Title: Can murder evoke an aesthetic response? And does tv, film and books affect this?
Introduction: 294 words
Murder as an aesthetic, is a concept that Joel Black stated in his essay ‘the Aesthetics of Murder’ that if an action evokes an aesthetic response, then it is logical to assume that this action – even if it is murder – must have been the work of an artist (Grossvogel and Black, 1994). The term aesthetics, in this essay is to mean an apricated of beauty in the nature to which it is being applied. The word aesthetics automatically associates to the idea of art, and that beauty and sublimity can be within anything if you want it to. I want to explore murder as the topic and to question whether it is capable of being solely apricated as an art. In this thesis I want to explore the thoughts about murder and whether it can be appreciated through an artistic perspective. In coming chapters I will debate whether murder can be thought of in the same way as art; art for art’s sake, and weather murder can be a sublime understanding that it does not need a motive or explanation as to why, it just is (Seltzar, M, 1998). I want to question whether we can morally detach the murder from its aesthetic appeal? Artists are unapologetic for their work in the same way murderers think the act they are committing is right. There is a logic in the cliché’s of ‘creative minds think alike’ and ‘method in their madness’. I then want to question the role the media has on the subject and how today, the shock of murder has been diluted into every stream, from fictional books, to documentaries. Hence, can murder be evoke an aesthetic response and be considered an art, and has the media distorted our view on this subject.
Chapter One:Murder through history and De Quincey’s ideas on can murder be considered an art or evoke aesthetic response.
Throughout history murder has been a part of performance arts in order to get a gasp out of society. Thomas De Quincey an English essayist made a strong point about Shakespeare’s play Macbeth; in that we are not interested in the victim but are mainly interested in the thoughts of the murderer. De Quincey acknowledges that William Shakespeare was a pioneer in viewing murder as art, through theatre he would attract thousands to watch gruesome death and murder. Murder is something that has always shocked society but will also has and always will be used in theatre to evoke something aesthetic because the creator has always been an artist of some form. Another example of death being perceived as pure sublimity would be in Belinda Bauer’s book ‘The Beautiful Dead’ (2016) which I will go into more depth about in section two.
The idea of aesthetics has always been something that is related the nature of beauty and philosophy, and the idea of there being aesthetics in murder is almost directly against the idea of art itself (C, Giulia, 2013). However, murder is something that cannot be changed, and therefore why can we not take away the moral judgements, and solely apricate the aesthetics left behind. Just like any form of creation or negative creation, where murder lies, requires a certain level of skills and are all judged on the terms of design (how it was created), boldness (where/why) and style (weapons/materials used). We cannot deny that it is art with a different canvas using different material and skills to create this. De Quincey states, that what you think would horrify you in life, if you think about it in the form of art, it can entertain, teach, and even evoke an aesthetic response. As only then do we not hold any moral obligation to the act if it was being classed as art, as we would in real life. (De Quincey, T 2006)
Having said that, De Quincey also writes that W.H. Auden highlights ideas of an opposition, in the idea that murder is negative creation therefore every murder committed is rebelling against the idea of art and aesthetics, it opposes the rules. Which can be one reason why people would never see murder and art from the same perspective.
Going back to reasons to why this theory is possible, is being able to relate to the killing on some level, Amanda Howard, true crime author tells us, that killers do not know where reality ends and fantasy begins, like any one of us who do know where that line is (Crighton, B, Milligan, B 2018) We may have has the thought which shows we can relate, but we would never act on them, as we get that itch scratched by tv and documentaries about these killers, which is also one explanation as to why serial killer documentaries have always been popular. This topic will be further explained in section two.
Other supporting factors to the idea that murder can evoke an aesthetic response in the viewer is by Joel Black that violence will create a response, weather that response is awe or shock, it’s still an aesthetic response no matter if it is acknowledging positive or negative creations. If we take away morals, we can see the art within the act, because it makes us think a though, no matter if its good or bad, as art is place where our deepest ideas can be explored.
However, Oscar Wilde says that the ‘only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless.’ (Wilde, O. 1890) so with this, why can’t murder be an art, if art is useless, then if we cannot do anything about the death, then why not apricate it for its aesthetic beauty in death. We see it time and time again in movies, books and tv that murder and death is given a certain amount of sublimity in the romanisation of death. Similarly, he suggests that art isjudged by its ‘aesthetics and not its morality’, the artist does not keep their work within the lines of moral judgement, they venture out and ask question no one else is asking. In this idea Wilde brings to us, is where murder lies in the place where art is not judged by its morals then it is capable of being amoral thus not being held by conventional social codes andsolely be judged by its beauty.(Koik Shuh Jie, 2015)
Another key theory comes from Merlin Carpenter, who explains that something can only be aesthetically pleasing if you have experienced it. Therefore, it is only the murderer or killer who experiences the murders peak aesthetic sublimity, or can the viewer experience it to, or even experience it at the same level? (Carpenter, M. 2010).I feel as though the answer to this is no, as we can never truly know how much the killer would think of this act as art until it is done. Therefore, we can never compare.
Once we have all of these ideas, the overriding sense is argued more towards the theory that murder does evoke an aesthetics and artists thought in the viewer, as in some ways we can relate to the killer in there idea of creating murder for murders sake, like art. Murder is in theatre, books, movies, dramas, and we indivertibly see it every day. if art is inevitably useless, and so in murder, why can’t they be judged by the same ideas of aesthetics.
In essence, we now know that murder being a brutal act with morals, however it can be excluded away from these moral ideas, and only then can we focus on its real aesthetics and subliminal beauty.
abicorrigan.wordpress.com 