How Far, How Far We've Fallen: An Open Discussion Pertaining To The Decline Of Society
Let me begin by saying, I love street art.
It has the power to make us feel, think and awake to reality.
.jpg)
It can expose hidden truths or inspire us to seek truth ourselves.
Yes, I love street art. Or at least, I thought I did. That was until I took notice of the recent murals that appeared in the city of Brussels overnight.
WARNING: Below are extremely graphic and disturbing images.
One of the murals depicts a young and seemingly naked boy being pinned down by a man with a knife.
In the other, the naked corpse of a tortured man hangs upside by a rope. His fingers have been cut off, and his genitals mutilated.
Unfortunately, we are aware that these sort of horrors do take place in this world. But, I wonder if there is a place for such imagery among the noble call of political street art.
I am in two minds about these images. The official story claims that the pieces were done by an anonymous street artist, who allegedly dangled from the top of the apartment building by a rope, and managed to paint a huge mural, in the dark-- whilst evading authorities or any sort of attention.
Murals of such size are more often than not commissioned by the council, and approved of by the authorities. Yes, it is possible that it was simply a ninja artist that pulled this off in the dark with apparently no help. But, I don't think that we should rule out the possibility that the art could have been allowed or even commissioned by the government.
In the first image, however, a hand can be seen on the wrist of the man holding the knife, potentially attempting to stop the attacker from hurting the boy. If this is the case, then it is possible that the street artist may be hinting that we need to do something to stop such atrocities. Or.. it could just be a second attacker. I don't know.
I think that given the size and visibility of these works of "art," it is very worrying the amount of children that will see these images and end up having nightmares. We are supposed to protect our youth, and indoctrinating them into the horrors of the world so suddenly could have seriously harmful consequences.
Perhaps it was the artists intention to show these disturbing images in an effort to say, "we have pretended it doesn't exist long enough. Only through accepting reality can we begin to change it." That would be my hope, I suppose.
Maybe he is just looking to shock people, and there is no intended message.He or she is merely a victim of a regressive society where morality is fast becoming a myth.
Or perhaps, it is an intentional, government-backed initiative to force the decline of society by conditioning them to believe that this is just normal art nowadays.
It's worth noting that Brussels is not just any city. It is considered the capital of the European Union, , and many pivotal locations to the EU can be found there. It is often said that the EU, who's leaders are chosen-- not elected, is ruled by the bureaucrats in Brussels. I thought this worth mentioning, for if there is to be a forced decline in society, where better to start?
Discussion
I have shared my thoughts on this. I do not approve, regardless of the intent of the art, which I am still unsure of.
I'd like to know a few things from you.
Do you think this sort of street art is acceptable?
What message, if any, do you think that the artist is trying to convey?
Do you believe this was truly a random anonymous street artist as we are told, or do you believe there could be more to it?
If people paint that on the sides of buildings I don't think you need the NSFW tag here.
I had the same thought :)
I see your point, but I believe it isn't suitable for the steets, so I also don't feel that there are type of images people should be seeing on the web without prior warning. I don't know if they are eating and might lose their appetite, or perhaps are sitting with children.
@iflagtrash. Shame on you.
I have to agree with this sentiment @iflagtrash. Or hear an explanation as to why you would consider this post to be trash.
First you need to answer a question - what is the purpose of art?
I think it's purpose is to invoke an emotional response. In this case it has done that, and perhaps your reaction is the response the artist was angling after, perhaps not.
Whilst the images are indeed disturbing, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want them outside my window, I don't think they will harm children, unless the adults around them make a fuss over it.
To kids it's just another image, and one they are not really interested in.
Should it be there? I guess it depends on why it is there. I'd suggest these are a protest of sorts, an indication that al is not well in the European Union. the images a metaphors for something a whole lot worse than a single man being harmed.
This could have been done by a protesting artist. you wold probably find it is a group who did this - up to 10 people working as a team.
I could also be very wrong
Do you not think that repeated exposure to such imagery will cause a child to consider it the norm, therefore desensitizing the child to such acts of brutality and cultivating apathy that has become the main force in our world that prevents change?
Desensitized
Evidence of desensitized behavior
Comfortably Numb
The Effects of Video Game Violence on Physiological Desensitization to Real-Life Violence
Desensitization to Media Violence: Links With Habitual Media Violence Exposure, Aggressive Cognitions, and Aggressive Behavior
The Problem With Exposing Kids To Sexual And Violent Content
I think that that is one possibility.
But maybe this artist is trying to tell us something?
I think it is interesting that #pizzagate is just shoved off by some people as a theory, yet those of us who are intellegent know that our world harbours dark entities and underground cabals.
Obviously whoever did it thought it was worth seeing.
I think instead of attacking it we should ask ourselves why there was a need to paint it.
If ritual sacrifice (brutal murder) is happening in or world, I think it is wise to tell children of the world they are living in.
People are brutally murdered everyday, including children.
Hiding this from them when they are wise enough to see is essentially lying.
Nothing like exposing children to the horrors of the world so as not to lie to them, because we don't want to lie to our children, because all lying is essentially evil immoral and wrong, right, regardless of circumstances, when the gestapo comes and asks if you're a jew, if you're a dissenter, you don't lie to them because lying is evil.
lol.
Lying is a poision - it corrodes truth.
And now you are saying that truth matters not and that intellegent children should be lied to.
nice.
When one lies to others, he lies to himself also.
They would have to be subjugated to repeated and prolonged bouts of viewing these images. That yo are talking about is brainwashing.
If the children were isolated, and the images were not explained, and not other stimulus was given to them then yes, they might become desensitized.
But if their parents explain that this is expressive art, it's there for a reason, and then they go and see a Bambi movie, what is the child going to remember?
It's going to remember Bambi because that is the imagery it connects with.
The easiest way to traumatize a child it to tell them they must* be traumatized when they see these images.
There are much better tools to create apathy and a higher tolerance of violence if that was the aim.
In those studies, where did you read "isolation"?
You didn't. So you're reaching if you want to argue that negative images and violence in imagery doesn't negatively affect children.
In those studies where did you read that explaining away what is happening would have created a different response? You didn't, you are expressing your opinion based on conjecture that explanation will somehow work on the subconscious, on the unconscious and finally on the conscious and evoke a different, more visceral and normal response.
There are countless ways to traumatize a child, to argue that the easiest way is through telling them that they will be traumatized by the sight of disturbing images is probably a half truth, to tell them something that nonsensical will probably be meet with a side eye, that would have probably been my reaction, so I cannot speak on what other children would have done. You really believe that children aren't traumatized by violence in movies and art? You really believe that it's ok for children to watch violence, sex, mutilations, faces of death and other deranged things, and that telling them that they will be traumatized by those things will actually traumatize them easier? Have you even considered the absurdity you are arguing?
Prove it, show us the tools you're talking about, mr I have an opinion and it's not my asshole.
Those studies show that there is a diminished response after just 20 minutes of video games, but a mural on a building IN PUBLIC (READ socially acceptable behavior) will not affect children.
Where did you read "brainwashing"? You didn't, all those studies were sensible to say the least, not over the top, not 20+hours of violent video games, not 2+hours long videos, not 300 foot mural in the middle of the world, a lot less than those things affected people, not even children which are much more malleable in their impressions.
I have a hard time believing this was a random street artist. It was difficult enough to get away with hanging a banner on a fence in a rural area, an act that took far, far less time then either of these would.
Those paintings are not something I would want my own children seeing. On the other hand, I have no idea as to why they were put up so I can't say they are good or bad.
If they are being used as psychological trauma and political manipulation then I am of the opinion the legal system needs to get involved.
If they are meant to bring awareness to the problem of human trafficking and ritualized abuse that governments have been covering up, then I can understand why it was done on such a scale.
I've read it is also the center for drugs and white slavery trafficking, which funds much of the black ops global network. It's not random, gross and violent imagery and behavior are a way of trauma bonding victims to their abuser.
So like me, you are skeptical of this being produced by a random civilian?
Glad I am not alone in my suspicion.
Yeah, I'm skeptical, a hard won trait that has served me well.
Wise woman.
That's what grandmas should be, not friggen cougars....hahaha...it's all about sex and violence right?
I loved this back and forth. Just had to say that ;)
Perhaps in King's Landing... You seem more suited for Winterfell.
@eddard, if Daenerys Targaryen doesn't get control of her dragons (dragons/kundalini), they will destroy the seven kingdoms...I can't wait to see what happens next.
@dreemit, good times!
Authorities would easy remove or repaint this in couple of hours if they want. That's all you need to know.
Excellent point. The reasons offered for keeping it in the Daily Mail article are very difficult to agree with.
And Brussels is also so called capital of EU.
update: sorry I miss that. I was focused on photos to much, I guess.
Thank you, I did include that though.
I agree!
Im not so sure they could remove it in merely a few hours. graffiti takes time to remove.
If authorities don't like them they could easy repaint something else on top of disturbing graffiti, so the public can't see them. That was my point.
yes thats true, just pointing it out :)
I believe this street art is acceptable. I don't think it would do any harm to children. Children are just small adults. When I was a child I used to watch Hellraiser and Nightmare on Elm Street all the time. I had nightmares, but that did not negatively affect me.
I would imagine the top one is against violence towards children due to the hand seemingly stopping the attacker.
The second one on first look I would say it is about the meat industry, but on a closer look harvesting of organs, drug mules, and torturing of people.
I don't know much about the city so cannot guess if it was a random person or not. Probably a group of some sort.
I think normalising things like homelessness more negatively affects our children and shows the downfall of our society. They see our apathetic nature towards the situation, and like us they are indoctrinated to become cold, callous, and uncaring.
I agree that promoting apathy is also negative to a child's growth.
HOwever, I do feel this type of art plays a role in desensitizing children to the horrors of the world, which can lead them to become apathetic towards this type of thing as they develop, thus ensuring that they will do nothing to help by the time they are old enough that they could.
True, but hopefully it spurs on the adults to create a world where the children won't have to.
Hopefully it spurs the adults to create a world where children won't have to... What, what won't kids hopefully have to do? Proactive thinking of not sheltering kids from violence in images and videos.
Did you miss that glaring obviousness of normalized violence in images can lead to desensitization to those horrors depicted in images? Hopefully the adults create a world after they've been desensitized to violence which makes violence normal? ABSURD
@baah Humbug
BahFucyou, as in BĂ, pronounced Bah, as a endearing "you" in romanian, as a remark to a friend/comrade "yo", and FucYou, as in FAQ.
But my question isn't dismissed by nobody, least you who quotes the Rolls Royce Enlightment Pimp Scam Artist Extraordinaire OSHO about "children and their inherent intelligence"
There are revolting studies which have been done in history that show children aren't wise, or smart inherently any more than any other creature, isolation from the world doesn't produce a inherently intelligent person, but a feral child, so what is inherently intelligent about a child? That osho says that?
You had nightmares and they didn't negatively affect you: you got a good night sleep and had insightful things to ponder over with your very impressionable and malleable view of the world, from a nightmare. How can you argue that nightmares are not negatively affecting you, its insane to say that or even hint at that. In the end you half agree that it is not ok for this kind of art in closing, you start with "i don't think" that this would do ANY harm to children but equate this to a lesser form of "homelessness being normalized" which you say is affecting children negatively, without argument of how, because a child has no moral or good sense to see that being homeless is not something that garners cold, or callous and uncaring attitude but instead compassion and understanding which if they don't see it from society (huh?) they will undoubtedly have innately like animals:
Empathy, Compassion, Altruism isn't thought or learned (1), (2), (3). Those things are self evident not only to rats but to children as well and not affected by some kind of normalization mechanism that could undo things hardwired into each and every being.
How is empathy, compassion, altruism something that gets "denormalized"? That is you're argument, not reaching, not logical leaping, just rephrased, but even so at the end you equate that "art" with normalized homelessness which you view as "more negatively affects our children", which is counter to what you began with, or advocating that negative things like nightmares and horrible imagery doesn't negatively affect us AT ALL, so is it a degree of grey or none at all, it has no effect at all as you began. Does it affects us positively?
I need to reiterate how absurd that sounds: it doesn't affect us at all, but maybe it's a lesser form of normalized homelessness, irrational to the core!
You think a child is a small adult? Is that even an argument, how can one be a small adult? You mean children are children, and not any kind of adult. They don't drink because they have little self control, they don't have sex because they can be easily manipulated and controlled and don't have the intelligence to recognize that, but they are "small adults", because they can participate in adult things and engage in adult themes without any kind of negative effect..
How do you normalize homelessness, is that a group effort you're hinting at?
How do you paint a giant disturbing mural on a building? Because it's art and nobody is affected?
But it's irrelevant, moot points really because they are two distinctively different scenarios that cannot be compared, at all, one is a platitude, the other is visceral and very disturbing.
PS, I was homeless and I have a uncle who is a drunk living in the streets in Rome, by choice, not because of society's cold callus and uncaring attitude towards him, but in spite of the warm and welcoming, understanding family and kids he has abandoned. And nothing excuses indifference to children, art the least, and arguing that children aren't basically susceptible to predators, to negative and disturbing scenarios is ludicrous.
How so? I will concede that my dreams were based on fiction, and in that sense they provided me with entertainment more than anything. I had nightmares as well unrelated to these films, one involving a bleach bottle in a trench coat. That was more scary, and not based on anything I saw.
Children are small adults in the idea that they can reason and think just as well as us. They don't drink because they have small bodies and psychoactive drugs such as alcohol are bad for developing brains. They don't have sex because they are not sexually mature. Apart from their lack of experience and their still developing minds and bodies children can be just as smart as adults. I think to keep children away from art like this is the same as saying we should ban alcohol because some people will become alcoholics.
Rising hatred to Immigrants for example... Islamaphobia also. Homeless in the UK are 47 more times likely to be victims of violent attacks than other people. We dehumanise these people who challenge our perceptions of a just world. "They deserve to be there" "They are lazy drug addicts" etc. This is based on the just-world fallacy, a cognitive bias that many people have. It helps them normalise things that would otherwise hurt their view of the world "Good things happen to good people, bad things happen to bad people."
Personally I find the bodies on the streets to be visceral and disturbing.
PS, I've worked on homelessness campaigns have have friends affected by homelesness. It's all anecdotal.
I don't think these images provide a negative and disturbing scenario, but instead creates an awareness. I would rather educate my kids than keep them in a bubble state where they can easily fall into the trap of predators.
Hopefully because it is art everyone is affected ^_^
Al Capone thought he was a good guy. So did Hitler. We can be hardwired towards normalisation of bad things from the cognitive biases within our brains. "Them Mooslims! Them Immigrants! My great country! Their barbaric lands!" Etc Ad Infinitum nauseam.
...Im pretty sure his head has been cut off...
Art reflects its current culture.
If this is modern art, we should be worried about our current culture.
None the less, it is a reality and needs to be accepted to be changed.
I think it does more harm then good to not talk about such things. And yet many people wouldn't listen to any number of words describing such atrocities, claiming that the person is a 'conspiracy theorist' and immediately shutting them out.
Art is much harder to ignore.
I personally dont think we should protect children from the truth - especially if it is so blatant - I think we should tell them of the horrors of this world - lest they live in ignorance.
It has nothing to do with conspiracy theorist or the horrible people that run the show, it has to do with the burdening of a young mind with senseless and worthless information which will not enrich their lives at all. That is not some opinion either, that is a hard reality: children are sheltered because they are powerless, easy to manipulate and impress upon.
I agree, nothing to do with conspiracy theories.
Yet I fail to see how hiding something that exists - from a child or adult - can help any situation.
For example, I will never tell my children that "Santa" exists....
btw, Santa, Christmas , Satan etc, ....all has to do with Saturn
I have argued again and again that sheltering people from the horrors of the world won't change anything , and beside burdening them with facts that they have no control over it will take up their mental energy and even valuable reasoning capacity and send them down a darker path by normalizing such things, akin to making them believe that if these things are happening all over the world then why shouldn't they utilize the dark things that other people are doing, if this is indeed a dark and twisted world, especially when you present them with a reality that shows these disturbing things as normal. You can continue to fail to see that, to enunciate "I don't think" which means "I don't consider" because it's a self defeating behavior and sticking with your beliefs when they are challenged by truth, such as the studies about desensitization to violence, will never allow you to reason well, only to cling to those beliefs. I understand that you do not see, that you don't consider, go back and read my replies and argue my arguments instead of repeating your opinion because it's not my job to argue your opinions.
I think both sides of the argument are valid.
My question is, to the extent that it desensitizes, to what extent does it shed light on the happenings of such atrocities?
A valid argument is not a fallacious argument, either it's valid or its not, you cannot have two contradicting arguments and call it valid, that's just your opinion.
To the extent that it damages one's normal response to such things. To what extent does DISTURBING IMAGES shed light on happenings of things like this? VERY VERY QUESTIONABLE, since there is NO CONTEXT, it's all about interpretation and what could something outside context ever shed light on something happening in the world? It's a moot point and a meaningless argument to say that there is more value to have disturbing images because they shed light on something that happens in the world than to not subject people to such things, and didn't you argue that it's better to expose kids to those things than to let them lust over such things? You said that. You didn't consider that lusting over such things isn't anything like exposing them to such things.
Ok, so you don't see how exposing kids to disturbing faces of death videos, and all kinds of such material is detrimental to their well being, the same for anybody, regardless of age. You want people exposed to decapitation videos because you think that by not exposing them it's worse than exposing them to that kind of material?!
I would never suggest that you show your children 'death videos'.
I would definitely never suggest you force it upon them.
But, if something like this exists and they passed it on their way to school, asked you about it; then I think it best to tell them that yes, these things go on in the world - and maybe tell them why...explain to them these people exist...
you underestimate children , you label them as children but they are the same infinite awareness as you.
If they learn how this world works at a young age - they have a head start.
They are the same infinite awareness, spare me the osho scam artist I own 96 rolls royce (not exaggerating either) then why are there feral children? I don't label anybody, it's a nice way to say I pigeonholed someone, I stereotyped someone when in fact I refereed to them as they are refereed to universally.
If they pass by something like this then the damage is pretty much done. They will be affected regardless of explanation, explanation won't make them unsee something disturbing. They are very much the victim of that disturbing imagery, and no explanation will reverse the damage, no explanation will extract that material from their subconscious or stop their unconscious from manifesting those same disturbing things in their dreams. Telling them that yes, these things go on in the world will only add onto that damage, telling them that the world we live in is that fucked up will not stop the damage but only add onto it. They don't learn ANYTHING about how the world works, what exactly do they learn from being exposed to disturbing mutilated corpses on buildings, in the middle of a town? You can try to argue that with rationale, I would love to hear how you can rationalize that they are being helped, hopefully you won't resort to unfounded accusations that I labeled them a certain way, because obviously discerning between children and adults if of no consequence right?!
You don't see because you haven't the insight of these things being damaging to people, it's my opinion, and it's your detriment if you cannot see that. You can express your opinion but it will never be a fact, or pertinent outside just an opinion.
I can see that it is possible that this kind of thing is damaging, but if it shows up in such a profound way, I think it best to address it.
You forget that these things happen in the real world - the art is just an expression.
Art is an opinion, this is disturbing images of mutilated corpses.
Not art. Addressing it and telling them that some people think it's art is of no fucking help, zilch, ZERO value in telling someone that a decapitation video is just a video.
There is nothing profound about disturbing images, period.
nor yours.
What is truth?
What is my opinion and not a fact I stated? Truth is that disturbing images affect people in a very negative measurable way. FACT. not a freaking opinion, don't try to LABEL a fact an opinion and hope to get away with it, my opinion.
In case you're this guy, and you happen to be hanging around steemit, I need you to check out chat real quick-just a last minute touch for today's article.
@baah
Osho is a dead scam artist named one of the most influential people in our world
and you own 96 Rolls Royce's.....
How does this support your opinion that this mural will desensitize people to the exact atrocity it is revealing as happening?