Yap fest about limbus, fauvism, and the morality of using living things as "art"
(Warning: English is not my native tongue, I have the media literacy of a snail, and it's 12am with me running on 5 hours of sleep. This post my be actual trash)
In my sleep deprived endeavors of doomscrolling a came across a... let's say "less than pleasant" treating of animals for the sake of internet clout, yet there was something about it that was appealing. I Amwell aware that hurting living things for the sake of entertainment is bad, I would never condone it nor endorse it because it's just being awful, but it got me thinking.
And soon that thing became intertwined with my even present limbus fixation and my recently sprouted appreciation for the ring. so now I shall lay before you the resulting analysis I have come up with
The fauvism and corporism movements share barely any similarities, besides their need for materials coming from people/creatures, they both focus on different aspects of "the living".
As I understand it, corporism focuses on the body as a vehicle for artistic expression, twisted sinew severed and rebound in ribbons around the cranium, blood slipping through the carvings etched into the ribs and flowing down the torn muscles, that kind of stuff. While the artworks resulting more often than not come as nothing more than an edge fest, there is a certain part of it that is truthfully splendid, to reshape the corpus as its parts into a man-made purpose, blades of bone tied neatly by tanned tendons, blood pumping eagerly through an edge sharpened with intention. Something about it just feels so refreshing and refined it is hard to put into words. I however find those that practice corporism lacking (such as the maestro Callisto, whom solely focuses on having his art be made of flesh rather than what it should instill/evoke)
And then there is the fauvism
Ah the fauvism...where could I even start...from the beginning, I suppose. The fauvists are introduced quite into the intervalo as the main antagonistic figures. forcing us forth upon corridors with a most hallowing visages: taxidermy and blazing colors that struck the every corner of the place we find themselves in, and soon after, the artists with animal parts stitched on coming forth to attack them. At the start the fauvists didn't convince me much, just another edgy bunch of lunatics obsessed with blood and viscera, all until a certain docent came forth (rufo my adored (slide 1/2) helped me come to the light of fauvism.
Answer me, What is "man"? What is "human"? What are "things"? Why should we be civilized? Why should we refrain from reaching even further so for the sake of "morals"? What are "morals"? Who's "civilized" in a world where dead is but an ever hanging promise that could come at any moment? Fauvism ponders upon those questions, embracing the inherit savagery of all things.
Yet there is something else about fauvism and it's participants that just enthralls me: their artwork.
The fauvism artwork relies in the intensity of the emotions it conveys, be it the needle work, be it the colors, yet it all conveys a direct sense of feral nature, something that couldn't have come from something that was not "living". All the parts of their work had to die in order for it to function, and if not, someone had to die collecting those ingredients in order for the piece the come whole. How can we expect such grandiose art to rise forth if we chain ourselves down with made up laws of decency?
So now I once more have to come forth an ask of you, plea of you, to answer my question
In a city where living is a luxury, where happiness is a privilege, where the proper rites for the departed are giving the night coming forth to sweep all traces of the dead, is it truly "savage" to give the living a new purpose in artwork?
TL:DR I love rufo and I love going feral and I love the inherit destructive necessity of art. The most sublime of Arts can only surge forth when you forsake all morals an ethics in the pursue for improvement