Can you imagine you house perfumed with such odour?
Despite I really like the idea the artists had by using their blood for this painting, I totally agree with Ana’s comment. I think that it is much more important to donate your blood to people who really need it rather than wasting it in such way.
Ugh. I personally find this quite revolting!
ReplyDeleteYes it's original, yes it's Amy's and Pete's blood,yes it's sort of cool... But is this truly necessary? As far as I'm concerned, the only real reason this painting recieved so much attention is because the paint is actual blood but not for the painting itself. I mean it is definitly original, don't get me wrong! As Nicole said though, whay would you even want it hanging in your bedroom? Wouldn't blood rot and make the whole place stink?
For some reason, I have an image of Amy and Peter slitting their wrsits together in some sort of satanic homage while painting the canvas and it gives me goosebumps just thinking about it!
I feel I must disagree with one thing both Ana and Nicole have said though. It is true that blood should be donated to medicine instead of displaying it on a canvas, but wasn't Amy a drug abuser? In that case she would have been totally forbidden to donate her blood even if she had wanted to, so she proabally thought she couldn't put her blood to better use than for her painting.
The painting is definitly artistic and is incredibly subjective, but I still find it disgusting and apalling. Sorry Amy!
Creativity has no limits, or so they say until someone uses some kind of what they consider "revolting" or "unethical". Well, my point of view is that creativity can be expressed in many ways. Painting with blood is just one of them.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Alexia, Ana and Nicole, the blood should've been donated to medicine. Well, Amy and Pete are (or were) both drug addicts, so their blood was useless for medicine. Looking even deeper in Alexia's comment, it got me thinking. Why shouldn't artists give away their paints and colour to kids who have nothing to play with? Anyhow, that's not my main point.
Back to my point, art is art however it's expressed. Pencil, paint, blood, everything looks valid to me. It's not cruel to anybody since they agreed on using their own blood, harming nobody. The colour of blood is passionate, attractive and very unique, as Ana said.
So, artists, don't be shy, don't worry about the cheap talk and remember, as long as you're talked about it doesn't matter how.
Luis Gasca
Art is art by all means. This is no exception for it to be an outstanding piece of art which leaves astonished all its audience. Although, there are always a world of difference between dissimilar points of view which people have.
ReplyDeleteWhat has made an impact in us is the fact that the painting was made with their blood, and may have horrified many people. But we should think of the meaning which this piece of art has, the objective for which they painted it. Was it to take people’s breath away?
Personally, I do think so. I think that the real image which has been reflected in the canvas, has no meaning, it seems as if anyone could paint it. What they want to achieve is, not make people remain indifferent when they get the chance to stare at it, to make them have an opinion about it, which can be a positive or a negative opinion, but at least they have taken some time to think about It.
Marina Segura
While it’s true that art has no limits, it shouldn’t be directly linked to originality. I personally find the idea of using blood very interesting because of the effects it can produce in all of us. Trying out new things will always be unexpected and, therefore, lead to great impact in society. However, I wouldn’t describe this painting as art because I consider that its only objective is to stand out by using blood, but no message is being transmitted.
ReplyDeleteArt can be spontaneous, but it will always have a meaning. Using famous people’s blood in order to gain audience was for sure the artist’s aim, so the painting shouldn’t lead to such impact. Understandably, people like commenting on earth-shattering news, but they should think for themselves before actually admiring this painting. The fact of blood being considered as revolting is not what determines my negative opinion towards the painting, it’s the artist’s objective what does.
As far as donating blood is concerned, I personally believe that using blood for a painting does not necessary mean that no more blood from the artist could be used for donations, however, as Alexia pointed out, drug addicts can’t use their blood for helping the world.
To sum up, Amy’s and Pete’s idea of substituting paint for blood is both original and admirable, however, it can’t be considered as a masterful piece of art.
Imagination is a power which not everybody can make use of it. For sure, Amy and Pete have an extraordinary sense of creativity and resourcefulness, but are there limits to innovation in what art is concerned?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely from their point of view art is totally free and infinite in boundaries, however for those of us who live with our feet in he ground might argue that using human blood for art pieces as a new material for paint, can actually be quite revolting as Alexia mentioned. It is true though that it portrays originality and freshness but from my point of view, I personally consider that there are limits.
As Ana for example, already mentioned, blood has for sure other uses which can be really benefactions for society such as blood donation or for investigation.
To conclude, I personally believe that there is no much thing as uniqueness in using blood as a new ink, and therefore I defend the posture for using blood as a more helpful and resourceful tool.
Susanna Balaguer Serra