Abstract:
In order to truly appraise the value of violence in a work of art, it is crucial that we revisit our opinions and feelings about violence, and that we examine them in the light of critical theory. It is important to understand that there is no such thing as good violence or bad violence. As philosopher Jean-Marie Muller said, “It is essential to define violence in such a way that it cannot be qualified as „good.. The moment we claim to be able to distinguish „good. violence from „bad,. we lose the proper use of the word, and get into a muddle” (qtd. in Violence 62-3). Indeed, deeming an act of violence as “good” or “bad” adds unnecessary cultural value that muddles our assessment of it. While violence can be used as a means to disguise a lack of something (plot, acting, funding), the distinctions between what constitutes violence for shock value compared to that which asks for the audience reevaluation of themselves is a debate for a completely different essay; let us assume for our purpose.s sake that violence, no matter the context, reveals more about those that partake in it. However, this essay will address the prevailing value of violence in art, and what violent art says about the culture that we inhabit.
In the
