DoktorEvil
Banned
She's participating in performance art. How else are people suppose to know her from the other crappy performance artists?
Is this video supposed to work in a quantum manner?
It's not a recreation to demonstrate sexual assault and rape unless the viewer personally comes to the opinion that it is? Or it's a completely consensual reenactment of consensual sex unless the viewer believes that it's not?
Is it like Schrödinger's cat where it is both consensual and nonconsensual depending on the context it's viewed in?
Is society the box
and the video the cat?
If one were to come by this video without knowing the context of it would it be wrong to watch it guilt free?
That's something to consider in most rape cases, but Sulkowicz' behavior after the incident and the fact that the sex seems to have begun consensually means that this is not most rape cases.
I'm really not too fond of the whole "always believe survivors" idea. While the way our society handles rape and rape victims can be disgusting, treating victims as infallible and objective parties is a poor idea. I'm really not willing to let innocent people be convicted of rape because sex that they thought was consensual was perceived differently by the other person.
I don't understand why gaf always has trouble understanding any forms of contemporary art.
Because this stupid shit isn't art
I know there's some mixing but her characterizing it as primarily as performance art rather than as a protest, and knowing how it affected that guy's life, does not help her case in my eyes. It introduces other motives for her actions, like was this just art for art's sake or art to protest that how the U handled my allegations?
Because this stupid shit isn't art
He was found not guilty and will not be punished under any justice system. The first amendment doesn't protect your feelings, it protects free expression. That's just the price of living in a free society.
Err, why not?
There is no evidentiary standard that has to be satisfied in order for a piece of evidence to get attached to a complaint. You do not even have to attach copies of documents or other evidence you reference in your complaint to the complaint. In fact, most complaints are filed without any sort of evidentiary attachments because there is rarely any benefit to doing so.
The fact that the messages are referenced in his complaint are in no way, shape or form an indication of their legitimacy, and I'm curious why you think they are.
Because it's not. This is more of a cry for help. She got caught lying about her sexual assault and now she's trying to save face with this shit as well as the mattress stunt she was pulling.
That's your reasoning?
No shit. Am i saying otherwise? Why would this be art?
Let's see, it's a performance, it's meant to communicate and create dialogue, it's designed to express the artist's feelings, it has form, it has content, it has authorial intent, it's inserted in an artistic context and created by a self entitled artist... i really don't see why her intentions matter on whether this is art or not.
If that's the case then just about anything can be called "art." I think i'm going to go masturbate in front of a church for "art" purposes.
You could, if there's purpose. Whether it's recognized as good or bad is up to your piece. In your case, I don't think people'll talk about it for long... and you'll spend a few days behind bars.
No shit.
Besides the obvious mediums art is much more about the application of context, form and meaning than anything else.
If that's the case then just about anything can be called "art." I think i'm going to go masturbate in front of a church for "art" purposes.
Lol ok.
LolDoes her testimony not count as evidence? And my understanding is that the best estimates for the prevalence of false accusations of rape put the number at 2-8%. Which would imply her accusation alone would fit the "preponderance of evidence" standard of >50%..
Yes, hence why this isn't art. Like i said, she's just trying to save face.
It's only art in the sense that literally anything and everything can be defined as art so long as the person responsible deems it so.
This is a pretty boring conclusion. How do you know "face" is something that even motivates her? This is the laziest form of engagement. You just attached a comfortable narrative to a challenging work and rejected it. It's difficult to understand so you tried to find a way to understand it easily. But what evidence supports your conclusion?
Therefore the discussion shouldn't be whether this is or isn't art. Instead the discussion should be whether this performance art is actually good. I don't think it is that effective really.
After reading that whole lawsuit.. I fail to see how Columbia isn't in some way culpable for what happened to the accused.
They freaking endorsed her campaign and gave her course credit after finding him not guilty of any crime.
There's smart people at Columbia.. at some point someone should have said 'this is a bad idea' to the Mattress thing.
After reading a plaintiff's complaint you think the defendant is liable? Shocking!
Would you have dared to make this snarky comment in a thread wherein Sulkowicz was the plaintiff accusing the guy of rape?
Would you have dared to posit an asinine hypothetical in a country where doing so was a capital offense?
Let's see, it's a performance, it's meant to communicate and create dialogue, it's designed to express the artist's feelings, it has form, it has content, it has authorial intent, it's inserted in an artistic context and created by a self entitled artist... i really don't see why her intentions matter on whether this is art or not.
I'll take that as a no.
People are allowed to side with the plaintiff in a case based on the evidence they put forward. If you have some kind of game changing piece of information that proves the guy you mocked to be wrong in siding with the plaintiff, post that instead of random snark.
not every creative endeavour is labelled "a work of art".
An art is an endeavour or field of some kind ie metalwork, medicine, karate or whatever.
A work of art is a piece of work in said field that is considered meaningful or relevant.
Art isn't just creative bullshit which has so called meanings. It's an exemplary piece of work in a given field.
Opinions on what's exemplary differ.
A complaint is not evidence. It's silly to take one at face value. Sorry that went over your head.
It's actually the best art history has ever seen, but it's way ahead of its time, just like Vincent Van Gogh's art was.
-Counter argument
What I do know is that if I were in college living on campus in this day and age, I would be terrified of putting my dick in anything.
He's taking the University to court. If he doesn't come up with the evidence for what he goes into in the complaint and it turns out he was making it up, well, that will be a hell of a thread.
Because this stupid shit isn't art
After reading a plaintiff's complaint you think the defendant is liable? Shocking!
A complaint is not evidence. It's silly to take one at face value. Sorry that went over your head.
Yes, I realize it's the plantiff's complaint.
Yet, if you read it, there is quite a bit to it. There's things missing as well, where are his texts back to her as example.
Yet, no of that matters really.. what matters is that Columbia cleared the guy, the police wouldn't prosecute and even then Columbia had a professor that ENDORSED her going forward with class credit on a project where she repeatedly said her rapist was still on campus and she went around telling people that it was this guy and that the University was aware of that fact.
That's pretty strong evidence that Columbia fucked up. He had the right to confidentiality as did she. She broke that, and Columbia never put a stop to it nor attempted to stop it. They in fact endorsed it at a times with her project.
Columbia's argument will be that they didn't endorse it, nor did they in fact leak his name, and that his case is against Emma not them. They could win on that, but unlike some other cases where a guy sued a college over similar things (false rape allegations), this school had a professor working with the one who filed the complaint on a project about the case.
Columbia might get off with that argument, but clearly they fucked up.
You think Columbia should be in the business of interfering in academic activities by students and faculty? You think Title IX requires that here? Should they have fired the professor and expelled her?
If that's the case then just about anything can be called "art." I think i'm going to go masturbate in front of a church for "art" purposes.
Serious question: Is she mentally ill?