Pandocchi Amandine

The Aesthetic of Violence

Aristote: « les mêmes choses que nous voyons avec peine, nous nous plaisons à en cnmselozeq z’ewacse qeoqéremsasinm, sezzer, oaq eweloze, pte zer fnqler der bêtes les plus viles et celles des cadavres ».

Whether that be in , or cinema, violence has always imroiqed aqsirsr amd ewazsed atdiemcer: ve cam shimj nf Shajeroeaqe’r plays or detective stories which emerged in the 19th century for example,. Hnveueq, aqs amd ziseqastqe’r cnmceqm fnq cqile amd uinzemce finds its origins much farther than that, in the founding texts. Indeed, when the Old testament begins with Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit and their sons later becoming the first murderer and murder victim, these biblical episodes were the source and subject of many artistic representations and interpretations such as Clain slaying Abel by Peter Paul Rubens in the 15th century among other representations of violent scenes such as Judith Beheading Holofernes by Caravaggio in 1598 or Saturn devouring his son by Goya early 19th century. Therefore it seems that we, as a civilization, always felt the need to represent such scenes of vice, horror and violence, whether that be accurately or aesthetically, and thus we may try to answer how and why do we, as Aristotle stated, seem to enjoy showing, representing and watching the horrible, the painful: the violence—and the first question we need to ask ourselves is the following: what is aesthetic in violence?

As previously advanced the notion of an aesthetic of violence (and its aestheticization) is not as recent as we may think and is not necessarily linked to popular culture, which is one of the biggest misconceptions when it comes to violence in art. Actually, the first theorization of the aesthetic of violence may probably be the romantic notion of Sublime and the possibilities of representing violence, and of

- 1 -

experiencing it, as art that were recognized early in the 19th century may be seen as its logical extensions. The sublime was first theorized by Edmund Burke, an English philosopher, who defined it as ‘’vhaseueq ir fissed im amx rnqs sn ewcise the ideas of pain and danger... Whatever is in any sort terrible, or is conversant about terrible objects, or operates in a manner analogous to seqqnq.’’ (A Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1757) Burke believed that the sublime was something that could provoke terror in the audience, for terror and pain were the strongest of emotions that the mind is capable of feeling and also thought that there was an inherent "pleasure" in these emotion. However, the philosopher Emanuel Kant later added that an object can be terrifying and thus sublime, without the beholder actually being afraid of it and also extended the concept of sublime to anything that is so great that it seems inconceivable as Burke also noted that, for something to be sublime, it needs to have an element of the unknown about it that cam’s be ewozaimed. Nnsabze ewalozer nf rtbzile uinzemce lax be Jnhm Martin’r The Great Day of His Wrath (k85k) nq Wizzial Hngaqsh’ Satan, Sin and Death (A Scene from Milton's 'Paradise Lost' whose figures of of Death and Satan are considered sublime - c.1735–40). In the early 18th century, the sublime was mostly used to refer to nature and its wilderness and greatness compared to men, as well as to refer to the unworldly (that is to say what is out of reach for men.), therefore, when we talk about sublime violence, we would talk about a ‘lamlade’ sublime which was theorized by Joel Black in 1991 who stated that "(if) any human act evokes the aesthetic experience of the sublime, certainly it is the act of murder ». Thir rtbzile ir ueqx ltch rilizaq sn Btqje amd Kams’r Stbzile amd ir also said, according to Black, to induce both a sense of pain and terror and appeals to the unconceivable in the way that this sublime violence cazzr tonm she iqqasinmaz, sn vhas she htlam limd cam’s gqaro, cam’s comprehend or understand. (Thus, it is important to keep in mind that the sublimity of violence disappears as soon as comes relativism.)

Having collected all these pieces of information, we can establish svn sxoer nf ‘rtbzile uinzemce’: she fiqrs nme vntzd be oqeremsed ar ‘’ewsqele nq ewaggeqased uinzemce’’ rimce, sn sqiggeq am aershesic ewoeqience in the viewer, the violence of the act needs to be so great that it becomes unconceivable and ultimately denies any place for relativism. A good ewaloze nf rtch uinzemce ir Gtizzeqln Dez Tnqqn’r Pam’r Labxqimsh and its hyperrealistic violence. Here, violence is portrayed as so extreme that our limd cam’s laje remre nf is (she rceme euemstazzx becnler tmewozaimabze, beyond our comprehension) and the violence of the act is so intense that

- 2 -

the sense of terror and pain it induces almost becomes physical. (Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyzSvVh9BDo) However, man-made sublime is not found only in bloody violence. As previously mentioned, sublime as a sense, an element, of the unknown (or the unexplained), thus, according to Joel Black, sublime violence is also expressed through violence without motive. As sublime is inherently linked to the irrational, a violence that is sublime is an unmotivated violence, that is to say, a violence whose reasons are unexplainable (or unknown to some extent). When we witness sublime violence, we witness the devastating consequences of destructive acts without motive; this man- made sublime has to be the result of a combination of circumstances that she htlam limd cam’s fashnl (i.e. bexnmd htlam cnloqehemrinm). In other words, violence becomes sublime when this violence is irrational: when there is no rational explanation behind a violent act. This is what Joel black calls z’acse gqastis. We can take for example Ktbqicj’r A Czncjvnqj Oqamge—whose revolves around a character named Alex, a charismatic, antisocial delinquent whose interests include classical, committing rape, theft and what is termed in the movie and the book as « ultra-violence ». In the opening scene, we enter the movie with the four main characters beating up a tramp in the street for no apparent reasons, with no explanation or mention of it before or after the act: we witness characters being violent just for the sake of being violent (something that we find throughout the movie). (Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWLByMshYIU&frags=pl%2Cwn)

However, aesthetic experiences triggered by unmotivated or unreasonable violent acts are not just explained by the notion of sublime. Indeed, if we find aesthetic pleasure in this unbridled and gratuitous violence because it is also because it is regarded as a direct form of expression of freedom. The criminal (or violent individual) embodies a passionate spirit of rebellion, unfulfilled fantasies and desires, and overworked imagination and thus ultimately becomes an object of aesthetic contemplation for the viewer. One way to explain this phenomenon is that, as humans are supposed to be inherently free, this violent assertion of freedom and individual will appeals to our primitive nature, which makes it enjoyable (or at least aesthetic) for us to watch. For the viewer, this fictional unmotivated violence becomes what Albert Camus called a ’lesaohxricaz qebezzinm’, that is to say, an act of protest against the human condition. As this fictional brutality appeals to our primitive urges of violence, it becomes a way for the viewer to rebel against the social norms of order by proxy. As we watch Alex from A Clockwork Orange or Patrick Bateman from American

- 3 -

Psycho performing their individual will and freedom with no restrictions from external forces, we also come to experience this act of rebellion by proxy through art, which is linked to the notion of catharsis. (see part II) Although this aesthetic of violence appeals to some internal forces— to something within us such as primitive needs and universal emotions such as pain and terror, some argue that this aesthetic of violence is external and that violence is by essence aesthetic simply because violence is a form of art. Black notes that "...if murder can be experienced aesthetically (sublime), the murderer can in turn be regarded as a kind of artist—a performance artist or anti-artist whose specialty is not creation but destruction’’. Viqstazzx, Black implies that violence can be seen as an aesthetic vehicle rather than a moral outrage: we need to see the killer or the criminal as an artist and the victim as his piece of art because, itrs zije a onel ir she ones’r vax sn ewoqerr shelrezuer, uinzence is the criminal's way to express themselves which can be linked to the expression of individual will as an answer to social pressure and social repression and restraint as we previously discussed, but can also be related to emotional expression. In other words, violence is a way for the criminal to express extreme emotions, as such emotions call for a proportionate medium. As a concrete example, we can think of who oqeremsr uinzemce ar a fnql nf ewoqerriue aqs. Imdeed, Taqamsimn’r uinlence is so physically graceful, visually dazzling and meticulously executed that it turns into an object of aesthetic beauty and eventually demonstrates the aesthetic value and artistic dimension of violence and Kill Bill would be a perfect example to demonstrate this potential: as the female protagonist (Beatrix) skillfully wields her sword and murders those responsible for the death of her baby among others, we get a sense that she is using her victims as a sort of canvas for her expression of revenge; like artists who express themselves through brush and paint, she expresses herself through sword and blood.

However, opposing the previous theory of an aesthetic which is inherent to violence, another school of thought embraces the idea that the aesthetic of violence actually comes from the viewer as the witness of this violence. This is a representation of the Aesthetic of violence which would be divided or comprised by three components: Criminal (psychology) + victim (sublime thrill) + witness (aesthetic)

- 4 -

= aesthetic of violence As viewers, like a sort of mental calculation, we associate the first component (the psychological need for violence) with the second one (the sublime thrill of seeing the victim) and create an aesthetic out of it. This operation is what Laurent Jollier names La rage de voir which refers to how the audience receive and ingest violent images. this concept would place the viewer as the unconscious agent which turns violence and death into a show—into an aesthetic experience. As we have a need to see violence and to make it more acceptable and morally correct, we make it unconsciously aesthetic. Moreover, Jollier adds that this rage comes from our sense of power to be able to escape the horror of the real and to witness terror and violence, without being involved, without suffering from it, without being its victim and without any moral judgment behind it. Thus, this noeqasinm azznvr tr sn ewoeqiemce z’acte gratuit and surrender to the appeal of violence without having to face its consequences. To summarize, we are responsible, as viewers, for the aetheticization of violence (i.e. the aestheticization of violence is operated through the gaze of the witness.)

Bts vhas dn ve qefeq sn vhem ve sazj abnts am ‘aershesiciyasinm nf violence? In regard to cinema, the term is used to explain the depiction of violence in a manner that is "stylistically excessive in a significant and sustained way" so audience members are able to connect references from the "play of images and signs" to artworks, genre conventions, cultural symbols and concepts - Margaret Bruder (Doctor in Philosophy - Indiana University) In other words, the aestheticization of violence in cinema is defined by standard realist modes of editing and cinematography violated in order to spectacularize the action being played out on the screen and the use of "quick and awkward editing", "canted framings", shock cuts, and slow lnsinm, sn elohariye she iloacsr nf btzzesr nq she "rotqsimg nf bznnd’’. However, this definition can be seen as quite restrictive and we are going to see that the aestheticization of violence is not just about its spectacularization but that there are several ways to aestheticize violence, and this aershesiciyasinm dnerm’s noeqase shqntgh she acs nf violence only. Indeed, the aestheticization of violence can be done through narrative, editing and cinematography devices depending on the effect and impact the filmmaker wants to have on the audience and the emotions, sense, or even message he or she wants to convey. However, the ever growing aestheticization of violence in cinema has been subject of many controversy and criticism, notably about its potential danger.

- 5 -

Ever since the first depictions of violence in cinema (and even in novels), there has been an ongoing discussion around the consequences of the aestheticization of violence and its possible dangers: the main argument is that associating and even mixing beauty with violence, or representing violence as a pure aesthetic product, mays lead to a normalization of real violence as it shows an inaccurate representation of violence and its consequences and could encourage people (and especially the youth) to imitate, or reproduce, such acts in real life. There has been, for example, quite a big controversy surrounding the 1991 novel and 2000 movie American Psycho as a lot of people questioned the lnqaz nf she vnqjr euem shntgh she vnqjr meueq zed sn ‘’am imcqeare nf uinzemce im Aleqica’’ ar cqisicr had feaqed. However, these arguments are not to be so easily refuted as there had been some examples of the dangers of such works. Indeed, after the release of Ktbqicj’r A Czncjvnqj Oqamge, a lot of instances of copycat crimes in Great Britain had been reported which led the movie to be forbidden in British theaters. Virtually, the real danger of such movies is when no barrier is established between violence and the audience which can lead to a confusion between fiction and reality (especially for young audiences), and, usually, filmmakers are aware of those risks which influence the way they aestheticize violence in their work. For example, the hyperrealism of Pam’r Labxqimsh dner vnqj ar a barrier since the pain induced by the scene somewhat alerts of the consequences of violence, as well as fantastic violence which serves as a mental barrier. As opposed to the common idea of the aesthetic of violence being resumed to blood, fights and bruises, the ways to represent violence in art are diverse and plural, and dependent on the fizllajeqr’ nvm chnicer amd visions, which result in completely different, and sometimes opposed, ways to depict violence in cinema. The following examples are meant to demonstrate this argument, and debunk the misconception of violence in art being restricted to bloody violence. - A Clockwork Orange: a disturbing violence Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAB0WzTnMl4&frags=pl%2Cwn

This extract is particularly interesting because we can easily find the notion of sublime as the violence depicted in this scene is so absurd and so grotesque that it seems unconceivable. This is a very highly stylized, almost comical violence: the way both the murderer and the victim are dressed, the weapon, the settings, the victim herself in the way she talks but also through the cliché of the cat-lady about to do some yoga and the cartoonish way to represent the coup fatal, yet, the scene is extremely violent. Even though there is no blood or gory elements, everything in the scene is associated with vinzemce: she vnlam’r vazzr

- 6 -

drip with pornographic art, the very bright colors appear as very aggressive to the eye, the camera work and the editing also reflects the idea of violent with a rapid succession of different shots and unusual angles, and obviously the content of the scene itself, which is a murder; violence is even expressed through language as Alex uses an argot which is a mix between Russian and english that is hardly comprehensive as a way to dehumanize him and reflect his cold-bloodedness. However there is still a distance between the violence of the scene and the audience because of its comical—almost grotesque dimension: it is too much to be tangible, real, or plausible (ex: the murder weapon is the most unlikely weapon ever), so even though the scene is of extreme violence (i.e. sublime violence) there is still a barrier that allows us to find aesthetic pleasure in the scene. Yet, although the grotesque aspect of the scene works as a barrier, paradoxically this is exactly this grotesque aspect—this comical dimension of the scene that makes it disturbing and uncomfortable to watch; this is this unusual mix of comedy and hyper violence and the fact that such intense violence is represented in such an almost lighthearted way that it makes the scene even more shocking, impacting, and violent. Moreover, we also find the figure of the criminal as the artist in a very obvious, direct way: - the victim tells him that this is a very important work of art, and this is this exact work of art that he will use as a weapon - we can hear Beethoven music in the background, and as the criminal and the victim struggle, it almost looks like their waltzing to the music in the middle of a room whose walls are covered by paintings and other works of art - Alex looks zije he’r veaqimg a cnrstle, vish a larj vhich resembles those of the Comedia Dezz’Aqse Ultimately, the whole murder scene looks like a performance in which the murderer is the artist and his victim eventually becomes part of the other works of art exhibited in the house. - American beauty: Beautiful violence Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cavi9ndITTQ

We are here presented a much different way to represent and aestheticize violence. Indeed, we are no longer showed a sublime violence, but rather a beautiful violence. Beauty is both tied with and opposed to violence: there is a very obvious parallel between violence and beauty with this mirror effect between the splash of blood and the bouquet of roses which are used as a symbol of beauty throughout the movie. Indeed, it almost looks like the violence of the gunshot is filtered by the beauty of the flowers through the way it is filmed; we are witnessing violence through a beautiful lense to emphasize the passion of the act more than

- 7 -

its violence. The beauty of violence is also conveyed through the way the violent act is staged: once again it is presented as an artistic performance, but instead of a grotesque costumed performance, we rather witness the process of creation of the criminal as the artist in a very poetic way; we see the tool of the artist, the canvas, and then his artwork is revealed on a white wall by a slow panning to the left just like the revelation of an exhibited work of art in a gallery. This is also a very clean depiction of violence, with this single splash of blood which results from one single shot by an unknown (from now) killer whose only part we can see is the hand which is even covered, and obviously, the filmmaker decided to emphasize beauty over brutality even at the cost of verisimilitude. Even the colors have something beautiful and poetic with a black and white setting with the red color, symbol of passion, of the blood and the flowers, both symbols of beauty and violence, but at the same time, beauty also seems to be used to emphasize the violence of the act or to highlights the cruelty of the human nature by opposing the purity associated with flowers to the violence of blood, and the final interpretation is up to the viewer who can see the scene whether as an ode to the beauty of violence or as a warning of its danger.

- American Psycho: Raw Violence Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ruw9fsh3PNY&frags=pl%2Cwn

We are once again presented a very different way to depict violence which actually focuses on the brutality of the violent act. Indeed, the camera focuses more on the character committing the act than on the victim and the only time we are shown the victim is to show the result of this act of madness and to emphasizes its violence through an excessive amount of blood. Thus, it is very clear that what is important in the scene is not the victim or even the killer but actually the act itself and its ultra-brutality. This scene is probably the exact opposite of American Beauty which depicted and focused on the beauty of violence; here we are focused on the brutality of violence portrayed through the amount of blood, the repetition of the act with the axe and the attitude of the character who is completely devoted to his violence and looks almost in a sort of trance—completely uncontrollable and frantic. There is something primitive in the way violence is depicted which almost translates a need in the way Bateman looks like he is no longer in control as he frantically hit his victim with an axe. Indeed, the character seems to be completely surrendering to his natural urges which he used to repress, and ultimately, we come to understand that we are not shown the violence of an unmotivated or passionate act, but rather the result of a violent

- 8 -

primitive impulse. It is further elohariyed bx Baselam’r face cnueqed im blood, if we associate the face with the notion of identity we could say that he completely surrendered to his violent nature and these primitive natural urges now define his identity (when it used to be society.) Here the primitive replaces the social. When American Beauty understated the violence of a gunshot and didm’s qeueaz she face of the killer who was only represented by a clean, bloodless hand, covered by a glove, here, we are presented an overdone violence which is very easy to see in only one frame of the scene with Baselam’r face amd cznsher cnueqed im bzood. We are presented to a very raw,and primitive depiction and aestheticization of violence. Moreover, we find the same sense of an artistic performance as we saw with A Clockwork Orange: Bateman taking care to play music, the coat he puts on that could almost be seen as the artist putting on his paint apron and the murder taking place in the middle of the room with the bright red color of the blood contrasting with the neutral colors of the apartment. What is also very interesting is that, while Bateman is still wearing is civilized costume— the mask of his cultured self—with his neatly combed hair, his sharp suit and his fancy apartment, he completely surrenders to his primitive, natural, violent urges. This is the perfect example and an amazing display of the idea of the raw versus the cooked; the fact that he takes the time to put a coat and music on, and to prepare a whole scenery around the murder almost gives it an impression of qistaz: is’r zije hir oqeremsimg she qav ar cnnjed—or presenting the raw as more acceptable because of this ritual (to take up the example seen in class, we could say that it is similar as preparing oysters.) Ultimately, Bateman seems to try and bring some civilization to his primitive act. To finish, we once again find a barrier so as to distance the audience from the violence of the scene which is quite similar to that of A Clockwork Orange through humor. (which also contributes to the satirical tone of the work.)

Therefore, we can notice that the aestheticization of violence can be done through different devices and techniques depending on the effect the filmmaker is seeking to achieve and how they want to impact the audience, however, we can also define some recurrent elements as well as similar cinematic tactics to attain these results, and as we established the multiple factors of creation of an aesthetic of violence and explored the different ways to apply them to a cinematic work of art, one question remains: why do we need to aestheticize and depict violence in works of art?

Following the path of the great Greek tragedies and complying to Aqirsnsze’r shenqx nf dqala in Poetics, violence in cinema has an deep-

- 9 -

rooted cathartic purpose. According to D. W. Lucas, a contemporary defimisinm nf Aqirsnsze’r cashaqrir shas vntzd aoozx sn cqile amd violence in cinema rhntzd be defimed ar ‘the removal or evacuation of morbid rtbrsamcer fqnl she htlam rxrsel’ ‘in a sense partly religious, partly medical, for the psycho-therapeutic treatment of emotional disorders by qistaz amd ltric’ which explains catharsis as a homeopathic process which arouses violent feelings and urges so we may ultimately be relieved of them. Essentially, violence has always been inherent to art, but this violence is also inherent to human nature, which can be explained from a theological perspective following the origins story of Adam and Eve or from a biological perspective which defines humans as evolved primitive creatures. In other words, human nature is a violent nature by essence, thus, by witnessing a character surrender to those primitive violent urges and commit terrific crimes, the viewer or spectator purges their own violent impulses and feelings, i.e. by watching the representation of our own repressed (whether that be by the law, by society or by morality) emotions or desires (or in this case urges) and the representation of its punishment, consequences, or in some cases accomplishment, this representation disgusts the spectator of their passion or gives them a sense of fulfillment, and thus they will eventually be purged of or be liberated from this repressed desire or impulse. (It is also interesting to note that A Clockwork Orange depicts this aspect of catharsis as Alex is forced to watch violent films and images to cure his violent urges and nature.) The process of catharsis is tightly linked to the process of identification which can be done through narrative devices such as in American Psycho which presents Patrick Bateman who is an Exeter and Harvard grad, a gourmand, a tanning enthusiast and a ruthless fashion critic who also happens to be a serial killer; by showing a civilized image of this very violent character, the viewer is more likely to identify to him because they can recognize themselves through common behaviors or ordinary habits. But it can also be done through editing devices like in A Clockwork Orange in which we never really get to see a humanized and civilized, normally functioning Alex, so it is directly through the camera work that ve aqe ozaced im she she aggqerrnq’r oosition as the way the scene is fizled ziseqazzx otsr tr im Azew’r onrisinm ar she uinzems imdiuidtaz, ar the criminal. This is a direct identification. (Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAB0WzTnMl4&frags=pl%2Cwn (2:20 to 2:30)

Ultimately, the representation of violence in art is (as we saw with catharsis) an individual need, however, this need is not limited to the individual. Indeed, violence in art also appears to be a social need as art is the only place where we can actually make common sense of violence.

- 10 -

There is a need to talk about what is taboo and what is hard to comprehend as a society and violence (and especially gratuitious violence) appears to only be comprehensible as art, since the outlaw in real life as a moral transgression can only be legitimated and made socially acceptable in art. It is linked to la rage de voir : since we have this need for violence and to see violence, art becomes the only way to make it moral; the only way to make violence and the contemplation of violence acceptable is to present it through and as art. Virtually, art is only place where our primitive instinct and our imposed cultured self can coexist.

Ar Aqirsnsze mnsed: ‘’zer lêler chnrer pte mntr unxnmr auec oeime, mntr nous plaisons à en cnmselozeq z’ewacse qeoqéremsasinm, sezzer, oaq ewemple, que les formes des bêtes les plus viles et cezzer der cadauqer’’, amd if ve enjoy the representation of the horrible, it is because this representation of violence is our only way to deal with it, face it or even experience it without suffering (from it) but it is also the only form of violence which is socially acceptable, and the only acceptable way to take pleasure in it.

- 11 -