I have a bit more crap that will eventually turn in to a paper (hopefully soon,very soon)
i looked up a bunch of artists that work with food and i ended up finding a lot of crap, the kind of “art” you can find in the Metro, like Jason Macier, who makes celerity portraits our of sweets, and he was among the best i could find, well almost.
Here are some cooler ones:
Carl Warner, his amazing landscapes are made entirely out of food, they take days to put together. Its not really disgusting at all but i think they look cool, thus sharing.
Dieter Roth is more interesting with his sculptures with rotting foods, must look more in to his stuff.
Giuseppe Arcimboldo I mentioned before, i love his more disgusting paintings, like the one made out of fish.
Helen Chadwick (no need to mention why)
Liz Wolfe, i really like her work, its defiantly worth looking up, he work is beautiful and disgusting.
There were a lot more i found but most dont really qualify, they are amazing at their respective crafts, but its still just craft. Like making patterns in fruit…. woopdidoo.
Right I also have a few more important theorists, some of these I have mentioned before but i figured i should add all so i have them all in the same place.
So first there is Darwin, the first person to seriously look in to the workings of disgust, tho only about 7 pages.There is also Freud, and Kant, Susan Miller and William Ian Miller, Andras Angyal and Paul Rozin both very influential on the subject, and Rozin supports of Darwins theory about disgust being an oral defence. Mary Douglas theroies are supported by William Ian Miller, she suggests that disgusts ofthen happens when something becomes polluting by being out of place. I’m gonna get back to some of these people further down.
Here are some more bits and bobs from various book ive been reading:
“Darwin is right about the etymology of disgust. It means unpleasent to the taste. But one wonders whether taste would figure so crucially in Darwin’s account if the etymology hadn’t suggested it. The German Ekel , for instance, bearns no easaly discernible connection to taste. Did that make it easier for Freud to link disgust as readily with the anal and genital as with the oral zone?”
“I use the word (disgust) to indicate a complex sentiment that can be lexically marked in English by expressions declaring things or action to be repulsive, revolting, or giving rise to reactions described as revulsion and abhorrence as well as disgust.”
“…it only becomes disgusting by the “strong association… between the sight of food… and the idea of eating it.” But this can’t be right. The sight sight of the man with his beard befouled is disgusting long before any idea of eating the soup on his beard ever would, if ever it could, occur to us. The association of ideas is not of seeing food in a beard and then imagining eating that food. If the soup is disgusting as food, it is so only because beard hair is in it. Now that is disgusting. We could see this, in accordance with the structural theory of Mary Douglas, as a manifestation of things becoming polluting by being out of place. ”
“Darwin was the first to risk studying disgust in its own right.”
“Freud was more expancive; he lumped disgust with shame and morality, treating then as “reaction formation” whose function it is to inhibit the consummation of unconscious desire.”
some stuff about Andras Angyal:
“Angyal understands disgust to be directed against close contact with certain objects with the associated fear of being soiled.These objects are usually wastes of the human and animal body.”
“His disgust is richley cognitive and social, not some primitive hard-wired reflex.”
So Angyal suggests that disgust is an emotion created mainly by society and not something we are born with. Study s of so called wolf children, childeren brought up without much if any human contact, shows that they do not experience disgust. A dead canary was given to a boy brought up with out humans, and he showed no disgust with it, he took it, tore off all of its feathers and opened the bird to smell is, but then threw it away. He threw it not because it was disgusting but because he did not want to eat it. No animals show signs of disgust either.
“He argues for a core disgust centred on oral incorporation and food rejection. Taste is the core sense, the mouth is the core location, ingestion and rejeaction via spitting or vomiting the core actions.”
“Disgust is organized by laws of sympathetic magic: a law of similarity holds that similarities in appearance mean deeper similarities in substance, and a law of contamination holds that once in contact always in contact.”
Rozin did research in to “core disgust”, and in early research he sugested, like Darwin, that disgust was mainly centred around taste, and the mouth and food.
“In later works the core expands beyond food to include bodily products and animals and their wastes and then fine additional domains: sex, hygiene, death, violations of the body envelope (gore, amputations), and socio-moral violations. All these are gathered under one new generalizing theory of disgust: a psychic need to avoid reminders of our animal origins.”
” a connection between disgust and ideas of contamination and contagion.”
“Disgust owes what little acceptability it has as a topic of academia disciurse to two main developments, one social and cultural, the other more narrowly intellectual: (1) The general loosening of norms surrounding once taboo topics of bodily functions and sexuality, what we might more tendentiously call the coarsening or pornographization of publick discourse; (2) the resurgence across a multitude of disiplines of interest in the emptions”
“Disgust is an emotion”
“Emotioes are feelings linked to ways of talking about those feelings, to social and cultural paradigms that make sense of those feelings by giving us a basis for knowing when they are properly felt and properly displayed. Emotions, even the most visceral, are richly social, cultural, and linguistic phenomena.”
“Disgust is a feeling about something and in repose to something, not just raw, unattached feeling. (that’s what the stomach flu is)”
“The world is a dangerous place in which the polluting powers of the low are usually stronger then the purifying powers of the high”
“A teaspoon of sewage will spoil a barrel of wine, but a teaspoon of wine will do nothing for a barrel of sewage”
“To feel disgust is human and humanizing, Those who have a very high thresholds of disgust and are hence rather insensitive to the disgusting we think of as belonging to somewhat different categories: proto humans like children, subhuman like the mad, or superhuman like saints .”
“When something has a taste we do not like, we do not feel contaminated by it unless it also disgusts us; when something disgusts us, however, we feel tainted, burdened by the belief that anything that comes in to contact with the disgusting thing also acquires the capacity to disgust as a consequence of that contact.”
“it is culture, not nature, that draws the lines between defilement and purity, clean and filthy.”
“Disgust shocks, entertains bu shocking, and sears itself into memory”
“Disgust ranges more widely then we may wish, for it judges ugliness and deformity to be moral offences. It knows no distinction between the moral and the aesthetic, colapsing failures in both into an undifferentiated revulsion”
Wow, that is a lot of stuff, i almost feel like i need to narrow down, off course not all of this will be in the paper, i deffo need to fing the citations that work best for my case. That said i need to find a case. I suppose it would be Kant saying that nothing can be beautiful and disgusting at the same time that im aruging against, but most of me research is just on disgust. All this says that disgust is an emotion, its is put upon us by culture and not by our nature. Now im gonna read up on some artists and then its Olympics time again!