Woman chews off arms for art.

[Pebrocks The Warlock]

Just as the title says. A woman pulls off one arm and chews off the other in the name of art. I am quite speechless for this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...html?ref=miami

[InDecisive]

Wait - the article wasn't quite clear - is it a real person ripping off a real arm with the other arm, and if so, can I have their superpower to use for fighting evil instead of self-mutilation?

[Deleted]

Pointless "art". Pretentious and utterly shallow.

[Deleted]

What the?! How do you rip of your arm btw? :c

[Jongus]

I think it's safe to say it was not her literally removing her arms.

[Maharishi]

You do know she didn't actually do it, right? That article was terrible at mentioning that fact, though.

[Pebrocks The Warlock]

Thought it would be a interesting read.

[Caiada]

It's a creative and evocative use of the Venus de Milo imagery, for sure. Very interesting.

Much less boring 'shock factor' than I was expecting.

[Marimba]

You do know she didn't actually do it, right? That article was terrible at mentioning that fact, though.

Lol, I know, wasn't sure if it was supposed to be real at first.

[vizzle]

Damn misleading article. Huffingtonpost, what do you expect... it took me a while to figure that out.

[Digglett]

It looks really fake, assuming it's not real?

[Kheirn]

Pointless "art". Pretentious and utterly shallow.

Each one to his own I guess. That's not how I interpreted it. I saw below the facade and took in the meaning of the work, and I liked it. Well thought out and executed.

[Deleted]

this is ART ????? where the fuk is the world going ??

[Deleted]

It's a creative and evocative use of the Venus de Milo imagery, for sure. Very interesting.

Much less boring 'shock factor' than I was expecting.

It's not evocative. It's shallow art, the art that has dominated the world since the 1920s onwards. It is has a singular layer of expression, that is so over the top as to become comedic rather than have a serious aspect. This is not done in an ironic fashion.

I'm sorry to sound like an ass, but this qualifies as "trash art", like "trash novels".

[Speaknoevil]

Pointless "art". Pretentious and utterly shallow.

I agree with this post.

You don't attain depth this way, pedantic.

[Deleted]

Each one to his own I guess. That's not how I interpreted it. I saw below the facade and took in the meaning of the work, and I liked it. Well thought out and executed.

There is no facade, there is only the singular layer of imagery, expression and intent. The artist plainly outlines the point of the piece, it is about vanity. If you like it then great, you might enjoy her other work. But don't think that this is actual art, it's entertainment.

[Digglett]

It's not evocative. It's shallow art, the art that has dominated the world since the 1920s onwards. It is has a singular layer of expression, that is so over the top as to become comedic rather than have a serious aspect. This is not done in an ironic fashion.

I'm sorry to sound like an ass, but this qualifies as "trash art", like "trash novels".

Seen worse, sure it's nothing amazing, but it's still better than just painting a canvas blue and nothing else and calling that art.

[Kheirn]

But don't think that this is actual art, it's entertainment.

You are disrespecting the whole artscene by saying that. Sorry, but no artist will sit and call other peoples work "not art". It's just rubbish igorance.

[Deleted]

Seen worse, sure it's nothing amazing, but it's still better than just painting a canvas blue and nothing else and calling that art.

I consider them the same. But sadly some people will think this is a soulful observation of blah blah blah, god it really depresses me that people accept this as art and not simply entertainment.

[Drihan]

I certainly hope, for the "artist"'s sake that it's not her real arms she's biting off. If it is, then that will be the last piece of "art she will ever do, and she'll maim herself for next to nothing of what she's sacrificing is worth.